Is God irate with the indiscriminate spraying of sperm? Perhaps irate is too strong a word. Maybe disappointed (as a parent with a wayward child) is better.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
- Thread starter FreshFish
- Start date
- Status
Is God irate with the indiscriminate spraying of sperm? Perhaps irate is too strong a word. Maybe disappointed (as a parent with a wayward child) is better.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
You never saw "The Meaning of Life", eh?
You never saw "The Meaning of Life", eh?
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
When it comes to the premiums being refunded, does the law specify a policy or region basis?
When it comes to the premiums being refunded, does the law specify a policy or region basis?
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Isn't that what Onan actually did in the Old Testament? (coitus interruptus) even though "onanism" now refers to an entirely different act altogether....
Isn't that what Onan actually did in the Old Testament? (coitus interruptus) even though "onanism" now refers to an entirely different act altogether....
Surprisingly, given my affinity for Monty Python, no. But when you mentioned it I do recall watching something like that via an outtake. Was it Eric Idle?
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
According to Wikipedia, it was Michael Palin.
According to Wikipedia, it was Michael Palin.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
IIRC, it is by insurance company; if claims / premium ratio falls below 80%, then all policyholders get pro-rata refund to bring ratio to a minimum of 80%.* However, the formula is applied year by year, not on a rolling average basis. Someone read part of an article but didn't make it to the end, I guess.
I've seen some posts on other websites about people mocking their $2.50 refund check. I wonder how much additional administrative expense this one rule adds??
* this is why there were something like 917 waivers granted; the 'mini-med' programs offered by companies like McDonalds have higher administrative costs, and for them a ratio of about 65% is more appropriate. Ooops!
so companies that want to offer health insurance are barred from doing so.
IIRC, it is by insurance company; if claims / premium ratio falls below 80%, then all policyholders get pro-rata refund to bring ratio to a minimum of 80%.* However, the formula is applied year by year, not on a rolling average basis. Someone read part of an article but didn't make it to the end, I guess.
I've seen some posts on other websites about people mocking their $2.50 refund check. I wonder how much additional administrative expense this one rule adds??
* this is why there were something like 917 waivers granted; the 'mini-med' programs offered by companies like McDonalds have higher administrative costs, and for them a ratio of about 65% is more appropriate. Ooops!
so companies that want to offer health insurance are barred from doing so.
Last edited:
unofan
Well-known member
So you agree it wont add to the national debt in the long run so long as it is run correctly? The nice thing about being a stable government is that you can easily absorb year-to-year fluctuations.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Under its current configuration, it is mathematicaly impossible to have it "run correctly", unfortunately, because the penalty is less than the subsidy and so you inevitably will have "free rider" problems. You will have a spiraling PPACA debt as a result, very similar to the mechanism that causes feedback when you hold a microphone too close to a speaker and get an ear-piercing shriek as a result. We'll have a budget-busting spiral that gets worse every year until they correct the built-in imbalances.
Look, I am not criticizing their intentions so let's not even have that debate, okay?
They tried to do too much too soon and forget to build in a mechanism to correct the mistakes that are bound to happen in something this big and this complex.
What is so sad about the whole mess is that they already had a working scale model right under their noses and they ignored it.
You want to offer coverage for pre-existing conditions, you have open enrollment windows. You do not make health insurance available upon demand to people with pre-existing conditions any more than you allow home owners to buy fire insurance after the blaze has already started.
Under its current configuration, it is mathematicaly impossible to have it "run correctly", unfortunately, because the penalty is less than the subsidy and so you inevitably will have "free rider" problems. You will have a spiraling PPACA debt as a result, very similar to the mechanism that causes feedback when you hold a microphone too close to a speaker and get an ear-piercing shriek as a result. We'll have a budget-busting spiral that gets worse every year until they correct the built-in imbalances.
Look, I am not criticizing their intentions so let's not even have that debate, okay?
They tried to do too much too soon and forget to build in a mechanism to correct the mistakes that are bound to happen in something this big and this complex.
What is so sad about the whole mess is that they already had a working scale model right under their noses and they ignored it.
You want to offer coverage for pre-existing conditions, you have open enrollment windows. You do not make health insurance available upon demand to people with pre-existing conditions any more than you allow home owners to buy fire insurance after the blaze has already started.
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
SCOTUS agrees to hear the gay marriage cases, including California
Possible outcomes?
(1) SCOTUS declares Feds have no business deciding what is or is not a legal marriage -- it's a state issue (contradicts Loving??)
(1a) Upholds California vote on Prop 8. State determined what is / is not a legal marriage. 'nuf ced. Still have a hodge - podge of marriage rules, but we've had that for decades anyway.
(2) SCOTUS upholds DOMA
(2a) Creates chaos among the states. Feds say XY, states say XX, YY and XY. Lots of tax issues.
(3) SCOTUS upholds DOMA, upholds California, and tells the rest of the country that the Feds have a vested interest in who can marry and tosses all gay marriage rules.
(3a) Ultra conservative hail ruling. Liberals decry an activist court (how ironic!) Libertarians wonder if they can secede.
Scalia will vote on XY. It's ingrained in his (and many other American's) psyche. He (and many) cannot conceive of (to him/them) a law promoting immorality. He may be right. However, I'm betting on (1).
Link: http://www.wtop.com/289/2930109/Supreme-Court-will-hear-gay-marriage-cases
SCOTUS agrees to hear the gay marriage cases, including California
Possible outcomes?
(1) SCOTUS declares Feds have no business deciding what is or is not a legal marriage -- it's a state issue (contradicts Loving??)
(1a) Upholds California vote on Prop 8. State determined what is / is not a legal marriage. 'nuf ced. Still have a hodge - podge of marriage rules, but we've had that for decades anyway.
(2) SCOTUS upholds DOMA
(2a) Creates chaos among the states. Feds say XY, states say XX, YY and XY. Lots of tax issues.
(3) SCOTUS upholds DOMA, upholds California, and tells the rest of the country that the Feds have a vested interest in who can marry and tosses all gay marriage rules.
(3a) Ultra conservative hail ruling. Liberals decry an activist court (how ironic!) Libertarians wonder if they can secede.
Scalia will vote on XY. It's ingrained in his (and many other American's) psyche. He (and many) cannot conceive of (to him/them) a law promoting immorality. He may be right. However, I'm betting on (1).
Link: http://www.wtop.com/289/2930109/Supreme-Court-will-hear-gay-marriage-cases
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
the interesting questions will be whether it is a broad or narrow ruling. My bet would be that they side-step DOMA entirely and rule solely on whether the Federal Court had any business intervening in a state matter in the first place. if the CA state Supreme Court had said that same-sex marriage was (at the time of their ruling) constitutional, then a constitutional amendment was subsequently passed, well then by definition same-sex would now be unconstitutional in CA, no??
So that's my take on that particular technical issue. It will be a 5-4 vote, slightly more likely to rein in the lower Federal court, but my confidence level is very low, it could nearly as easily be 5-4 the other way. Kennedy will decide one way or the other.
However, my guess is that if DOMA itself ever came under review, the vote would be 7 - 2 to overturn, with only Scalia and Alito in the minority. It should be 9-0 though. Roberts made it very clear in his ruling on PPACA: only the states have the right to regulate people; the Federal government's power is limited only to behavior...inter-state behavior at that.
the interesting questions will be whether it is a broad or narrow ruling. My bet would be that they side-step DOMA entirely and rule solely on whether the Federal Court had any business intervening in a state matter in the first place. if the CA state Supreme Court had said that same-sex marriage was (at the time of their ruling) constitutional, then a constitutional amendment was subsequently passed, well then by definition same-sex would now be unconstitutional in CA, no??
So that's my take on that particular technical issue. It will be a 5-4 vote, slightly more likely to rein in the lower Federal court, but my confidence level is very low, it could nearly as easily be 5-4 the other way. Kennedy will decide one way or the other.
However, my guess is that if DOMA itself ever came under review, the vote would be 7 - 2 to overturn, with only Scalia and Alito in the minority. It should be 9-0 though. Roberts made it very clear in his ruling on PPACA: only the states have the right to regulate people; the Federal government's power is limited only to behavior...inter-state behavior at that.
Last edited:
unofan
Well-known member
DOMA is under review. They granted two cases, Windsor and the Prop 8 case.
DOMA, or at least the part that defines marriage at the federal level, gets shot down 6-3 (scalia, thomas, and alito dissenting).
My guess is they punt prop. 8 on standing or basically uphold the 9th circuit's narrow ruling that said, essentially, you don't have to allow gay marriage, but once you do, the 14th amendment sayd you can't take it away.
There's little to no chance of a broad ruling making it a constutional right across the board. Not for another 20 years, until the south is the only remaining hold out. But there's also little to no chance Roberts issues a modern day Plessy either.
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
While it hasn't reached SCOTUS yet, and perhaps never will, I've been following the case of Argentina vs Paul Singer's hedge fund, Elliott Management Corporation. Argentina issued some bonds coming due in 2017 and found itself unable to meet its annual interest payments. It negotiated a deal with most of its bondholders where they agreed to accept something like 35 cents on the dollar. Singer wants 100 cents on the dollar. He had a preliminary ruling in his favor, but that was overturned by an appeals court. It seems to me that all bondholders should be treated the same. Singer's demand to be paid more than everyone else has caused all payments to everyone to be suspended until it is resolved, which naturally leaves all the other bondholders really annoyed.
The case raises a variety of issues, one of which is jurisdictional (why is this in US courts to begin with? can US courts compel a sovereign nation to follow a certain course of action?). I have no sympathy for Singer nor for Argentina, whatever "sympathy" I might have is limited solely to whatever retirement plans or charitable endowments that own Argentina's bonds.
While it hasn't reached SCOTUS yet, and perhaps never will, I've been following the case of Argentina vs Paul Singer's hedge fund, Elliott Management Corporation. Argentina issued some bonds coming due in 2017 and found itself unable to meet its annual interest payments. It negotiated a deal with most of its bondholders where they agreed to accept something like 35 cents on the dollar. Singer wants 100 cents on the dollar. He had a preliminary ruling in his favor, but that was overturned by an appeals court. It seems to me that all bondholders should be treated the same. Singer's demand to be paid more than everyone else has caused all payments to everyone to be suspended until it is resolved, which naturally leaves all the other bondholders really annoyed.
The case raises a variety of issues, one of which is jurisdictional (why is this in US courts to begin with? can US courts compel a sovereign nation to follow a certain course of action?). I have no sympathy for Singer nor for Argentina, whatever "sympathy" I might have is limited solely to whatever retirement plans or charitable endowments that own Argentina's bonds.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
They pay according to Argentina's order of liens, and that's it. If all they can do is pay 35 cents on the dollar, that's what they get. Even with bonds, there's still that risk of default.
They pay according to Argentina's order of liens, and that's it. If all they can do is pay 35 cents on the dollar, that's what they get. Even with bonds, there's still that risk of default.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Marriage needs to be defined federally because of the existence of the term when it comes to the filing of Federal Income Taxes. Since Congress has the power to write law that is necessary and proper towards the execution of the provisions in the Constitution (in this case the collection of Federal Income Tax), and Congress wrote DOMA, they have no choice but to uphold that from a federal standpoint. Here's the question, though: What are the provisions within DOMA regarding the states? If it does not explicitly state that this is the definition for the states, then according to Amendment 10, it is up to the state to decide the definition. That would uphold California's constitution, as well as any marriage definition specifically passed by a state that is to only apply to that particular state.
Marriage needs to be defined federally because of the existence of the term when it comes to the filing of Federal Income Taxes. Since Congress has the power to write law that is necessary and proper towards the execution of the provisions in the Constitution (in this case the collection of Federal Income Tax), and Congress wrote DOMA, they have no choice but to uphold that from a federal standpoint. Here's the question, though: What are the provisions within DOMA regarding the states? If it does not explicitly state that this is the definition for the states, then according to Amendment 10, it is up to the state to decide the definition. That would uphold California's constitution, as well as any marriage definition specifically passed by a state that is to only apply to that particular state.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
A three-judge panel of the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals applies 2008 SCOTUS ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller (that the amendment means it when it says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed") to State of Illinois. In Moore v. Madigan, the judges gave the Legislature in Springfield 180 days "to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment . . ., on the carrying of guns in public."
Text cut and pasted together from Taranto's column in today's Wall St Journal. Original citations omitted.
A three-judge panel of the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals applies 2008 SCOTUS ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller (that the amendment means it when it says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed") to State of Illinois. In Moore v. Madigan, the judges gave the Legislature in Springfield 180 days "to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment . . ., on the carrying of guns in public."
Text cut and pasted together from Taranto's column in today's Wall St Journal. Original citations omitted.
Last edited:
unofan
Well-known member
And yet somehow people believe the President will take away your guns. Never mind that Kagan goes hunting with Scalia and 2nd amendment jurisprudence is basically as settled as it can be...
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
The New World Order wants to ban guns. Obviously many in the country will fight the NWO, but eventually, the USA will be sucked in if we keep getting these Marxist leaders...
The New World Order wants to ban guns. Obviously many in the country will fight the NWO, but eventually, the USA will be sucked in if we keep getting these Marxist leaders...
unofan
Well-known member
You know...your libertarian rants are at least somewhat sane. Everytime you start this nwo shiat, you really give yourself away as a troll. Or a crazy person, which might as well be the same thing.
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
And of course, none of these outcomes will be correct. Marriage isn't a feds issue or a state issue. It's a church issue, and it really shouldn't matter to the government (state or federal) except somewhere along the line we decided to tie taxation, inheritance and employment benefits to this religious issue.
- Status