The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

The four "liberal judges" were strictly put there to legislate from the bench. There's no other reason that Clinton and Obama put them there.

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

The knucks'

defined as anyone who is not you??

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

I'll take the bait MinnFan. The limit is if it doesn't affect interstate commerce. Clearly health care does (in fact despite having universal health care Mass has to pay for shiftless NH residents who cross the border to seek ER care). Eating a certain veggie does not. Hence the difference.

As MinnFan pointed out, you are dead wrong according to precedent. The market for broccoli is clearly an interstate one, and Congress could certainly regulate that market by requiring (or forbidding) people to eat it.

[bronconick]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

2010 is last year?

I posted a source that not only refuted the numbers you posted, but showed that the pharmaceutical companies LIE in their statistics to show their R&D spending exceeds advertising when a more thorough examination of the facts shows advertising far exceeds when they report, and is closer to 2:1 spending on advertising than R&D. Further, the statistics I posted are from 2004 and show advertising spending at $57B and you expect anyone to believe that by 2010 that number had magically dropped to $4B? Riiiiight. And if we all clap really hard, Tinkerbell will come back to life.

They likely spend a billion alone on advertising erectile dysfunction pills during NFL games.

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Serious question. For the 4 liberal justices that are likely to approve of the individual mandate is there anything they think the federal gov't can't do outside of the Bill or Rights? I've always wondered where liberals put the limit to gov't power.

No limit. You vil buy from them vat zey tell you to, ven zey tell you to. Or elze!

[Plante26]

2010 is last year?

I posted a source that not only refuted the numbers you posted, but showed that the pharmaceutical companies LIE in their statistics to show their R&D spending exceeds advertising when a more thorough examination of the facts shows advertising far exceeds when they report, and is closer to 2:1 spending on advertising than R&D. Further, the statistics I posted are from 2004 and show advertising spending at $57B and you expect anyone to believe that by 2010 that number had magically dropped to $4B? Riiiiight. And if we all clap really hard, Tinkerbell will come back to life.

There's a difference between advertising and promotion, smart guy. Not that I'd expect you to know the difference.

According to a 2008 article in "The Atlantic" magazine, half of pharma's promotional budget goes to free samples of their drugs. Inconvenient for your incessant child-like bashing of drug companies, I know.

You may now return to your regularly-scheduled Priceless derping.

[Foxton]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

There's a difference between advertising and promotion, smart guy. Not that I'd expect you to know the difference.

According to a 2008 article in "The Atlantic" magazine, half of pharma's promotional budget goes to free samples of their drugs. Inconvenient for your incessant child-like bashing of drug companies, I know.

You may now return to your regularly-scheduled Priceless derping.

First one is free.

And giving away free samples would still be advertising.

[Plante26]

First one is free.

And giving away free samples would still be advertising.

Not according to Priceless' study. They are very careful to only use the word "promotion" or some variation thereof.

And your doctor must suck balls if he only gives you a single sample. Most give em away by the handful.

[WeWantMore]

Serious question. For the 4 liberal justices that are likely to approve of the individual mandate is there anything they think the federal gov't can't do outside of the Bill or Rights? I've always wondered where liberals put the limit to gov't power.

Breyer said something interesting in that regard on Tuesday.

"And, of course, the greatest limiting principle of all, which not too many accept, so I’m not going to emphasize that, is the limiting principle derived from the fact that members of Congress are elected from States and that 95 percent of the law of the United States is State law."

So, basically his limiting principle is something alarmingly close to, "Hey, it was passed by Congress after all."

Which is great, until you see some of the brilliant rationales advanced in said Congress:
"Rep. Conyers cited the “Good and Welfare Clause” as the source of Congress’s authority [there is no such clause].
Rep. Stark responded, “the federal government can do most anything in this country.”
Rep. Clyburn* replied, “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do. How about [you] show me where in the Constitution it prohibits the federal government from doing this?”
Rep. Hare said “I don’t worry about the Constitution on this, to be honest [...] It doesn’t matter to me.” When asked, “Where in the Constitution does it give you the authority …?” He replied, “I don’t know.”
Sen. Akaka said he “not aware” of which Constitutional provision authorizes the healthcare bill.
Sen. Leahy added, “We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there’s no authority?”
Sen. Landrieu told a questioner, “I’ll leave that up to the constitutional lawyers on our staff."

http://volokh.com/2012/03/28/democratic-congressman-and-senators-on-constitutional-authority-for-the-aca/

[Foxton]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Not according to Priceless' study. They are very careful to only use the word "promotion" or some variation thereof.

And your doctor must suck balls if he only gives you a single sample. Most give em away by the handful.

I don't like to quote definitions but...

Promotion - something devised to publicize or advertise a product, cause, institution, etc., as a brochure, free sample, poster, television or radio commercial, or personal appearance.

But you just keep on keepen on, because arguing the semantics of a simple word is the best way to further your argument.

First one's free is a reference to drug dealers who give away highly addictive drugs knowing that it's instantly addictive and the person will be back to buy.

BTw you still haven't provided any actual sources for your earlier figures.

[Plante26]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

I don't like to quote definitions but...

Promotion - something devised to publicize or advertise a product, cause, institution, etc., as a brochure, free sample, poster, television or radio commercial, or personal appearance.

But you just keep on keepen on, because arguing the semantics of a simple word is the best way to further your argument.

First one's free is a reference to drug dealers who give away highly addictive drugs knowing that it's instantly addictive and the person will be back to buy.

BTw you still haven't provided any actual sources for your earlier figures.

Ah, so you demonize the industry for high prices, and then demonize them for giving away free samples like drug dealers. Typical double standard. I've come to expect nothing less.

Advertising: the act or practice of calling public attention to one's product, service, need, etc., especially by paid announcements in newspapers and magazines, over radio or television, on billboards, etc.

All advertising is promotional. Not all promotions are advertising. Simple logic eludes you once again, Foxton.

As for sources: Google it yourself. I posted the source. You want a link, go find it like I did. It wasn't too hard. I know you can do it all by yourself.

[Foxton]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

All advertising is promotional. Not all promotions are advertising. Simple logic eludes you once again, Foxton.

You special kid and by special I mean mentally ********.

As for sources: Google it yourself. I posted the source. You want a link, go find it like I did. It wasn't too hard. I know you can do it all by yourself.

Sorry I have no desire to google "your ***" to look for a source.

[Plante26]

You special kid and by special I mean mentally ********.


Sorry I have no desire to google "your ***" to look for a source.

Another zinger by Foxton. You amuse me. Please, do continue.

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

It's sort of like the "penumbras" that "emanate" from the Constitution....even if they can't describe it to others, they know it when they see it, and we merely need to trust them.

Or, you know, there's that whole argument that the Bill of Rights wasn't initially included because the founders didn't want some idiot in the future thinking it was meant to be an exclusive list of a person's rights.

Put another way, the liberal wing kind of has a point - if Congress can legally usurp the entire industry with nationalized care paid for by taxes, why can't it utilize the market if Congess thinks that's a more efficient means?

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

The four "liberal judges" were strictly put there to legislate from the bench. There's no other reason that Clinton and Obama put them there.

*****http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ELFl2_1q7DI/TObn1HnV2fI/AAAAAAAAAaQ/5JkvAtpbv7k/s1600/Not_sure_if_serious.jpg******