the supreme court decides on healthcare and the individual mandate itt

http://i.imgur.com/RbUXQ.jpg

good luck usa

Yes--good luck, U.S.A.

haha we're fucked no matter what guys don't kid yrselves

not a prediction re: this case btw just general statement

so 3 possible results right, someone feel free to clarify any misreading of cw:

1) obamacare completely upheld: unmitigated win for obama
2) obamacare upheld - mandate: loss for obama on optics, arguable win for left on policy or potential for same
3) obamacare completely overturned: unmitigated loss for obama, presidency accomplishes as much (or little) addressing progressive priorities as clinton's, possible gotv silver lining (at a stretch), maybe left finally realizes necessity of playing long game, that power always trumps principle, maybe dems actually get >40% as ruthless/effective as gop (ha)

Some chatter in progressive circles about pushing for Medicare expansion should Roberts destroy the whole thing.

ha good luck w/ that

Meanwhile the WaPo editorial board calls for Nino's resignation.

i think the only shot at progressive reform that comes out of this is if only mandate goes (and even then w/ likely gop house and very possible gop senate i'm not sure how you get medicare expansion w/ a plurality that wants to do w/ medicare entirely, esp since gop house is clearing a path toward impeachment - fast & furious, solyndra, new black panther party, whatever works - should obama be reelected)

really would love for pundits to start tossing out 'scalia's senile and clearly in early stages of dementia, time to step down' argument a la what the right did to thurgood marshall in the late 80s, if only to piss him off.

I'm no lawyer but have always been interested in the Court as an institution: its history, personalities, decisions. I often get impatient with liberals when they decry "judicial activism" or conservatives when they regard the Constitution as inviolate. If it's so inviolate how have we accepted the Bill of Rights applying to the states and the full integration of African-Americans into the body politic (to take two) when sixty years of conservative jurisprudence ruled otherwise? At least William O. Douglas was honest: he first decided what he thought was right then found the precedents to support those results; none of this nonsense about "original intent." It led to slipshod opinions but at least he was enough of a realist to accept that the law is like a poem or essay, subject to dozens of possible interpretations.

My only response: win elections and we'll get the justices we want.

agreed for the most part

I mean, Breyer-Ginsburg-Sotomayor (and Kagan as soon as she stops recusing herself) vote as a bloc too but it's our bloc.

A summary of predictions

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jun/28/supreme-court-ruling-health-care-live?newsfeed=true

I don't think I'll be able to stomach visiting my family over the upcoming holiday if this thing goes down, for all the smirking asides made just out of earshot (but not so much) so as not to incur my 'liberal soapbox routine' (their term for any kneejerk defensive reasoning I might be pushed into which can't be synopsized in three to five words).

the best thing to do anyway is 1. make a national optional health plan people can buy into - huge risk pool, lower premium 2. give hopitals money to take care of people who cant pay

circumvent all this "OH SHIT WE ARE GOING TO BE LIKE CANADA" nonsense

"9.40am: In all the political excitement over today's ruling, let's not forget what's at stake: the nearly 50 million Americans without health insurance."

translation - updating this page live is turning out more boring than we thought

Just killing time here. I'm reading Scalia's dissent in Arizona for the first time. Man.

Even in its international relations, the Federal Government must live with the inconvenient fact that it is a Union of independent States, who have their own sovereign powers. This is not the first time it has found that a nuisance and a bother in the conduct of foreign policy.

BOOM

this live page is way more exciting

http://www.scotusblog.com/cover-it-live/

hahaha Scalia, what a clown

You think The Nine are huddling now behind the curtain with a bottle of Beam?

tossing a coin

Scalia really needs a good tarring and feathering in the American tradition - or at least weiner in a mousetrap

"You think The Nine are huddling now behind the curtain with a bottle of Beam?"
I'm sure they are astride their Nazgul -dragons at this point in DC's sky

This is not the first time it has found that a nuisance and a bother in the conduct of foreign policy.

What the fuck is this assclown on about? Has he no knowledge of the history of the Articles of Confederation? The Civil War? Does he, like so many of his ilk, prefer his hidebound, rigid, partisan ideology to reason and this republic. I curse him.

It's on!

"Lying was his habit" is how the opinion begins.

Tom: 1,000 requests to the liveblog per second.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/6/28/1340888663032/Justices-of-the-US-suprem-008.jpg

ONE RING TO RULE THEM ALL AND IN THE DARKNESS BIND THEM

Ginsberg seems like the Yoda of the group

Alito always looks like he's anticipating someone giving him a noogie

Scalia looks like he should have used preparation H

Amy Howe: We have health care opinion.

drumroll

parsley asap clearly a reference to government mandated broccoli

Amy Howe: Parsing it asap.

Amy Howe: The individual mandate survives as a tax.

?

!

interesting.

YES

!!

so we're back in 2014?

new york times headline:

?

― caek, Thursday, June 28, 2012 3:08 PM (12 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

!

― Mad God 40/40 (Z S), Thursday, June 28, 2012 3:09 PM (6 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Amy Davidson ‏@tnyCloseRead
Per CNN, the individual mandate has been struck down.
Expand
Reply Retweet Favorite

hmm, reminds me of something i was reading on tpm this morning:

To name just one example, an explicit health insurance tax incentive would’ve accomplished the exact same thing the law’s mandate and penalty intend, and made it constitutionally bulletproof.

doesn't "survives as a tax" mean they will need to rewrite the law, but they have said there is a particular way they could rewrite it that would work?

Amy Howe: It's very complicated, so we're still figuring it out.

congrats usa

Tom: So the mandate is constitutional. Chief Justice Roberts joins the left of the Court.

this is all from scotusblog btw
http://www.scotusblog.com/cover-it-live/

To name just one example, an explicit health insurance tax incentive would’ve accomplished the exact same thing the law’s mandate and penalty intend, and made it constitutionally bulletproof.

didn't Roberts ask this question during oral argument?

lol

The Supreme Court has ruled on President Obama’s health-care overhaul, and Times reporters and editors are analyzing the decision. Once we are comfortable with its basic meaning, you can expect a torrent of coverage.

lmao what is even going on

Tom: So the mandate is constitutional. Chief Justice Roberts joins the left of the Court

Legal journalists are not generally top lawyers. It'll be an hour before anyone understands what happened.

Emily Miller ‏@EmilyMiller
Crowd outside SCOTUS is confused. Both sides cheering.

omigod The Corner has shut down

everyone's a winner! xp

The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government's power to terminate states' Medicaid funds is narrowly read.

^sez "Tom"

Yeah well one side is wrong according to this Tom guy

Emily Miller ‏@EmilyMiller
Crowd outside SCOTUS is confused. Both sides cheering.

this is an amazing image

Josh Robin ‏@joshrobin
Yikes. CNN/Fox reporting mandate struck down. Scotusblog says it survives. Someone is gonna have a dozen eggs on their faces.

welp i know which source i have my money on

Who is Tom? He seems confident

what happened i am confused

SCOTUSblog guy

Tom: The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government's power to terminate states' Medicaid funds is narrowly read.

both sides cheering

WaPo reporting survival of mandate. Way to go, cable news.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l3dkeeUfTH1qc073co1_400.gif

isn't Tom the guy who is 154 years old and now he's famous because of scotusblog? i'm siding with tom, he's old and wise

Lol Guardian reporting on new exciting information - from ScotusBlog

Emily Miller ‏@EmilyMiller
Crowd outside SCOTUS is confused. Both sides cheering.

this is an amazing image

― Mad God 40/40 (Z S), Thursday, June 28, 2012 3:14 PM (33 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

^^^

I wonder if when everyone gets the interpretation wrong the Court issues a press release: "Let's go thru this step by step"

10:15
Tom: Chief Justice Roberts' vote saved the ACA USA, USA, USA.

NYT playing it safe

DEVELOPING10:10 AM ET
Supreme Court Rules on Health Care Law"

Roberts probably has a photo of Charles Evans Hughes saving FDR's minimum wage law

Blitzer a few minutes ago -- this is a huge setback for the president.

Blitzer a few seconds ago -- this is a huge victory for the president.

goddamn activist court

john roberts - not a total asshole????

http://www.sdakotabirds.com/feathers_and_folly/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/John_Roberts.jpg

i can't believe it

so roberts went left and kennedy went right, crazy shit, cool playcall

Roberts the politician

robert showed some signs of not being a total asshole yesterday too, not sure what is real anymore

who be on da crack now!??

Sully: "That's a huge victory for Obama, it seems to me. His core domestic achievement was salvaged by ... John Roberts."

apparently getting bitchslapped in front of Congress during the SOTU gets results

Matt Sussman ‏@suss2hyphens

BREAKING: U.S. Supreme Court rules that health care will come down to penalty kicks.

Amy Howe: The money quote from the section on the mandate: Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it.

I hope every sitting president does this now and forever

"...Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax." Which means that there will be a sequel, based on implementation of 5000A. They bunted.

THANK GOD individuals can "simply" just refuse to pay taxes.

REMINDER: you can refuse to pay your mortgage.

REMINDER: you can simply refuse to pay for anything.

Amy Howe:
The court reinforces that individuals can simply refuse to pay the tax and not comply with the mandate.

Huh?

The key comment on salvaging the Medicaid expansion is this (from Roberts): "Nothing in our opinion precludes Congress from offering funds under the ACA to expand the availability of health care, and requiring that states accepting such funds comply with the conditions on their use. What Congress is not free to do is to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding." (p. 55)

Amy Howe: The money quote from the section on the mandate: Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it.

how does this work? who rewrites Section 5000A, and who has to approve the changes?

Obama said repeatedly that the mandate wasn't a tax. LOLzerpalooza.

i am a little confused, but wow i wasn't expecting this!

roffle at Fox headline: "NObama Care?"

i wonder if both sides are still cheering outside the supreme court

Tom: Apologies - you can't refuse to pay the tax; typo. The only effect of not complying with the mandate is that you pay the tax.

Mostly I'm glad that SCOTUS isn't sending us back to the articles of confederation days

"dont call it a fine, its a tax bitch" ROberts

the Nobama crowd has prob used up their oxygen tanks by now

Joshua Green ‏@JoshuaGreen
I'll bet NOBODY had Kennedy/conservative, Roberts/liberal in their bracket

jeez, THANKS TOM

i was going to say - it's a mandate that you don't have to comply with?!

fox news website has incredibly creepy live video feed from "the don't tread on me" gang outside the court. seems like they've figured it out. last i heard, a russian guy was ranting about pogroms then someone was trying to get people to come to her prolife conference.

We need K-Lo updates.

Kathryn Jean Lopez ‏@kathrynlopez
anyone else refreshing #scotus website like a madman?

lmao

The decision is 110 pages, including the dissent, which was written together by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito.

A concurring opinion was written by Justice Ginsberg.

Lyle: Justice Ginsburg makes clear that the vote is 5-4 on sustaining the mandate as a form of tax. Her opinion, for herself and Sotomayor, Breyer and Kagan, joins the key section of Roberts opinion on that point. She would go further and uphold the mandate under the Commerce Clause, which Roberts wouldn't. Her opinion on Commerce does not control.

Alfred, I'm glad she has the self-awareness to realize that she's barking mad.

"Thanks very much for coming, and once you enter the liveblog below please, please DO NOT refresh your browser; updates will appear automatically."

Amy Howe: The Court holds that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause, but that doesn't matter b/c there are five votes for the mandate to be constitutional under the taxing power.

Minor conservative victory here for future cases?

I wonder if clerks were bound and gagged in the Court dungeon while deliberations took place.

Lyle:
In opening his statement in dissent, Kennedy says: "In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety, and my face is shaped like a penis."

"Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito."

I would personally, and happily, push all four of these men into a furnace, and dance a jig while doing it.

Someone CTRL-F that PDF for "broccoli."

Lyle: In opening his statement in dissent, Kennedy says: "In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety."

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Anthony_Kennedy_official_SCOTUS_portrait.jpg/220px-Anthony_Kennedy_official_SCOTUS_portrait.jpg

surprise asshole of the month!

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/future/images/anthony_kennedy.jpg

my face is shaped like a penis

wtf kennedy

Reagan was Right

Minor conservative victory here for future cases?

Perhaps but it's awfully clever of the majority

i am not going to even pretend like i understand and just wait for dahlia lithwick to explain this all to me

http://i.imgur.com/zOTm6.png

haha

Kathryn Jean Lopez ‏@kathrynlopez
anyone else refreshing #scotus website like a madman?

from the scotus website:

Thanks very much for coming, and once you enter the liveblog below please, please DO NOT refresh your browser; updates will appear automatically.

nah don't kill Tony: we'll need him when DOMA goes before the Court

i am not going to even pretend like i understand and just wait for dahlia lithwick to explain this all to me

Basically you get to sit on a panel and say that Sarah Palin's dead grandmother is still dead.

COURT RULES SOMETHING _ NO ONE GETS IT

GWB big winnah, you gave us Roberts.

It's all four or no deal.

Lyle: In opening his statement in dissent, Kennedy says: "In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety."

― Mad God 40/40 (Z S), Thursday, June 28, 2012 10:30 AM (54 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this is p nuts that all four of them wanted to strike the whole thing

seriously

nah don't kill Tony: we'll need him when DOMA goes before the Court

― a regina spektor is haunting europe (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, June 28, 2012 3:31 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

but roberts is on the left now. switching sides means he is practically gonna get ordained to conduct same sex marriage ceremonies.

this is p nuts that all four of them wanted to strike the whole thing

if by nuts you mean "utterly predictable"

The Constitution is so pesky sometimes. I wish we could just write the laws, get a simple majority, and call it a day. Executive order is so much more fun.

it was totally not utterly predictable that kennedy would want to take down the whole thing shakey

those other three, well sure

ill have to ask you to show yr work on that one

scalia's butthole is very, VERY tense today

Corner commenters are a little sad

yeah it's a shame this wasn't 6-3. the breakdown and explanations are so boggling it's almost tempting to think kennedy was playing capn save-a-GOP

poor marginalized misunderstood gop

POLITICO ‏@politico
Roberts, in the majority opinion: "Simply put, Congress may tax and spend."

fn libtard court

i am going to write justice kennedy a disapproving letter

hay guys i slept in whats up

Wolf Blitzer @WolfBlitzer
Reporting live from just outside of Justice Scalia's butthole - it is very, VERY tense today.

Ben Franklin was wrong. The Commerce Clause is way more powerful than something trivial like compound interest.

How much does it cost to get Congress to require people to buy my product? That sure would come in handy.

[Approved commenter] Gregory of Yardale
06/28/12 10:40

So, basically, Congress could mandate that everyone had to buy a Chevy Volt, and it would be okay under the Taxing Power. Right?

The Monkey Cage ‏@monkeycageblog
Props to @AdamSerwer for prediction on Roberts 4 months ago. http://prospect.org/article/roberts-real-swing-vote-affordable-care-act

This just in - a supository in Scaliagate's rectal chamber!

I know I'm willfully ignoring the last seven years of judicial opinions, but Roberts has always struck me as not quite as terrible as his conservative comrades on the court.

from that prospect.org article
After all, Kennedy and Justice Samuel Alito filed separate concurrences in Comstock, both critical of the majority's broad interpretation of the necessary and proper clause, while Roberts went with Breyer's opinion.

this does seem pretty key

I love that we have a justice named after a brand of ice cream

Feel the butthurt. FEEL IIIIIIIIT.

benshapiro ‏@benshapiro

Chief Justice Roberts was the worst part of the Bush legacy.

benshapiro ‏@benshapiro

This is the greatest destruction of individual liberty since Dred Scott. This is the end of America as we know it. No exaggeration.

fucking rad, I'm gonna get a Chevy volt out of this?

Tom Brokaw @TheGreatestBro
Scalia is shivering uncontrollably, wielding a machete. Threatening to "rip you all a new one".

This is stupid but my first reaction is "I wonder if Roberts saw all of my posts about punching him in the face and that influenced his decision"

Second reaction is "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA"

is there a band called The Commerce Clause? it could work!

White House, 9-29-09: "What President Obama is proposing is not a tax, but a requirement to comply with the law"

No such thing as taxes, just requirements to comply.

Actually, I think I'm okay with that.

http://i.imgur.com/4FHxy.jpg

these imgs of fuckup cable news need to be preserved in amber

SO sates can back out of meidcaid expansion - which many obviously will - so I guess thats a defeat

Gregory of Yardale 06/28/12 10:27
It's now official: George W Bush screwed us on the Supreme Court picks, too. Thanks, John Roberts, you pile of word that would never make it past the censorbot.

Sarah Palin ‏@SarahPalinUSA
Obama lied to the American people. Again. He said it wasn't a tax. Obama lies; freedom dies.

It's the quality coverage we've come to expect from fox and cnn

It's going to be a long day at work--a coworker (who describes her politics as "Tea Party Classic") came in just after the decision was announced. She hasn't said anything, but her body language reads as "FURIOUS."

Joshua Green ‏@JoshuaGreen
I'll bet NOBODY had Kennedy/conservative, Roberts/liberal in their bracket

― lag∞n, Thursday, June 28, 2012 9:25 AM (25 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

otm! never would have guessed

yeah i don't think that's a fuckup so much as the Put a Smiling Neo-Con Face On It spin we've come to know and love from fox

Obama lies. freedom fries?

i can't wait to hear what thomas friedman will think about all of this. editorial page at nyt is gonna be a treat tomorrow.

omg that FOX screencap is HILARIOUS

From Amy Howe, of SCOTUS Blog:
The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn't comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding.

(Take from SCOTUS Blog's live coverage: http://www.scotusblog.com/cover-it-live/)

"I just can't believe John Roberts ruled in favor of a policy cooked up by the Heritage Foundation"

This is the greatest destruction of individual liberty since Dred Scott. This is the end of America as we know it. No exaggeration.

This is I suppose half-right. And exaggeration.

This is nothing short of a disaster for the nation, and a huge black mark on John Roberts' legacy. In speaking with others, I noted that Roberts was the Court member who worried me most; more than Kennedy. Still, I am fairly stunned by this outcome and can't help but feel that the soul of our nation has just been lost.

In an American Bar Association survey of legal experts, 69% determined that the most likely conservative to uphold the ACA is not Anthony Kennedy, but Chief Justice John Roberts ... Conn Carroll ... expects that Republicans will never forgive Bush if his appointee joins the liberal majority:

If Roberts does end up being the fifth and deciding vote to uphold Obamacare, Bush's Supreme Court legacy will be regarded as a failure too. His reputation among conservatives will never recover.

nuthin to say yet but "curb yr enthusiasm"

also stop gleefully quoting morons; it's not that funny

pourmecoffee ‏@pourmecoffee
RT @ChiefJusticeRoberts I just unlocked the Traitor Badge on @foursquare.

so can i go to the doctor for free yet? because my leg is killing me.

Obama lies; freedom dies
Chili fries; maiden sighs;
Key lime pies; dimpled thighs...

"Tea Party Classic" good lord that's hilarious. People are funny.

"nuthin to say yet but "curb yr enthusiasm"

also stop gleefully quoting morons; it's not that funny

― Pangborn to be Wilde (Dr Morbius), Thursday, June 28, 2012 10:55 AM (12 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink"

dandydon: it's no real excuse i guess but gov'ts of all stripes have laid taxes and called them something else. gov. pawlenty put another buck on cigarettes and called a 'healthcare usage fee'

SCOTUSblog:

Lyle: The rejection of the Commerce Clause and Nec. and Proper Clause should be understood as a major blow to Congress's authority to pass social welfare laws. Using the tax code -- especially in the current political environment -- to promote social welfare is going to be a very chancy proposition.

yeah i mean to be real this is how the right really wins; make their victories look like losses

Suddenly all the conservatives admit they knew it, knew it, that Roberts was a turncoat.

I bet Obama is doing that little fist bump with Michelle right now!

lol joe

So all those psychological pieces about Roberts wanting a legacy as a uniter are true? At least for this one decision I guess.

Reagan called his tax hikes "revenue enhancements"

Elizabeth Weitzman ‏@EWeitzman

Don't worry, @CNNBRKers. Even if you lose your job, you can still have health insurance. #SCOTUS

BillCorbett ‏@BillCorbett

Finally, I can get a governrnent-subsidized GIANT KILLER CYBORG BODY to replace my failing meatself. #SCOTUS

Ah, Erick Erickson:

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/06/28/the-supreme-court-forces-us-to-deal-within-the-political-system/

My initial takeaway from the headline was "Because we were preparing Civil War II"

An aside:

So I saw George Clinton and P-Funk at the Smithsonian Folklife Festival in W. DC near the Washington Monument last night, and the emcee, radio dj Tom Joyner, said, "I bet there are some political celebrities here-- are you here Clarence Thomas?" Not surprisingly the P-Funk crowd booed and cheered the subsequent mentions of Holder and the Obama family.

so i guess I'll be the one w/ the smirking asides at this year's family 4th party!

x-post
I love having my taxpayer dollars cover the costs of hearing "Atomic Dog" btw.

pillbox you have to bring broccoli

So weirded out by Roberts right now, but in a good way.

xpost Oh, so now the government is offering free veterinary care? What has this country come to?

Erickson remarkably circumspect but I chuckled at this:

"In the meantime, following Obama’s lead on illegal aliens, I think Mitt Romney should declare that if he is President he’ll seek “prosecutorial discretion” to not go after people who don’t pay their individual mandate tax."

x-post Don't be -- still reading the opinion, which is ridiculous, but what I get out of it so far means this is far from over, and the reasoning in today's decision could mean trouble later.

thanks, chief justice robert, for the best morning i've had in a long damn time

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/582017_751561872007_1453855314_n.jpg

Mitt Romney must be like "HOw dare the supreme court and Obama try to provide coverage for all and make every pay into the ...wait..nevermind" as he recalls his Massachusetts days. He will never beat Obama. He is dorky and Obama is suave

Republicans should run on a platform of adding a new Supreme Supreme Court, to address controversial opinions of the plain Supreme Court. (First life appointments to be made under the next Republican administration).

This is actually a really depressing decision. Glad for folks who will get some form of HC out of this, but the actual opinion is dreadful.

ha ned stark otm

Went to Harvard Law, Fever, so fuck off.

HO w about "The ULtimae Court"

This is actually a really depressing decision. Glad for folks who will get some form of HC out of this, but the actual opinion is dreadful.

how so? i haven't read it. i think i agree with the SC on the appropriate limits of the commerce clause, fwiw.

x-post

Please elaborate A in San Fran, do you not like the means Roberts chose to reach the decision, or the outs he carved in for conservative states, or both? Or the wording?

Th e decision should have just read "Look we have to pay for everyone's fucking fake knees SOMEHOW"

Jesus, I just dropped the H Bomb for the first time in over a decade. That'll be enough posting from me for today.

i jumped straight to the dissent because why not, scalia went HAMMER

*sheds single tear for don weiner's freedom*

Jesus forgives your H bomb

The National Retail Federation is super-butthurt.

Jesus, I just dropped the H Bomb for the first time in over a decade. That'll be enough posting from me for today.

― Three Word Username, Thursday, June 28, 2012 11:10 AM (11 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah i didnt read that macro as directed at you, but the other justices may disagree

Went to Harvard Law, Fever, so fuck off.

What the hell? I just posted that because I thought it was funny. Wasn't aimed at ANYONE.

i jumped straight to the dissent because why not, scalia went HAMMER

Of course he did.

Matthew Keys ‏@ProducerMatthew
Here are the deleted tweets from some politicians after erroneous reports from CNN, FOX on SCOTUS - http://i.imgur.com/UW5rm.png

look's like Three Word Username's got the "Hardvard Law Fever" amirite guys?

Print screen destroys another attempt at looking good - lol

Haha, one of my local attorney friends just tweeted, "I think I could just RT every single one of Eric Cantor's tweets, followed by a sadface."

i jumped straight to the dissent because why not, scalia went HAMMER

― k3vin k., Thursday, June 28, 2012 11:10 AM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this piece from yesterday suggests taking that approach, i have no personal opinion on the matter having never read a supreme court decision but it a p good post over all http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/27/d-day

http://i.imgur.com/hK9IG.jpg

Josh Marshall ‏@joshtpm
BREAKING: New Media CW study finds SG Don Verrilli's IQ 57 pts higher than originally thought

Lyle: Essentially, a majority of the Court has accepted the Administration's backup argument that, as Roberts put it, "the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition -- not owning health insurance -- that triggers a tax -- the required payment to IRS." Actually, this was the Administration's second backup argument: first argument was Commerce Clause, second was Necessary and Proper Clause, and third was as a tax. The third argument won.

Is this is what is bugging those of you who have read the opinion? Potential detrimental affect on use of the Commerce clause, and Necessary & Proper clause?

lol

Kagan" Now lets go play softball"

by now Roberts has changed into his smoking jacket and retired with a bottle of Louis Thirteenth, right

I am really curious to see what happnes with these "exchanges" they talk about - wasn't this tried once and it failed?

Josh Greenman ‏@joshgreenman
Astonishing that CNN got it wrong. The second you see that Roberts wrote majority opinion with Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Breyer, you know.

good point

Eric Cantor ‏@EricCantor

The House will vote to fully repeal Obamacare on July 11.
Expand

Reply
Retweet
Favorite

lol good for the goddamn House

looks like the court bought the activity/inactivity distinction :-/

xp The Guardian flat called it at that: "Chief Justice John Roberts is reading the decision on healthcare law now - so that means he wrote the decision - and the individual mandate has been struck down."

did the SG spend much time on the "it's a tax" thing that roberts supported, or did roberts come up with that himself?

good luck usa hor

xp The Guardian flat called it at that: "Chief Justice John Roberts is reading the decision on healthcare law now - so that means he wrote the decision - and the individual mandate has been struck down."

― Andrew Farrell, Thursday, June 28, 2012 3:25 PM (8 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah but the journalists in the press office had copies of the opinion before he started reading

it's a tax and a dessert topping

^^ second time I've seen that joke today #spooky

Ann Coulter ‏@AnnCoulter
I was right about Roberts. Thank God we at least got Alito on the Court, instead of Bush's secretary.
Expand

Ann Coulter ‏@AnnCoulter
Only the very rich will survive this decision. Healthcare the new Gulfstream jet. ROMNEY 2012!
Expand

Ann Coulter ‏@AnnCoulter
Roberts is young & very rich - he can afford ObamaCare. Kennedy is getting older & is not rich. He has to worry @ healthcare.

oh ann

haha I love the idea of conservatives now being upset that Roberts is on the court. I hope this wedge continues to be driven deeper.

it will only last until he issues some other opinion that they agree on

If Congress can reach out and command even those furthest removed from an interstate market to participate in the market, then the Commerce Clause becomes a font of unlimited power, or in Hamilton’s words, “the hideous monster whose devouring jaws . . . spare neither sex nor age, nor high nor low, nor sacred nor profane.” The Federalist No. 33, p. 202 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).

"those furthest removed from an interstate market"

so like, people living really in the middle of a state

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-moving-to-canada-because-of-obamacare

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-moving-to-canada-because-of-obamacare

OMG

that link is amazing mh

looooool

Josh Marshall ‏@joshtpm
The #ScaliaFreakout ended up being the big tell http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/06/ive_wondered_too.php

pillbox you have to bring broccoli - great idea! my parents actually grow quite a bit of their own during the summer, so if I were to show up w/ some, the symbolic import would be pretty glaring.

what's up w/ repubs always hating on broccoli anyway?

because the supreme court makes them eat it

quick ?: how does one easily read an opinion? like with scientific papers, you start with the abstract, skim the intro/conclusion to get the gist, then dive in to the results. similar strategy for opinions?

i look at the figures first

I only read them for the articles

i am glad to contribute some of my hard earned tax dollars to these brave canadian emigrating patriots, esp if they promise to renounce their citizenship before say November 6th.

xp yeah i guess it's different for astrology

josh marshall is really into "tells", what is with that

tbf Stephen Harper is probably their kind of dude

who doesnt love a good tell!

will Coulter throw herself into the furnace should Alito join the libs on future decisions

tbf Stephen Harper is probably their kind of dude

I was going to say, they can also go bro down with Rob Ford.

quick ?: how does one easily read an opinion? like with scientific papers, you start with the abstract, skim the intro/conclusion to get the gist, then dive in to the results. similar strategy for opinions?

for scotus the syllabus = abstract

I'm surprised she didn't call Roberts a papist as well.

Jonathan Chait ‏@jonathanchait
John Roberts chose to keep Constitution in Exile court alive, but not Bush v. Gore court http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/06/john-roberts-saves-us-all.html

Here's to hoping the democrats actually use this second opportunity to promote the good parts of this law

how does one easily read an opinion?

I liked it better when the SCOTUS opinions had cartoons and vignettes

LOL Ginsberg sticks a shiv in Scalia in her concurrence:

The Necessary and Proper Clause “empowers Congress to enact laws in effectuation of its [commerce] powe[r] that are not within its authority to enact in isolation.” Raich, 545 U. S., at 39 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). Hence, “[a] complex regulatory program . . . can survive a Commerce Clause challenge without a showing that every single facet of the program is independently and directly related to a valid congressional goal.” Indiana, 452 U. S., at 329, n. 17. “It is enough that the challenged provisions are an integral part of the regulatory program and that the regulatory scheme when considered as a whole satisfies this test.” Ibid. (collecting cases). See also Raich, 545 U. S., at 24–25 (A challenged statutory provision fits within Congress’ commerce authority if it is an “essential par[t] of a larger regulation of economic activity,” such that, in the absence of the provision, “the regulatory scheme could be undercut.” (quoting Lopez, 514 U. S., at 561)); Raich, 545 U. S., at 37 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment) (“Congress may regulate even noneconomic local activity if that regulation is a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce. The relevant question is simply whether the means chosen are ‘reasonably adapted’ to the attainment of a legitimate end under the commerce power.”

xxp like the 10% federal tax on tanning salons, the most hilarious provision

likely made up by some intern in the middle of the night

"If we want to be Greece, then follow the supreme court and vote for Barack Obama," Bachmann concludes. "Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, obviously not very happy on this day," notes Wolf Blitzer on CNN.

Its nic e that someone who understand the world economy so little wields power on any scale. She really speaks for the nation of half-under-standers of news stories

gefilthio
A broccoli republic
Liked By workmonkey and Pussygalore

Erick Erickson:

Second, this forces everyone to deal with the issue politically. The President and Democrats did, according to the Court, impose a tax increase. Because it is a taxation issue, the GOP now, should it take back the Senate, have even more grounds to deal with the matter under reconciliation, bypassing the 60 vote filibuster threshold.

hey does anyone have any good SCOTUS jokes?

"Is this is what is bugging those of you who have read the opinion? Potential detrimental affect on use of the Commerce clause, and Necessary & Proper clause?"

Yeah that's part of it. It's depressing that basically Roberts wrote an opinion of 1 and had to get the four moderate justices to sign off it.

Feel the right missed the potential for synergy by not introducing arugula into the debate.

this helps me out a bunch. thanks to d. wolk via facebook

http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/vb8vs/eli5_what_exactly_is_obamacare_and_what_did_it/c530lfx

Eat Broccoli, Lick Bush in '92 - so read an old sticker affixed to a porch window in a rental house I lived while at lolcollege.

the sentiment endures!

"The minimum coverage provision, furthermore, bears a“reasonable connection” to Congress’ goal of protecting thehealth-care market from the disruption caused by individuals who fail to fucking obtain insurance. By requiring those who do not carry insurance to pay a toll, the minimum coverage provision gives individuals a strong incentive to insure. " Ginsberg

I don't see any reason for concern about detrimental effect on use of the commerce clause. I mean I don't see how the decision does much to roll back on existing commerce clause jurisprudence, it just says that this is as far as it goes, right? And if you can't mandate "activity" through the commerce clause, but you can penalize non-activity through a tax, what's the problem?

We need to get the slippery slopers away from this thread.

Can't we just cut to the chase and start a real debate over the definitions of "affordable", "minimum coverage", and "solvency"?

josh marshall is really into "tells", what is with that

Also into people "doubling down."

No Supreme Court has struck down a president’s signature piece of legislation in over 75 years.

in Maine we have the dirigo health program which was supposed to be an afforable alternative but it was not afforabel to me

It creates a new 10% tax on indoor tanning booths.

What the ...? I'm moving to Canada.

I read that as dingo health program. xpost

i am very happy with my romneycare here in massachusetts.

I think all thos epeople actually wanted to move to Mexico and got confused

we in Maine are severaly concerned with the health of our native dingos

Republicans, Leukemia Team Up to Repeal Health Care Law (Teh Onion, obvs)

"While chronic leukemia was reportedly worried about how its association with the Republican Party would affect its public image..."

meanwhile scalia takes revenge behind the curtain

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/dear_prudence/2012/06/dear_prudie_my_boss_pantsed_someone_at_work_should_i_tattle_.html

Despicable how Romney is trying to get votes by conning people who don't know any better with this 'I'm going to repeal it on day one' business.

THat would be an interesting change in the typical check and balances of power - ROmney just phones congress and says "I hereby decree the law as nul land void."

so many lols at benshapiro

@ezraklein: DeMint, who backed Romney and his health care plan in 07, is responding at the Heritage Foundation, which endorsed the mandate in 1989.

CNN statement on their FUBAR this morning:

“In his opinion, Chief Justice Roberts initially said that the individual mandate was not a valid exercise of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause. CNN reported that fact, but then wrongly reported that therefore the court struck down the mandate as unconstitutional. However, that was not the whole of the Court’s ruling. CNN regrets that it didn’t wait to report out the full and complete opinion regarding the mandate. We made a correction within a few minutes and apologize for the error.”

And that's what happens when everyone wants to be FIRST!!!111!!!!1 instead of being right.

I was driving to work late and NPR's comments were basically "hold on folks, we are reading this as fast as we can"

DeMint's statement goes pretty crazy pretty quickly, but when he says "Americans have loudly rejected this federal takeover of health care, and governors should join with the people and reject its implementation.” is he talking about anything that is visible outside his head?

well hcr is not totally popular, tho the polling numbers are somewhat deceptive in that many critical people would prefer more government healthcare, and the court did just say that the feds arent allowed to withhold medicare $$$ as recourse for states not implementing, so maybe its possible idk

The aide also noted that Pelosi was wearing “her lucky purple pumps” on Thursday. Pelosi wore the same shoes on March 21, 2010, the day the health care law passed Congress.

Pelosi, the White House and others need to start talking loud about the benefits of this.

of lucky shoes

The last thing I need to think about is Nancy getting lucky

Haven't had a chance to read any of the thread. I'm very, very happy, even though I'm well aware this is still anything but safe--the other side will come up with every and any way to make implementation difficult. Romney winning might be enough in and of itself, I don't know.

and the court did just say that the feds arent allowed to withhold medicare $$$ as recourse for states not implementing, so maybe its possible idk

Not entirely right, no? The state may turn down the extra Medicaid funds that the Federal Government is offering, and the Feds can't withhold existing Medicaid funds if they are turned down, but if the state signs up to the extra money, it needs to abide by the rules (and what I'm hearing is that the Feds are employing the trusted Nye Bevan approach of 'stuffing them with gold' to make it a very attractive prospect to get the money).

1 23 oz. bottle of Congressional lube on the way

if romney wins I'm moving to a mormon colony in mexico

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201203260005

Not entirely right, no? The state may turn down the extra Medicaid funds that the Federal Government is offering, and the Feds can't withhold existing Medicaid funds if they are turned down, but if the state signs up to the extra money, it needs to abide by the rules (and what I'm hearing is that the Feds are employing the trusted Nye Bevan approach of 'stuffing them with gold' to make it a very attractive prospect to get the money).

― carson dial, Thursday, June 28, 2012 1:06 PM (7 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

correct, but still prob enough of an opening for some particularly grumpy state to throw a tantrum, tho id be surprised if it lasted long

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/AneurinBevanStatueCardiff20050707_KaihsuTai.jpg
does he seem to be fallin gover onhis face in this statue? drunken porttrait orsomething?

I'm sure Alolbama will opt out

Proctology exam for Bevan?

Haven't had a chance to read any of the thread. I'm very, very happy, even though I'm well aware this is still anything but safe--the other side will come up with every and any way to make implementation difficult. Romney winning might be enough in and of itself, I don't know.

― clemenza, Thursday, June 28, 2012 1:05 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

repeal is just a campaign slogan, its over now

the other side will come up with every and any way to make implementation difficult.

Might be harder to position yourself politically about messing with the nuts and bolts of the thing, though, as opposed to just blanket scare tactics about the whole law.

exactly

he looks to be both giving and gettin gone - "The Curious Case of Bevan and the HUman Centipede of Proctology Exams"

yup (xxxpost, lagoon otm)

"Show me on the doll where he touched you."

does he seem to be fallin gover onhis face in this statue? drunken porttrait orsomething?

perhaps he is suffering from his signature condition

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6c45slA9O1qat9xfo1_500.png

his signature condition

Aneurinism?

Who is this Ben Shapiro schmuck?

a smart reasonable person

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/romney-says-he-will-repeal-obamacare-if-elected/

is this crazy or

no exaggeratIon

i mean can he actually make hay from this? is anyone gonna get excited for this? is it just me or is this such a weak position??

esp for a guy who enacted his own health care thing?

every right wing site has some variation of this up: "Obama said Obamacare wasn't a tax. This proves he was lying!"

but didn't scalitomas and kennedy conclude that the mandate was not a tax? so by using tax increase as a talking point, bloggers are buying into Roberts' reasoning.

I stil think evangelicals will think "But he's a freakin MORMON for Christ's sake! " - they will never be able to stomach it. Catholic maybe

its a delicate balance for sure lol romney xp

i just feel like the people who would get behind this are the same ppl who would never vote obama anyway right?

yeah but theres always base enthusiasm to consider

it just seems like a terrible thing to campaign on no matter how u spin it - 'i am going to fight to take your health care away'

yeah it's value is more as a potential motivator for people who'd never vote for obama to actually bother to vote for romney, not to actually sway anybody xpost

Orin Kerr

The Romney campaign brought in over $400,000 in the first three hours since the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the health care reform law was announced…

well if romney cobbles together enough states to win the presidency, it will also probably mean the GOP has flipped the senate and retained the house, so it's not exactly an empty threat.

it just seems like a terrible thing to campaign on no matter how u spin it - 'i am going to fight to take your health care away'

― funny-skrillex-bee_132455836669.gif (s1ocki), Thursday, June 28, 2012 1:21 PM (18 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

hey that's freedom from healthcare buddy

“We have to make sure that people who want to keep their current insurance will be able to do so,” Mr. Romney said in the brief statement. “This is now the time for the American people to make a choice.”

looking forward to hearing this particular distortion incessantly in the next few months

And John Roberts' Wiki page hijacked:

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/photo-john-roberts-wikipedia-page-vandalized-chief-traitor

well if romney cobbles together enough states to win the presidency, it will also probably mean the GOP has flipped the senate and retained the house, so it's not exactly an empty threat.

― pvmic bellvm (goole), Thursday, June 28, 2012 1:23 PM (33 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

probably might be a lil strong, theres also the filibuster to deal with

are ppl so attached to their current insurance that that'll scare them? doesnt everyone hate their hmo

barney frank was talking in an interview about how the problem is that a lot of people with healthcare don't understand how you can revolutionize the system without making it worse for them. definitely seems like romney is going to hump that, hypocrisy or no

well as noted political scientist erick erickson has pointed out, if the SC just called the mandate a tax, the senate can treat it as a budget matter and go through reconciliation

polls show people w insurance like it but generally think the system is fucked

i was waiting in line for my new health card yday and thinking that im pretty lucky esp as a semi-employed wastrel to live here... and worrying about my american friends. i'm happy 4 u guys today

are ppl so attached to their current insurance that that'll scare them? doesnt everyone hate their hmo

― funny-skrillex-bee_132455836669.gif (s1ocki), Thursday, June 28, 2012 12:24 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the shitty thing about the american political/medical system is that everyone who HAS employer-provided insurance is generally satisfied with it and are scared it will be taken away, and don't/can't see the a) alarmingly high number of people who are shut out of that system and b) it's the reason they haven't seen a raise in 20 years.

well as noted political scientist erick erickson has pointed out, if the SC just called the mandate a tax, the senate can treat it as a budget matter and go through reconciliation

― pvmic bellvm (goole), Thursday, June 28, 2012 1:26 PM (7 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah but if thats true its just the mandate part, repealing that and letting the rest of the law stand would be a particularly lol thing for the party of fiscal responsibility to do

The campaign will this fall will center around Romney's claim that Obama has imposed a huge tax burden on the American public. Get ready.

yup its all abt the hidden costs xp

the shitty thing about the american political/medical system is that everyone who HAS employer-provided insurance is generally satisfied with it and are scared it will be taken away, and don't/can't see the a) alarmingly high number of people who are shut out of that system and b) it's the reason they haven't seen a raise in 20 years.

i don't think obamacare fearers really care about your first point unless they can see/feel it

and since i just re-used the word "see," what i mean is you can tell them some percent of america is fucked, but they're not going to acknowledge it until a relative or close friend is fucked

well that's true.

a lot of 'obamacare fearers' are the type to say the poor already have healthcare! they can just go to the emergency room for free!

yeah it's an "i got mine" stance. the good news at least is that younger generations may be less apt to believe they have theirs.

though then a pocket of them is offended by the notion of having to buy healthcare before they're sick

it's the reason they haven't seen a raise in 20 years.

Needs to be repeated and repeated and repeated imo.

FOX headline: Obama Mandate: `Absolutely' not a tax. Supreme Court: Oh, Yes It Is.

there's always a silver lining over there

well -- it's not a tax, it's a tax penalty, right? like if you file your taxes late, the IRS can charge you a tax penalty, but that is not a tax per se, correct? just trying to pin down the finer constitutional points here

Exactly! If you choose not to participate.

btw it looks like Scalia's dissent might originally have been the majority opinion: it refers repeatedly to the Ginsberg "dissent."

There's something quite odd in my view about the Scalia opinion in the back. It's not a Scalia rant by and large; in fact it reads at the outset rather majestically, like he's delivering the opinion of the court. Even more strangely, it refers repeatedly to the "Ginsburg dissent," but Ginsburg is in the majority on most issues. What's all this about? Were the tables turned midway? Did Roberts first sign on to Scalia's opinion and then bail on him? Is that what Ginsburg was ribbing Scalia over in her ACS remarks? I suspect there is an amazing an untold backroom story behind this decision. It may be a while before we learn it. But the sense I have is that Scalia had the votes to take a sledgehammer to ACA, and then lost Roberts. Was it Scalia's overreaching and his overheated rhetoric that did him in? This may make an excellent Supreme Court mystery. But it points in the end to the complicated and rather ornery personality of Nino Scalia as a real burden for the court's conservatives.

i guess i can understand the confusion amongst americans who already views ALL taxes as penalties xpost

i thought kennedy wrote the dissent, not scalia?

lol there's that too

xpost

Scalia's name comes first in the dissent.

btw the lol thing about right-wingers on twitter wanting to move to canada is that our current gov't is basically trying to shove our country as right as possible, using some pretty devious & undemocratic ways... they'd love harper. it's actually sort of ironically 'true'

I listened to glenn beck for 5 minutes and it went from "this is the new dred scott decision" to "progressives are fascists!" to "why can't conservatives be as consistent as ruth bader ginsburg?" to "Newt gingrich is a vile liberal" to "You want a frickin' mandate? We'll give you a mandate" to "Princeton has a Woodrow Wilson Center!"

now that Roberts is the right's new most hated man, I can't wait for all the conspiracy theories about how Obama paid him off or blackmailed him.

is there a more satisfying feeling than seeing your enemies turn on their own

xpost -- Oh that's easy, they'll reference the bit where Roberts had to readminister the oath after the inauguration. That's where SHIT GOT REAL.

This is the Dread Pirate Roberts decision.

it's too soon to tell if this will coalesce into a point (accurate or not) romney can hammer or just descend into the incoherent anti-obama grumble from whence it came

is there a more satisfying feeling than seeing your enemies turn on their own

Obviously not!

Speaking of:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/28/repeal-is-a-fantasy.html

Eric Erickson: It seems very, very clear to me in reviewing John Roberts’ decision that he is playing a much longer game than us and can afford to with a life tenure. And he probably just handed Mitt Romney the White House.

speak of the devils:

http://cityonahillpolitics.blogspot.com/2012/06/supreme-court-strangles-constitution.html

With this case folks who like the Constitution and belief in liberty and rule of law have a new nemesis: the Chief Justice formerly known as a conservative, John Roberts. Feigning conservatism throughout his early judicial career, Justice Roberts has now clearly stood with the radical leftist wing of the court (Justice Souter and his gal pals: Justices Ginsberg, Sotomayor & Kagan) on the two most important Constitutional issues of this session: Arizona's immigration and border security law & Obamacare. Let's not pretend that Roberts has any integrity now. Whether seduced to the left side by Souter & His Ladies, bought off by President Obama's many pals or blackmailed into submission, one thing is clear: We cannot trust or depend on John Roberts any longer. He is, at best a weak-kneed conservative willing to bow to the altar of leftism in order to curry favor with the cocktail set; and at worst, a manchurian candidate who never really was the conservative that he played on television.

http://www.toberight.com/2012/06/health-care-reaction/

How could John Roberts side with the liberals? The individual mandate is so clearly unconstitutional – even to a layperson – how could it be?
Kind of like a Vince Flynn book. Someone got to Roberts. I bet they got to him and told him he has to vote this way or members of his family – kids, wife, parents, whoever – were going to be killed.
Later this afternoon, it’s going to come out that Roberts was coerced. A Secret Service agent overheard Obama and Axelrod discussing the Roberts blackmail. He managed to get them on tape discussing it. Later this afternoon, the whole story will come out, Roberts will issue his REAL opinion, and Obama and Axelrod will be taken away in handcuffs.
When my son is my age, will he be able to call the doctor and go see him?
How can I protect myself from the government? Isn’t there some way I can hide from them?

From a cousin Who deals with federal court a lot, on FB:

Do any of my fellow lawyers share my suspicion that Chief Justice Roberts wrote both the majority opinion AND the principal dissent? (i.e., that he wrote the dissent, then changed his mind and wrote the majority opinion)? The bases for my suspicion: 1) the author of the dissent is not identified; 2) the dissent does not read like a Scalia dissent; 3) the dissent refers to Justice Ginberg's opinion as a dissent and, specifically, presumes she she dissenting to something in the (eventual) dissent, rather than to the majority opinion.

alfred who are you quoting? the detail about the "ginsburg 'dissent'" is AMAZING

xp lol vincy flynn omg

my suspicion that Chief Justice Roberts wrote both the majority opinion AND the principal dissent?

GOOD LUCK USA

Justice Souter and his gal pals: Justices Ginsberg, Sotomayor & Kagan)

no FUCK you

Eric Erickson: It seems very, very clear to me in reviewing John Roberts’ decision that he is playing a much longer game than us and can afford to with a life tenure. And he probably just handed Mitt Romney the White House.

― a regina spektor is haunting europe (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, June 28, 2012 2:10 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

what does he mean by this?

he asked nervously

Justices who voted to uphold the act are either stupid girls or papists amirite. xxp

He's counting on continued unease about the AHCA to take Romney into the White House.

s1ocki i think it means he read jonathan chait this morning but doesn't want to say so, ha

wouldnt a repeal be much more of a win for romney?

I won't post the first three reasons:

Fourth, in forcing us to deal with this politically, the Democrats are going to have a hard time running to November claiming the American people need to vote for them to preserve Obamacare. It remains deeply, deeply unpopular with the American people. If they want to make a vote for them a vote for keeping a massive tax increase, let them try.

Fifth, the decision totally removes a growing left-wing talking point that suddenly they must vote for Obama because of judges. The Supreme Court as a November issue is gone.

Finally, while I am not down on John Roberts like many of you are today, i will be very down on Congressional Republicans if they do not now try to shut down the individual mandate. Force the Democrats on the record about the mandate. Defund Obamacare. This now, by necessity, is a political fight and the GOP sure as hell should fight.

x-post Presumably that by chipping away at the Commerce Clause and putting Congressional action under the category of taxes he's laying the groundwork for the repeal of a bunch of stuff through reconciliation that the Dems will be unable to filibuster

his long-game

if repeal is a fantasy, 'replace' is a full on john & yoko double fantasy

kinda looks like this election is another referendum on the ACA. great!

Justice Roberts has now clearly stood with the radical leftist wing of the court

this is the craziest thing about the world of american politics, right now - the idea that there is ANY kind of visible/influential "radical leftist wing" of anything. from my (limited, mostly uneducated) perspective, there appears to only be a far-right, right, and center-right.

and wasn't obamacare originally a republican idea years ago?

Is there any reasonable position other than "states' rights, don't want more taxes" that actually opposes the affordable care act? Really? The entire "prices will go up, I won't be able to get into the doctor, waaaah" crap is just idiots not understanding that this is going to fix the problems with what is really driving prices up, right?

Could Roberts have been BLACKMAILED?? His two ADOPTED children came from Ireland VIA LATIN AMERICA.......Legally??? hmmmmmmm

41 posted on Thu Jun 28 2012 11:51:16 GMT-0400 (EDT) by Ann Archy ( ABORTION...the HUMAN Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)

There's something quite odd in my view about the Scalia opinion in the back. It's not a Scalia rant by and large; in fact it reads at the outset rather majestically, like he's delivering the opinion of the court. Even more strangely, it refers repeatedly to the "Ginsburg dissent," but Ginsburg is in the majority on most issues. What's all this about? Were the tables turned midway? Did Roberts first sign on to Scalia's opinion and then bail on him? Is that what Ginsburg was ribbing Scalia over in her ACS remarks? I suspect there is an amazing an untold backroom story behind this decision. It may be a while before we learn it. But the sense I have is that Scalia had the votes to take a sledgehammer to ACA, and then lost Roberts. Was it Scalia's overreaching and his overheated rhetoric that did him in? This may make an excellent Supreme Court mystery. But it points in the end to the complicated and rather ornery personality of Nino Scalia as a real burden for the court's conservatives.

― a regina spektor is haunting europe (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, June 28, 2012 1:44 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Wait what? Ginsburg wrote a partial concurrence, partial dissent in which she argued that the law could be upheld under the commerce clause, and not just as a tax. The majority held that it could only be upheld as a tax. Therefore Scalia is arguing with "Ginsburg's Dissent" on the commerce clause issue. Whoever that quote is from is badly misreading the decision and imagining that SCOTUS would allow a gigantic error into the opinion multiple times.

"Obamacare" is pretty much the republican proposal for healthcare reform circa 1989-mid 2000s iirc

the idea that there is ANY kind of visible/influential "radical leftist wing" of anything. from my (limited, mostly uneducated) perspective, there appears to only be a far-right, right, and center-right.

leading to the weirdly popular idea that anything to the right of rabid hardline conservatism is dangerously radical leftism.

I think a repeal fight is probably good for Obama. GOP will look like sore losers, Obama can act above it all.

also makes them look destructive

let's not kid ourselves, conservatives have an array of preferences for national healthcare, with "full socialist NHS style" at the far end and "fuckin nothin, buddy!" closest to heart. single payer and medicare-for-all are closer to the NHS, and private-ins-with-subsidy-and-madate a little closer, the pre-09 status quo ante was closer still.

but it doesn't matter which think that thought up what proposal when, they'll opt for fuckin nothin, buddy, whenever they can.

Really, I kinda thought "medicare for me, nothing for you" was the preferred plan

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/548276_10150907361046519_289171260_n.jpg

wau

lol

When Dicky CHeney heard the law had been upheld he wept, then took off his pants and undies and showed up at a local McDOnalds and said "FILL me up with your fatty fatty greacakes! I want a chicne! I want grease of the lamb! Obama will serve me my stomach as thine ham!"

I'm convinced he's part cyborg now anyway.

He does has a virtual cock

His name is Anthony Kennedy.

but it doesn't matter which think that thought up what proposal when, they'll opt for fuckin nothin, buddy, whenever they can.

― goole, Thursday, June 28, 2012 2:30 PM (11 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yup the obamacare was what the gop wanted not long ago talking point can be overstated as it was always just posturing

http://img.allvoices.com/thumbs/image/609/480/77166790-supreme-court.jpg

someone please shop this

A Secret Service agent overheard Obama and Axelrod discussing the Roberts blackmail. He managed to get them on tape discussing it. Later this afternoon, the whole story will come out, Roberts will issue his REAL opinion, and Obama and Axelrod will be taken away in handcuffs.

Justice Souter and his gal pals: Justices Ginsberg, Sotomayor & Kagan)

Man, Souter has a lot of influence for a guy retired for 3 years

he is roberts adopted Irish latino child

RObert's REAl opinion " I felt bad for fucking up his inauguration so I just went ahead and said ok to his legislation. Really I think sick people should be put down like dogs"

http://www.wonkette.com/images/couldn%27t%20be%20gayer%20if%20they%20were%20in%20chaps.jpg

max: where'd that come from?

cnn.com

benshapiro ‏@benshapiro

This is the greatest destruction of individual liberty since Dred Scott. This is the end of America as we know it. No exaggeration.

http://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2006/02/15/should_we_prosecute_sedition

Benjamin Shapiro was born in 1984 in Burbank, Calif. Brought up in the home of two Reagan Republicans, where intelligent conversation about politics and philosophy was encouraged, Ben Shapiro quickly developed into a reasoned political thinker and a powerful writer.

Brought up in the home of two Reagan Republicans

Pay lip service to conservative ideals, raise taxes like crazy?

roberts could play superman eh

just sayin

Said Republican Congressman Jack Kingston of Georgia, 'With #Obamacare ruling, I feel like I just lost two great friends: America and Justice Roberts.'

the right sure loves their melodrama

wunder what CObert will have to say - he will be outraged

is that dennis quaid holding the roberts pie?

I'll bet Obama is "holding Robert's pie"

Said Republican Congressman Jack Kingston of Georgia, 'With #Obamacare ruling, I feel like I just lost two great friends: America and Justice Roberts.'

― President Keyes, Thursday, June 28, 2012 3:19 PM (15 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

lmao

"Governor Paul LePage released the following statement:
"Washington DC now has the power to dictate how we, as Americans, live our lives. This is a massive overreach by the federal government, and is infringing upon the individual choices that we, as Americans, have in pursuing our own American Dream."

Imagine that - the government having power over people's lives.

the right's obsession with airing out their relationships is soooo creepy. Whatever their faults libs would never be like "I feel like I just lost two best friends: America and Howard Dean."

maybe some dailykos commenters woud say stuff like that, but not Democratic Congress-fucking-men

Imagine that - the government having power over people's lives.

the monstrous power to tell american citizens that if they don't want (or can't afford) to buy health insurance for themselves and their families, then they will be assessed a small fee/tax in return for which the government will insure them. yup, that's some truly nation-destroying overreach going on there...

Oh come on, liberals post hysterical shit all the time.

You know I hate to ask
But is Roberts electric?
Only mine's broke down
And now I've no-one to love

xp

"President Bush just destroyed whatever we have left of individual liberties" etc.

Robert's android shocka

Reconsidering the Power of Courts

By John O'Sullivan

When Justice Roberts was appointed, I asked a distinguished jurist to predict his performance. He replied: “Roberts is a good man and an able lawyer, but he is also cautious and likely to keep his judgments very narrow. He will not go along with the Court liberals in legislating from the bench, but he will be very reluctant to reverse foolish laws or questionable judgments.”

though then a pocket of them is offended by the notion of having to buy healthcare before they're sick

― da croupier, Thursday, June 28, 2012 12:33 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

lots of people don't understand the very idea of insurance and pooled risk.

i took a cab in boston and the cabbie and i got to talking about romneycare (aka obamacare). he said he was peeved that he had to buy insurance because he was 25 y.o. and healthy. "what do i need it for?" i reminded him that he spends 8–10 hours a day driving and stands some chance of getting into a wreck.

or like, lightning could strike you while you were getting the mail.

or your daughter could get cancer.

What did you do after he pulled over and wailed on you?

he was very genial about it, actually.

Some observations on Roberts vs Rehnquist

My coworker worries:

no, hospitals will not get reimbursed and proces will be capped, so they will lay off people and the avaialbility for healthcare will become scarce, just like Canada
My grandpa would have died waiting for Canada to treat his cancer, if it wasnt for the US quick healthcare availablilty

I have a friend being treated for colon cancer in Canada right now, and she's remarkably not dead.

is she a grandpa tho

its grandpas canadians like to kill mostly

Medicare pays in advance basically so that seems a groundless fear to me.

old man blood congeals to maple syrup

All americans seem to have this anecdotal "My auntie almost died in evil bad healthcare canada!!" story, its so odd. Yet their health care system is always rated better than ours. And it covers EVERY FUCKIN G PERSON

yeah, all the fearmongering over the canadian system is just ridiculous.

the canadian system works very well, and those who can actually afford healthcare out of pocket (or the cost of premium health insurance coverage) will always be taken care of. this program only addresses those who aren't otherwise covered, and it's not like they're getting the care they need as it is.

dudes

i have so many friends, young people, who have had serious SERIOUS health issues in the last decade. bad bad stuff.

our health care system isn't perfect. in fact it can be frustrating.

but those people got treated, and well, never turned away and they're not in tremendous debt.

i'm grateful for that.

the scaredy-pants logic seems to be that it's better to die due the lack of treatment than to maybe have to wait a little for it

i've never had a friend had to wait for like, chemo.

i had a friend wait for a transplant, but that's transplants 4 u.

seems like ppl might want to keep in mind how JR apparently went balls-out right-wing on Citizens United. He can still be friends with America, no?

(though i guess in america you can skip the queue for a transplant if you're steve jobs.)

If you can afford insurance but do not get it, you will be charged a fee. This is the "mandate" that people are talking about. Basically, it's a trade-off for the "pre-existing conditions" bit, saying that since insurers now have to cover you regardless of what you have, you can't just wait to buy insurance until you get sick. Otherwise no one would buy insurance until they needed it. You can opt not to get insurance, but you'll have to pay the fee instead, unless of course you're not buying insurance because you just can't afford it.

so wait, what happens if you aren't buying insurance because you just can't afford it? also how is all of this going to happen? is it just taken out of my tax return at tax time or whatever?

/ dumb

slocky otm

why don't they just provide lapdances at hospitals - that woudl fix everything

they do but the waiting list is forever and making it rain sucks with loonies

what if you're dickless

xpost

not all laps have dicks anyway

the funny thing (ezra klein pointed this out) is that the mandate + no-preexisting-conditions rules might make a WORSE free rider problem!

if the penalty for being non-insured is less than the yearly cost of insuring yourself (and it is)

and if you can get yourself insured at the drop of a hat no matter what's happening to you (and you can)

then... well?

i mean, you can't call up blue cross for a quote the minute after you flip your motorcycle over a guardrail, but you get me.

If you're below a certain income level, you're exempt from the fee. xps

remember, don't listen to the internet

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/06/healthcare-upheld-by-scotus-intrade-blows-it-again/

also worth noting that adam serwer at american prospect and brian beutler at tpm called this right

and Will Wilkinson!

I mean:

Roberts, writing for the majority, will offer a hyper-casuistical decision that discovers in standing commerce clause precedent principled grounds for ruling in an insurance mandate while ruling out congress' power to mandate purchase of any goods and services that don't begin with an "i" and end with an "e", and aren't ice or iodine. To brighten the dashed hopes of conservatives, the "Why there can never be a broccoli mandate" section of Roberts' decision will on the whole narrow Congress' commerce-clause regulatory powers. However, in their very great relief, and schadenfreude over bitter conservative disappointment, liberals will largely miss the minor revolution contained in Roberts' sly scholasticism.

yup. also if obama gets to appoint two s.c. justices next term that part of the legacy may not last.

on Roberts' sleight of hand, from a Sullivan letter:

What I think a lot of people are missing in this case is its connection to that foundational Supreme Court case, Marbury v. Madison (to which the Chief Justice cites several times). Marbury is an interesting study; essentially it was a political battle between Jefferson and the Federalists. John Marshall, presiding Chief Justice, most definitely held with the latter. In deciding the case, Marshall pulled an impressive feat of judicial jujitsu; he found for Jefferson's side, but announced the principal of Judicial Review, something with which Jefferson would have disagreed. But Jefferson could hardly caterwaul about a case he had 'won.' Jefferson won in the short term, Marshall, arguably, in the long term. Thence to Roberts' opinion.

He did uphold the mandate as a tax, but specifically said it was beyond the Commerce Clause power. Much of the opinion is dedicated to explicating why this is so (and adopting the anti-ACA arguments for such). I think Roberts has taken a lesson from his famed predecessor. By upholding the mandate as a tax, but deciding the Commerce Clause issue against what would seem to be the weight of precedent, he may be hoping to hand conservatives the long-term win.

If Wickard v. Fillburn (generally seen as the broadest Commerce Clause case) is one day overturned, as seems likely, much of the language will be taken from the Chief Justice's opinion

he misses the tax power grounds entirely!

xp wilkinson i mean

also worth noting that adam serwer at american prospect and brian beutler at tpm called this right

― goole, Thursday, June 28, 2012 8:31 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

also tom goldstein from SCOTUS blog

but he got the constriction of the Commerce Clause right

xpost

i mean ALTHOUGH if obama...

i'm trying to calm down my broke facebook friends that think they're gonna get charged the fee for not having insurance. do we yet know how poor someone has to be to be considered too poor to afford insurance?

well theyve got a year and a half to get some money or get more poor

I had my first FB argument of the day!

Does it really matter? Isn't the penalty/tax sliding scale too?

Starting in 2014, if your income is less than the equivalent of about $88,000 for a family of four today, and your job doesn’t offer affordable coverage, you may get tax credits to help pay for insurance.

http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2011/08/individuals.html

I was looking around here. I don't think the exact structure is in place, yet, but they could basically buy insurance from an exchange. If their income is low enough, they'll get coverage and not get taxed additionally for it?

if they try to penalize u just injure yrself then open yr own hospital and bill the government for yr treatment, a vision of our dystopian near future obamascape, thx a lot chief trader John Roberts! is that even yr real name

I had my first FB argument of the day!

― a regina spektor is haunting europe (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, June 28, 2012 4:59 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i almost did! it went like this:

Zach Lyon you'll only be charged a fee if you can afford health care and choose not to buy it. no fee if you're poor.

Josh M******** Zach, this sounds a lot like retiring too. I can afford to retire by setting up a budget and setting money aside for my future. Or I can spend all my money wherever I want on whatever I want and hope the government can float me through my elder years. IT IS NOT THEIR JOB IT IS INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY. Also where will be my tax credit for not doing dumb shit that jeopardizes my health every day?? (ex.Eating McDonalds every day making myself and children fatasses, extreme sports, and SMOKING FUCKING CIGARETTES) I should not ponder these things I need to think about the equal living situation of the worthless non contributing populous in my country. Sometimes I wished my heart bled so I could be a cool kid like the rest of you Libs

Zach Lyon ok i don't really care.

this somehow did not work.

you should have just said RHRRRAAAAAAARRHRHRGHGHGHGHRRR

after several exchangess:

apologies if I came across as argumentative, just simple conversation. No arguments here. I'm 51 years old, worked since I was 8, never took a handout from anyone, no unemployment, no wellfare, no food stamps, no free ride. I work for what I have. I don't mind kickin in my fair share but how much more of my hard earned cash would be enough? Small government, lower taxes. it's all I want.

individual responsibility -> does he think people will be turned away at the hospital if they don't show proof they can pay?

Michael J. New at the corner: "Today’s Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act was certainly disappointing for people in the pro-life movement."

preventive care for women and children. TERRIBLE.

Starting in 2014, if your income is less than the equivalent of about $88,000 for a family of four today, and your job doesn’t offer affordable coverage, you may get tax credits to help pay for insurance.

but this isn't w/r/t the penalty fee is it?

of course none of this matters cause these people will probably be eligible for medicaid, they're just little intransigents.

people do not understand how pooled risk works
can I just type that a thousand times

the reason the system works is because most people aren't on unemployment, welfare, food stamps, etc.

it's not a free ride, it's part of being in a civilization where we set a baseline for quality of life!

like, I don't care if you are the laziest sack of shit and an ex-criminal and whatever else, I think you deserve a roof over your head, enough food, and medical care, and I think we can provide the baseline of these things for everyone. nobody wants the entry tier of any of these things, so people will work. by denying some people these things until it's too late, we're making the system cost more for everyone

TADA

it's cool just deny mental and physical health coverage and build more for-profit prisons you jackasses

pithy lines

sorry, getting kind of emotional

I'm gonna use a couple of them!

i consider it my personal responsibility to set my own bones

mh you make the rhetorical switch b/w talk of "deserving" & talk of economic optimality. & I wonder if that's the most effective rhetorical device. I mean: even if the "system cost more for everyone" if we had single payer universal health care, wouldn't that still be something people deserve, regardless of their character or history?

it's that last point, the "universal desert" point, that I think is super interesting, b/c I think conservatives today largely disagree with it, & I think the conservatives have the upper hand in this one b/c "all people deserve things regardless of their character & history" is a radical point, not something "natural" or "given by reason alone".

*barfs*

if i get a life threatening illness i consider it my duty to expose myself on a hillside like the spartans of old did with feeble infants

I think we should have something similar to jury duty, but it's called jail duty and you have to spend 24 hours in jail if randomly selected so people can see how many people who are mentally ill or have learning disabilities are in there and what a clusterfuck it is

"all people deserve things regardless of their character & history" is a radical point

What, like "a chicken in every pot?" Where I'm from, son, we call that basic human dignity

We used to call where I'm from America

or like in that Inamura movie where the old and infirm die on a mountain

speaking of health care, can we all hope that scalia has a huge coronary?

he seems halfway there honestly. just one vigorous S.C. basketball tournament away.

xpost great movie

i consider it my personal responsibility to only travel via roads i construct myself

Actually the people who I could maybe see faring the least well under the ACA would be I guess a married, childless couple of freelancers making ok but not very good incomes and foregoing health insurance because of the high cost of living (e.g. in NYC). A couple like that might be hit pretty hard by suddenly having to pay for insurance in the double-digit thousands of dollars per year.

anyone can feel free to correct me on this

speaking of health care, can we all hope that scalia has a huge coronary?

he seems halfway there honestly. just one vigorous S.C. basketball tournament away.

― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Thursday, June 28, 2012 5:19 PM (29 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i know! he is so fat and old why is he alive

I told my friend earlier today that the best outcome from this is when Scalia has a massive rage-induced heart attack while crossing the street and gets hit by a bus

the early pharaohs had to submit to a test of strength and fitness, if they succeeded they could continue to rule, if not, they were ritually executed and another ruler took his place. john roberts, ARE YOU LISTENING?

speaking of health care, can we all hope that scalia has a huge coronary?

must we care for his emergency room care

btw remember when "radical" leftism was seizing property by force and redistributing it? And now we're saying that thinking people shouldn't have to worry about starving or walking around with broken bones is "radical"

must we pay for

xp

mh on fire

Hurting aren't the "exchanges" supposed to mitigate the cost foe freelancers? er, somehow?

i know! he is so fat and old why is he alive

― lag∞n, Thursday, June 28, 2012 5:20 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

dick cheney is alive *shrugs*

it is radical! caring about other people's health, people you don't even know & might even think are shitbags, is radical!

no it's not

is having enough food to eat radical?

i can't believe my tax dollars went to pay for some street a mile away that i've never even used

http://lygsbtd.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/dick-cheney-lizard-people.jpg

giving food to people that you either don't know or dislike or disapprove of, maybe for no good reason, is radical, yes

Only in America

like has nothing to do with it

dick cheney is alive *shrugs*

― funny-skrillex-bee_132455836669.gif (s1ocki), Thursday, June 28, 2012 5:26 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

no it's not

― Mr. Que, Thursday, June 28, 2012 5:27 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

otm

lol

then why isn't paying money for wars I dislike etc. etc.

Euler you are off base and even conservatives don't think it's radical, they just think that their church is supposed to do that so they can bring you cans of food or meals on jesusday and feel real good about their charity

I assume that via the prison system I'm spending more money feeding and sheltering people we dislike than people that I like.

like has everything to do with it

the conservatives don't want to give food or money or health or housing or whatever to people they don't like. maybe the *reason* they don't like them can be spelled out in other terms, but it's a basic human feeling, to deny your enemy your things.

but I think that we should abolish prisons and that the government should be paying us not to work so I guess that makes me radical

(citation needed)

let's talk some more about basic human feelings

specifically I think we should replace the prison system with oppressive electronic monitoring of criminals. And shock collars.

the conservatives don't want to give food or money or health or housing or whatever to people they don't like. maybe the *reason* they don't like them can be spelled out in other terms, but it's a basic human feeling, to deny your enemy your things.

yeah, this is just crazy to me

you think my analysis is crazy, not just wrong?

are you sure you're not speaking about libertarians?

us vs them is the animating principle of modern conservatism

I think I am talking primarily about libertarians, but I think that's the dominant strand of conservatism in tea baggin' America today

I think I am talking primarily about libertarians, but I think that's the dominant strand of conservatism in tea baggin' America today

― Euler, Thursday, June 28, 2012 5:35 PM (7 seconds ago)

aaaaand anything to the left of that is radical, got it

see that's the kind of response that makes me think liberals don't get it, that liberals think their position is "natural" or "obvious"

& then they wonder why American politics is the way it is

it is radical! caring about other people's health, people you don't even know & might even think are shitbags, is radical!

^^so when you say stuff like this, what you really mean is not "it is radical to care about other people," but "libertarians think it is radical to care for other people."

I think in the real life most individuals who identify as conservative don't want real people starving or dying nastily but in the legal/philosophical/government realm they have serious issues with taking care of those issues due to some sort of moral attitude about money and who deserves what.

I think the dominant strand in the tea baggers and whatever else is libertarian thought as far as fiscal responsibility, but these people really don't connect it to the logical ends. Like, they don't want the fire department to refuse you service or for people to get turned away at the ER, but there's a mental block prohibiting them from seeing that there's not magic that happens

i mean you're basically using radical to mean whatever you'd like it to mean

the fact that the country was strongly in support of mandating that insurers cover people with pre-existing conditions kinda undercuts what you're saying

so what I'm saying is that the dominant position is people who want to pay no taxes but still expect the fire department to help them when their home is on fire

http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/images/image_map_images/one_nation_under_God.jpg

DO YOU guys understand now

the only moral taxes are the ones that pay for services I personally use

no Que I think libertarians take a quite natural stance on things: look out for yourself & those close to you, & let everyone else fend for themselves

we liberals have been trying to upend that way of things for a long time. & one of the delusions post 1967 that saddens me the most is that "we won", that we can take for granted now that everyone in their right mind would want a system in which everyone's basic needs are cared for.

no Que I think libertarians take a quite natural stance on things: look out for yourself & those close to you, & let everyone else fend for themselves

i.e. "it is radical to care for other people," which was my whole point, thank you.

a major aspect of the conservative critique of government handouts yet to be mentioned is that they dont work

oops! i.e. "libertarians think it is radical to care for other people"

anyway

aw shucks id love to help but it is impossible

no Que I think libertarians take a quite natural stance on things: look out for yourself & those close to you, & let everyone else fend for themselves

that is totally natural if you are too dumb to understand how cities and societies and governments work

pretty basic hunter/gatherer thought there

caring for other people is totally radical

You're operating on some geological time scales there, Euler, it was radical 230 years ago when it was "all men are created equal" (pause for a gale of bitter laughter from 230 years of ghosts)

Hang on, are you actually Euler? That might explain some things.

dudes

trollin^^

can we stop being trolled by Euler for now

caring for other people is totally rad

domed cities and underground trains in 2016

well good job guys, I'll let you get back to your usual recapitulation of What's the Matter with Kansas

not trolling fwiw

lagoon took my joke and watered it down for the plebs, like i'm bill hicks and he's denis leary

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KhuG3ryXsxk/0.jpg

kansas isn't covered by a giant plexiglass dome

#thematterwithkansas

can i be gallagher

gallagher wouldn't ask to be gallagher, he would just be gallagher

I like how Euler knows what is in the conservative's heart, are you from Kansas?

lagoon took my joke and watered it down for the plebs, like i'm bill hicks and he's denis leary

― congratulations (n/a), Thursday, June 28, 2012 5:44 PM (25 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

while i did recognize what you were doing there rad was actually the proper usage

not for much longer, mh!

the idea that america is mostly populated by radical libertarians or even tea party types is nuts

you know I live in IOWA right it's not like I'm in NYC or some shit, I'm not iatee over here

happy to be called nuts again

i.e., there's a reason the libertarian party hasn't gotten more than 1% of the vote since 1972 and that ron paul isn't ACTUALLY the gop front-runner

no, your idea is nuts, you are perhaps just a little off on that perception?

down in Kansas we think of Iowa as a liberal haven; NYC is too far away to matter

gallagher wouldn't ask to be gallagher, he would just be gallagher

― congratulations (n/a), Thursday, June 28, 2012 9:45 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

:(

why do people from flyover states even get to post to this thread

because we are rad and let them

I think the bill is "radical" in the sense of being a radical change to the nature of health insurance. I mean it pretty much upends the prior model of what health insurance was. The preexisting condition thing (which I fully support) is a good example of this -- there's no other kind of insurance, in the capitalist sense, where you'd be able to buy in once you already have a problem. Insurance in the capitalistic sense is supposed to involve payment in advance reflecting your level of risk. It is, absolutely, a method of risk pooling, but once you are sick you no longer have a "risk" you have an actual sickness. The elimination of "preexisting conditions" plus the mandate eliminates the old model and instead creates a kind of fractured, hybrid public-private national health system. It ceases to look like any other insurance we've ever seen.

like the tea party is mostly burned out and populated by the same conservative org flacks who were in other conservative organizations five or ten years ago. on the other hand, the occupy movement people are still running around doing shit, have only a tiny overlap with that group, and seem to have only a small Ron Paul contingent in their midst. How is tea party the dominant paradigm?

who are these people in kansas that say this?

Oh Foxpaws....their current banner headline today is.

House Finds Holder in Contempt
Over 'Fast and Furious' Investigation

Actually the people who I could maybe see faring the least well under the ACA would be I guess a married, childless couple of freelancers making ok but not very good incomes and foregoing health insurance because of the high cost of living (e.g. in NYC). A couple like that might be hit pretty hard by suddenly having to pay for insurance in the double-digit thousands of dollars per year.

yeah, if they decided to go without insurance, then they'd pay a substantial "penalty". unmarried couples would be even worse off. you get substantial breaks in return for increased family size.

well good job guys, I'll let you get back to your usual recapitulation of What's the Matter with Kansas

― Euler, Thursday, June 28, 2012 2:44 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i live in utah, i win in the red state sweepstakes. people here think it's natural that their spirits will look for a spouse spirit that they can spend eternity with. i'm a little suspicious of anyone who makes a rhetorical appeal to the natural.

that couple of freelancers will be able to continue to be freelancers, though, as opposed to having to take a corporate job with supplied insurance or just being completely and utterly fucked if one of them falls ill

I'm trying to suss out general principles behind American conservatism. never really sure if this is the place to do that. go ahead & make fun of me more, Que.

are there gay people in Utah not in the Republican party

This isn't the place for that, I think we have other threads.

I'm trying to suss out general principles behind American conservatism. never really sure if this is the place to do that. go ahead & make fun of me more, Que.

― Euler, Thursday, June 28, 2012 2:53 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

it's not clear at all what you're trying to do, besides troll in a "look at me, i'm an analytic philosopher" *makes jack-off motion* stylee

I don't think I've had any long conversation with anyone conservative who has actually disagreed with the actual logic of the mandate or thought that most of the other reforms were bad. It always turns into weird waffling once you break it down to: "So, someone goes to the ER. Do they get treated or not?"

Euler, you're just coming off as saying "you guys are an echo chamber, and here is what conservatives are really like" but then you sketch out the least charitable caricature of a fringe republican strawman!

its in gods hands, no god is the name of my surgeon

I don't mean it to be uncharitable! but yeah, this isn't the place.

conservatives believe in the individual, progressives believe in society, next

roberts could play superman eh

Roberts still reminds me of Gig Young in the "A Stop at Willoughby" episode of Twilight Zone.

general principles behind american conservatives:

yeah that idea won't ever fly in the USA---I know the econ & I'm morally for reduced inequality but paying people to not work hurts me in the gut & it'd take a lot more than econ to convince me; & for most Americans this is exactly the problem with the welfare state: people getting what they don't deserve, haven't earned (well, that + racism of course)

― Euler, Sunday, September 4, 2011 7:35 PM (9 months ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

man ... lovin' euler itt

Having poor and unhealthy people around makes you feel like your healthcare and nutrition are something that you "earned" I guess.

he earned his lifetime employment in a government job

he earned it good

I feel like I earned the right to not have diabetes by being from superior genetic stock. It just just feels like a gut punch every time I realize I have to pay for someone's healthcare when they are genetically inferior.

L-R: welfare recipients, Euler

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg90/SecretSunBlog/bnw03.jpg

america is such a bitch, feel like shee needs to just chill, maybe smoke a doob

when will i get a mandate to light one up

Okay Phil the fact that I know EXACTLY what the screenshot is from disturbs me.

Namely because I thought I was the only person who remembered seeing that thing.

you saw my bar mitzvah video??

Wait...you mean that's not the mohel?

not to interrupt the frenzy here, but some of eulers characterization is fair - the difference is that there is a wing of conservatism that assumes that beneficiaries of the health care system are by nature gaming the system, which is just a prettier version of the welfare queen stereotype openly mouthed by many conservatives in the 80s. thats not in line with a concern for the general well-being.

i mean if you want a pretty good look at how conservatives feel about this, imagine the reactions one might get with the "do we admit an illegal alien to the ER" thought experiment.

what if that illegal alien was british

Hypocritic oath applies iirc

What if the alien had a communicable disease?

yeah ha i was trying to leave the racist overtones out but yes that is also a factor for these peeps, i mean if they were canadian i assume that many would be duty-bound to save them from their oppressive socialist death medicine and admit them immediately xxpost

would love to see the statistical difference in the results of that thought experiment ("if any") when conservative respondents are shown either A) a picture of a smiling and well-dressed elderly white woman and B) one of a stern-faced young black man in a hoodie.

assume that the complainant is suffering from some mild sort of distress, nothing life-threatening...

conservatives' feelings towards this aren't rooted in some specific way of looking at the world, they are rooted in talking points they got from above. trying to 'suss it out' is just kinda lol, hey why do they oppose a health care system originally designed (and implemented) by conservatives but there wasn't any pushback against medicare part d, well, because they oppose everything obama has ever done, fin.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

oh thats def a huge factor here, but the conservative base has worked the deluded idea of an imaginary poulation of freeloaders to their benefit for a long time prior the politics of obama blocking.

iatee otm we are not dealing with rational actors here - that wing has fled the GOP

right, but that imaginary population of freeloaders exists in relation to whatever policy progressives are currently pushing and isn't based on some coherent political reasoning system that needs to be 'sussed out'. there's no there there. xp

has anyone posted this yet? pretty wild... http://www.salon.com/2012/06/28/did_john_roberts_switch_his_vote/

i mean if you want a pretty good look at how conservatives feel about this, imagine the reactions one might get with the "do we admit an illegal alien to the ER" thought experiment.

Yeah, tbrr my mother just posted on FB, "If all Americans have to get insurance, what do illegals get?" She - and my mother-in-law, and lots of other relatives of mine - live in a world where they are besieged by hordes of illegal immigrants who are living the high life on their dime, and no facts that I present can relieve them of this notion. And this is in Northeast Ohio, for god's sake.

Ned, I actually watched that *when it originally aired*. I think it may have been a school assignment.

vote switching happens btw, it's possible

xpost -- Hahah same here.

I don't want to speak ill of your family but do let your doubtless otherwise saintly if, how you say, scared mom know I work for a Mexican American (in my freelance OC Weekly capacity but nonetheless). Why, I've even TALKED with the guy and he's...he's human!

They get emergency care in the ER? Do people think that tons of illegal immigrants are all over the ER instead of scared to go there for fear of being deported?