The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

When has that ever happened?

In this thread? Every so often. In 90% of the political threads on the board? Rarely, if ever.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

How's this:

For those of you who think our courts suck, Italy once again poves it's the leader in kangaroo courts. It just found seven scientists guilty of manslaughter because they said they couldn't predict a major earthquake following some early minor tremors.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/22/italian-court-convicts-scientists-for-no

I read that today and my jaw literally dropped. I had to reread it to make sure it wasn't from The Onion. I even did a google search for earthquake jail onion just to double check.

 

[burd]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

OK for something a little more substantive, how about this: Best SCOTUS dissent. Justice Holmes in Abrams v. United States. The last paragraph is gold:

Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power, and want a certain result with all your heart, you naturally express your wishes in law, and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care wholeheartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That, at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year, if not every day, we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system, I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country. I wholly disagree with the argument of the Government that the First Amendment left the common law as to seditious libel in force. History seems to me against the notion. I had conceived that the United States, through many years, had shown its repentance for the Sedition Act of 1798, by repaying fines that it imposed. Only the emergency that makes it immediately dangerous to leave the correction of evil counsels to time warrants [p631] making any exception to the sweeping command, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." Of course, I am speaking only of expressions of opinion and exhortations, which were all that were uttered here, but I regret that I cannot put into more impressive words my belief that, in their conviction upon this indictment, the defendants were deprived of their rights under the Constitution of the United States.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Bob, from reading other posts on this board, you seem like a nice guy, and that is no small thing, but don't indulge the role of victim with such vigor--you'll hurt yourself.

I'm not indulging anything. I merely stated when Rover made a comment about me being in love with Jan Brewer that that's not the kind of joking I do, out of respect to my wife. Apart from unofan badgering me on that, that would have been the end of it. I take a lot of guff on a lot of stuff around here, and that's fine and I don't think twice about it generally. So, when I mention one thing where I don't go, I'd hoped other posters could respect that. Unfortunately one couldn't, and he's now on ignore as a result.

 

[Rover]

I'm not indulging anything. I merely stated when Rover made a comment about me being in love with Jan Brewer that that's not the kind of joking I do, out of respect to my wife. Apart from unofan badgering me on that, that would have been the end of it. I take a lot of guff on a lot of stuff around here, and that's fine and I don't think twice about it generally. So, when I mention one thing where I don't go, I'd hoped other posters could respect that. Unfortunately one couldn't, and he's now on ignore as a result.

Bob you profess a lot more love for Jan Brewer out here than any other woman, and frankly I'm not sure I ever knew if you were married or not. However, given your preferences on this subject I won't allude to any infatuation on your part with Ms Brewer in light of your marital status.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Bob you profess a lot more love for Jan Brewer out here than any other woman, and frankly I'm not sure I ever knew if you were married or not. However, given your preferences on this subject I won't allude to any infatuation on your part with Ms Brewer in light of your marital status.

Thank you.

In fairness, it's still fully fair game for you to question my support of her policies and such, of course. In fact, I'll expect it!

 

[Rover]

Thank you.

In fairness, it's still fully fair game for you to question my support of her policies and such, of course. In fact, I'll expect it!

I'm out here purely for entertainment Bob. Its never personal with me.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I'm out here purely for entertainment Bob. Its never personal with me.

Oh, let's stop making everything roses you left pinko commie!

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

PPACA back in Court:

The Supreme Court on Monday told a lower court to consider several issues left unresolved by the justices' June ruling upholding the Affordable Care Act, in a move backed by the Obama administration.

The order came in a case brought by Liberty University ... that was one of dozens of plaintiffs to file separate suits alleging that aspects of President Barack Obama's health-care overhaul are unconstitutional. Many of those issues were resolved in June, when the Supreme Court upheld almost all of the law, but others have yet to be addressed on appeal.

In its petition, the Lynchburg, Va., school sought an appellate-court ruling on its claims that the Affordable Care Act's insurance mandates violate constitutional guarantees of religious freedom and equal protection. A federal district court rejected those arguments in 2010, but the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Richmond, Va., held that the lawsuit itself was premature and dismissed the case without reviewing the district court's decision.

Whichever side loses at the Fourth Circuit is likely to appeal the question to the Supreme Court, but the justices are under no obligation to hear such a challenge.

There are quite a few religious organizations that support preventive birth control that also are very much opposed to retroactive birth control (i.e., dispensing abortifacients). It's always been a smokescreen that (a) it was primarily the Catholic Chuch and (b) it was about all birth control. it's also a smokescreen to somehow make this into a "women's rights" issue too. It is a very clear, narrow, restrictive issue: can the federal government force organizations who believe that abortion is infanticide to pay for employees' use of abortifacients?




PS leave me out of this one personally. My own personal belief is a fertilized egg must also implant in the uterine wall for "life" to begin at its earliest, which technically separates me from the "life begins at conception" crowd. A "morning after pill" would be okay with me since it is a clear assertion of control over one's body and a responsible proactive decision made in a timely manner.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

It is a very clear, narrow, restrictive issue: can the federal government force organizations who believe that abortion is infanticide to pay for employees' use of abortifacients?

Well, I would argue that the PPACA means that there is less coercion on the part of the federal government than ever: if a private organization wishes to decline to pay for its employees' health coverage, the employees will be able to purchase coverage from the newly created exchanges. The PPACA gives private organizations an out - rather than limiting or reducing their choices, it provides a new, previously unacceptable, path.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Well, I would argue that the PPACA means that there is less coercion on the part of the federal government than ever: if a private organization wishes to decline to pay for its employees' health coverage, the employees will be able to purchase coverage from the newly created exchanges. The PPACA gives private organizations an out - rather than limiting or reducing their choices, it provides a new, previously unacceptable, path.

You are making a few assumptions there. States can decline to set up exchanges, so that under <strike>CRAPPA</strike> PPACA the feds would have to step in and set up the exchanges instead. However, the way the law is worded, there would be no subsidies (nor penalties either? not clear on this detail....) for people who purchased insurance through the Federally-run exchanges.

More tellingly, there is no money appropriated for the Feds to set up and run exchanges. So if the 30 states that are considering NOT setting up an exchange do follow through on that decision, then what? The House blocks funding federal exchanges and we are where exactly?


Finally, these organizations generally are run by moral and ethical people. The idea of dumping their employees' health insurance is very distasteful to them. They are trying to preserve a way to pay for it while also honoring the guides of their conscience.

The Feds crossed a line here. Don't forget that the mandate was found to be unconstitutional; my bet would be that in this particular narrow situation the mandate to provide abortifacients will also be struck down.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

PS leave me out of this one personally. My own personal belief is a fertilized egg must also implant in the uterine wall for "life" to begin at its earliest, which technically separates me from the "life begins at conception" crowd. A "morning after pill" would be okay with me since it is a clear assertion of control over one's body and a responsible proactive decision made in a timely manner.

For someone who doesn't care that much, you sure seem to spend a lot of time discussing this issue.

I also note you never responded in the other thread after I pointed out that the issue is actually about birth control, at least when it comes to the Catholic Church and its subsidiary organizations like colleges and hospitals.

 

[Rover]

You are making a few assumptions there. States can decline to set up exchanges, so that under <strike>CRAPPA</strike> PPACA the feds would have to step in and set up the exchanges instead. However, the way the law is worded, there would be no subsidies (nor penalties either? not clear on this detail....) for people who purchased insurance through the Federally-run exchanges.

More tellingly, there is no money appropriated for the Feds to set up and run exchanges. So if the 30 states that are considering NOT setting up an exchange do follow through on that decision, then what? The House blocks funding federal exchanges and we are where exactly?


Finally, these organizations generally are run by moral and ethical people. The idea of dumping their employees' health insurance is very distasteful to them. They are trying to preserve a way to pay for it while also honoring the guides of their conscience.

The Feds crossed a line here. Don't forget that the mandate was found to be unconstitutional; my bet would be that in this particular narrow situation the mandate to provide abortifacients will also be struck down.

Fishy fishy fishy. I'm not sure why you keep doing this to yourself, but I'll play along.

1) All the SCOTUS has done, and the Obama admin favored this action, was to make the court that punted the Liberty lawsuit on the grounds of no jurisdiction due to the taxing authority of Congress actually issue a ruling for or against Liberty's dumb complaint. It is widely expected to rule against Liberty, and its doubtful the SCOTUS will hear the case.

2) Your "bets" haven't been very good lately on this issue in particular or politics in general. I think you might be Neil Newhouse. Wasn't this supposed to get overturned, then it was upheld in everybody's view but your own. Time to give up the ghost already. Obamacare is, and will stay, the law.

3) You've mistakenly harped on the notion that the states allowing the feds to set up exchanges is some sort of double secret ploy to defeat the law. This is stupid on multiple levels. All that happens is the citizens of those states pay more for their health coverage than they would if their governors weren't angling for a Fox news show. As the last election proved, people have a good sense of when they're getting screwed, and the Kasich, Scott, Snyders of the world are going to be answering to these voters, who've already endorsed Obamacare with their Presidential votes, next election.

4) Even more amusing is your canine like loyalty to the House GOP somehow refusing to fund the law. Fishy, THEY'VE ALREADY VOTED MULTIPLE TIMES TO FUND THE LAW!. Read that again, and slowly. Why now, after a total @_sskicking in the election (recall that House Dems received more votes than House Republicans in Congressional elections, meaning redistricting is the only thing keeping the party alive) will they suddenly grow a backbone? Here's a hint: they won't, but you just go on believing that.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Post # 949:

It is a very clear, narrow, restrictive issue: can the federal government force organizations who believe that abortion is infanticide to pay for employees' use of abortifacients?

Post # 952

I also note you never responded ... after I pointed out that the issue is actually about birth control, at least when it comes to the Catholic Church and its subsidiary organizations like colleges and hospitals.

Huh? Notice much? I said that the issue was not about preventive birth control it was primarily about retroactive birth control and you say I didn't respond? and if you "notice" at all you will see that the issue iss far more widespread than only the Catholic Church: notice how many of the friend's of the Court briefs and plaintiffs in the suit are non-Catholic religious organizations!

 

[unofan]

Huh? Notice much? I said that the issue was not about preventive birth control it was primarily about retroactive birth control and you say I didn't respond? and if you "notice" at all you will see that the issue iss far more widespread than only the Catholic Church: notice how many of the friend's of the Court briefs and plaintiffs in the suit are non-Catholic religious organizations!

Right. Just ignore the fact you said the catholic church was only concerned with "abortifacints" -something that is completly incorrect. Just move the goalposts instead.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Rover

If the Feds set up the exchanges in many states, wouldn't that cause federal spending to markedly increase? If tax revenues remain stagnant, wouldn't that add to the deficit?

PPACA is a badly written law with newly discovered consequences occurring daily. Like the tax code, it needs to be blown up and rewritten.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Right. Just ignore the fact you said the catholic church was only concerned with "abortifacints" -something that is completly incorrect. Just move the goalposts instead.

Ev'ry sperm is sacred, ev'ry sperm is great.... If a sperm is wasted, GOD WOULD BE IRATE!!!

 

[Rover]

Rover

If the Feds set up the exchanges in many states, wouldn't that cause federal spending to markedly increase? If tax revenues remain stagnant, wouldn't that add to the deficit?

PPACA is a badly written law with newly discovered consequences occurring daily. Like the tax code, it needs to be blown up and rewritten.

If viewed in a fishbowl, yes. It will take funds to set up exchanges. I don't believe anybody is arguing against that. However, part of the offset of those additional funds is the givebacks both the pharmaceutical and hospital industries are contributing, so in the end according the CBO which has done more research on this than myself, it all evens out.

To your second point, yes, if tax revenues remained stagnant, not only would the health care law be underfunded, so would everything else. I don't believe there's an expectation of stagnant tax revenues over the next 10 years as the recession is mostly behind us and the economy grew faster than expected last quarter (2.7% vs 2.5%expected).

Lastly don't take this the wrong way as I always enjoy your commentary, but I think scrapping the healthcare law and rewriting it isn't practical to say the least. Either this effort succeeds or nothing will be done for generations. What you can, and Republicans should do since the battle has been lost, is revise the law as needed. For example: many a conservative wants tort reform. So do the voters. Many a conservative hates the medical devices tax. So do most lefties and the voters. Here's a thought. Instead of refusing to acknowledge the law's existence, why doesn't the GOP propose a tradeoff - tort reform savings in exchange for getting rid of that tax? Certainly Dems in places such as Massachusetts would be on board with that.

 

[unofan]

Rover

If the Feds set up the exchanges in many states, wouldn't that cause federal spending to markedly increase? If tax revenues remain stagnant, wouldn't that add to the deficit?

PPACA is a badly written law with newly discovered consequences occurring daily. Like the tax code, it needs to be blown up and rewritten.

A properly run insurance market should be essentially revenue neutral. At least as long as the actuarial tables are accurate.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

A properly run insurance market should be essentially revenue neutral. At least as long as the actuarial tables are accurate.

only in the long run.

health insurance cannot be priced prospectively since no one can predict claims in advance. while you cite "actuarial tables", very few health plans in practice are priced by manual rating (i.e., using tables); most health plans are priced based on experience, which by its very nature cannot possibly predict the future. Consequently, almost all health insurance plans are constantly running one year in arrears. Your concept of "revenue neutral" may sound nice in theory while it is impractical in practice because you need to smooth out year-to-year fluctuations. Some years premiums will exceed claims, other years claims will exceed premiums. it is impossible to make premiums equal claims on a year-by-year basis.

Before PPACA know-it-alls entered the picture, most plans were priced on a rolling average of three to five years. PPACA by statute makes such smoothing illegal. You have to refund premiums if premiums exceed claims by a certain amount, but if claims exceed premiums you are screwed. naturally this kind of design will cause any prudent steward of other peoples' money to overprice compared to a rolling average method, and this over-pricing is a result of the design, not a result of profit motive. even if the insurance were to be totally non-profit, you'd still have to over-price anyway because you no longer have a way to smooth out a bad year.

of course, if insurance were totally non-profit, you'd have to find a new source of capital to serve as the insurers' reserve against loss (what happens if you have a big claim in the first month but don't get the premiums until months 2 - 12?). Where is that money supposed to come from?

It's like Winston Churchill's quote: democracy is the worst form of government until you compare it to all the other alternatives. The people who wrote PPACA clearly do not understand how insurance works. You cannot legislate away the laws of mathematics nor the laws of nature, no matter how fervently you believe the world "should be" different than it is.