# I admire the tenacity of republicans **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 20, 2014, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614 "2014-07-20T18:13:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 34
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/661 "2014-07-24T18:30:20Z")
Be kind. He does seem to be acknowledging now that there really was a 2012. Baby steps. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/662 "2014-07-24T19:31:02Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > So you concede that small businesses pay taxes, and get tax credits for participation in the SHOP exchange, but contend that they cannot provide “\*nformation necessary to determine whether a taxpayer has received excess advance payments”? Why not? Sorry – I am reading “taxpayer” there as an individual, as opposed to the business, because that’s the thrust of the Halbig complaint. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/663 "2014-07-24T19:40:56Z")
But isn’t the text CRYSTAL CLEAR? ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/664 "2014-07-25T00:32:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Good luck with that. I recommend stocking lots of whatever booze you turn to in times of trouble for the night of November 8th, 2016. If you consume enough, it will hurt less. Nonsense. I issued the decree on October 10, 1973. It’s about fucking TIME for it to kick in. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/665 "2014-07-25T03:14:19Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’ll mark this one down as “ **adaher** predicts the Democrats will lose in 2016”. I don’t know why you’re so confident, this early, but I’m somewhat encouraged by the fact that you are. No. Mark down these predictions instead: 1. The Republicans will do better in the popular vote in 2016 than they did in 2012. So they’ll beat 48%. 2. Clinton will exhibit similar weaknesses as she did in 2008, which means the Republicans will also win more electoral votes than in 2012. Now here’s a couple ifs to hedge, since it’s too early for definite predictions: 1. If Obama is at 40% or lower in 2016, the Republicans will win the election. 2. If Obama is at 55% or higher in 2016, the Republicans will lose the election. 3. If Obama is between 40 and 55% and the nominee is Jeb Bush, Rick Santorum, or Ted Cruz, Republicans will underperform their 2012 performance. If the nominee is anyone else currently known to be likely to run, they will outperform 2012. Save this post.🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/666 "2014-07-25T05:18:08Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Save this post.🙂 Will you acknowledge it if you turn out to be way off? “Heads I win, tails don’t count” is not an attractive proposition. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/667 "2014-07-25T05:40:34Z")
That’s why I made the caveats clear. You guys missed the ones I made last election, or just chose to ignore them. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/668 "2014-07-25T05:55:56Z")
Is that a yes? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/669 "2014-07-25T06:02:44Z")
It’s always a yes. Have I not owned my previous election prediction failure? Just don’t forget the caveats this time. If Obama manages to turn the ship around, Clinton will coast to victory. If the GOP is nominates the perfect foil for Clinton, like Bush or Cruz, she’ll also win easily. Oh, forgot about Rick Perry too. Rick Perry is awful, although I can’t predict whether he could win or not. Count Rick Perry as an solid “I don’t know.” ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/670 "2014-07-25T13:14:59Z")
So you predict a GOP victory anyway, based on some sort of historical cycle Hannity told you about, but you cannot name who it will actually _be_ who does it. There’s an old principle of politics, you can’t beat somebody with nobody. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/671 "2014-07-25T13:48:53Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > It’s always a yes. Have I not owned my previous election prediction failure? I honestly don’t know, actually. I see you making a lot of predictions which strike me as obviously wrong or at best wishful, but I’m not familiar with your post-result rituals where you claim success or acknowledge failure. > [@](#): > > Just don’t forget the caveats this time. If Obama manages to turn the ship around, Clinton will coast to victory. If the GOP is nominates the perfect foil for Clinton, like Bush or Cruz, she’ll also win easily. These predictions are presented before your comments on Obama: 1. The Republicans will do better in the popular vote in 2016 than they did in 2012. So they’ll beat 48%. 2. Clinton will exhibit similar weaknesses as she did in 2008, which means the Republicans will also win more electoral votes than in 2012. Are they also dependent on Obama’s performance? I assume (2) is dependent on Clinton getting the Dem nomination. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/672 "2014-07-25T15:46:36Z")
Briefly returning our attention to the subject of the ACA subsidies, Post columnist Ruth Marcus writes about her fear that the Supreme Court may not save Obamacare again: > [@](#): > > The four liberal justices are reliable votes in the government’s favor. Where is the fifth? Justice Anthony Kennedy believes the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional, but he might be moved by the plight of millions of people suddenly without affordable insurance. This is emblematic of the kind of thinking I believe permeates the viewpoints agitating for affirming the IRS rule. “We have to, because of the bad effects if we don’t.” But that should not be the role of the courts. Congress made a mistake in predicting how the rollout would unfold, and as a result their decision to not give subsidies to federal exchange customers looks retroactively really bad. Now, **Richard Parker** has been an able advocate for a different argument: that at worst the statute is ambiguous, and under Chevron the courts should defer to the agency. But that’s not the majority voice I’m seeing in the blogosphere, and in this thread’s beginning. Here the point is much simpler: the court should fix this, because the result if they don’t will be a poorly implemented policy. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/673 "2014-07-25T15:57:25Z")
In my view, that’s not an indictment of the Left, it’s an indictment of mainstream commentary on the law as a whole. The widely-followed pundits are, as a whole, awful. And they are particularly awful about writing on anything requiring technical expertise. For every Ruth Marcus, there’s a Bill O’Reilly, who said this about _Halbig_: > [@](#): > > But the overriding issue here is not the minutia of Obamacare it is the use of taxpayer dollars. Obamacare is a pure income redistribution play. That means President Obama and the Democratic Party want to put as much money into the hands of the poor and less affluent as they can and the healthcare subsidies are a great way to do just that. And of course, the funds for those subsidies are taken from businesses and affluent Americans who have the cash. > > Income redistribution is a hallmark of socialism and we, in America, are now moving in that direction. That has angered the Republican Party and many conservative Americans who do not believe our capitalistic system was set up to provide cradle to grave entitlements. > > But Republicans have not been able to convince the majority of Americans that income redistribution is harmful. Mitt Romney was not able to make the case that America will suffer economically if the entitlement culture expands. > > And the case is simple. Businesses contract so there are fewer jobs. And the massive federal debt rises diminishing the value of the dollar. That’s what an entitlement culture and income redistribution bring. > > But, believe me, many Americans, perhaps most, have no clue about what I just said. And enough of them are own free stuff so they continue to elect the pro-entitlement politicians. Therefore, Obamacare is much more than providing medical assets to the poor. It’s about capitalism versus socialism. But now because the law is so nebulous, the Supreme Court will once again get the chance to weigh in, perhaps this time dooming the law forever. What the fuck does that have to do with Chevron deference? Not a damn thing, of course. Because he is not doing legal analysis and neither is Ruth Marcus. He’s trying to get eyeballs on media advertisements. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/674 "2014-07-25T16:01:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > their decision to not give subsidies to federal exchange customers looks retroactively really bad. Not as bad as claiming there was a “decision” based on absolutely no discussion whatsoever in that direction, and all discussion and evidence in fact being to the contrary. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > But that’s not the majority voice I’m seeing in the blogosphere Any guess why? Do please tell us more about using “the blogosphere” as you personally perceive it as your authority for, well, anything. > [@](#): > > Here the point is much simpler: the court should fix this, because the result if they don’t will be a poorly implemented policy. Wrong again. The result would be an _unintended_, as well as stupid and inconsistent, policy. You know that, but persist in lying about it anyway. Why? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/675 "2014-07-25T16:02:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This is emblematic of the kind of thinking I believe permeates the viewpoints agitating for affirming the IRS rule. “We have to, because of the bad effects if we don’t.” > > But that should not be the role of the courts. Congress made a mistake in predicting how the rollout would unfold, and as a result their decision to not give subsidies to federal exchange customers looks retroactively really bad. > > Now, **Richard Parker** has been an able advocate for a different argument: that at worst the statute is ambiguous, and under Chevron the courts should defer to the agency. But that’s not the majority voice I’m seeing in the blogosphere, and in this thread’s beginning. Here the point is much simpler: the court should fix this, because the result if they don’t will be a poorly implemented policy. IIRC Obama pretty much said this is what he was looking for when he nominated Sotomayer. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/676 "2014-07-25T16:08:04Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > IIRC Obama pretty much said this is what he was looking for when he nominated Sotomayer. Nonsense. There are lots of circumstances in the law when it is entirely proper to consider the equities of a decision, or when judges are called upon to assess circumstances that inevitably call upon their experiences with the world (such as whether someone in a particular circumstance is objectively justified in feeling a certain way). Generally speaking, statutory interpretation does not involve this kind of examination of the equities, or judgment call based on common sense and life experience. But desiring someone with the right temperament and experiences to address those areas of law that do call for those kinds of judgments says nothing about whether Obama wanted Sotomayor to color her statutory interpretation decisions with her feelings about optimal social policy. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/677 "2014-07-25T16:20:18Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > IIRC Obama pretty much said this is what he was looking for when he nominated Sotomayer. IIRC he said nothing like that at all. Do you have a cite? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/678 "2014-07-25T16:37:47Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > There are lots of circumstances in the law when it is entirely proper to consider the equities of a decision, or when judges are called upon to assess circumstances that inevitably call upon their experiences with the world (such as whether someone in a particular circumstance is objectively justified in feeling a certain way). Generally speaking, statutory interpretation does not involve this kind of examination of the equities, or judgment call based on common sense and life experience. But desiring someone with the right temperament and experiences to address those areas of law that do call for those kinds of judgments says nothing about whether Obama wanted Sotomayor to color her statutory interpretation decisions with her feelings about optimal social policy. That is not the correct interpretation of [his words](http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2007/07/17/4439758-obama-on-judges-supreme-court?lite), IMO. > [@](#): > > “We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.” If he meant what you say then there’s nothing special about these people over anyone else. He was saying that these people have unique challenges and problems which judges need to consider in applying the law. It appears that Justice Sotomayer herself also [understood it along the same lines](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/sotomayor-i-wouldn-t-approach-the-issue-of-judging-the-way-the-president-does). ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/679 "2014-07-25T17:27:04Z")
I think you’re confused by a couple of things. First, Obama’s discussion of the capacity for empathy is characteristic-neutral. Any given judge could have more or less empathy for another. And empathy is indeed very important to being a good judge. Second, and relatedly but independent, someone with a life experience more similar to “poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled,” can more easily empathize with that person. In Sotomayor, Obama believes he got both things–someone with life experiences very diverse from the sitting Justices, and someone with a significant capacity for empathy. And it is true, of course, that “poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old” have “unique challenges and problems which judges need to consider in applying the law.” That’s why you want a judge with the capacity for empathy, so that you can see the issues from these different points of view. To choose a trivial example, the decision to run away from police approaching your block may seem like probable cause of criminal activity to someone who has never lived somewhere that the police routinely abuse people, or to someone who lacks empathy. Sotomayor was read an out-of-context Obama quote and replied that “He has to explain what he meant by judging. I can only explain what I think judges should do, which is, judges can’t rely on what’s in their heart. They don’t determine the law. Congress makes the laws. The job of a judge is to apply the law. And so, it’s not the heart that compels conclusions in cases, it’s the law. The judge applies the law to the facts before that judge.” That’s exactly right, and doesn’t in any way contradict what I’ve said. In short, you’re conflating a desire to have a judge bend the law out of sympathy with the downtrodden–something Sotomayor disavowed and which Obama was not calling for–with a desire to have a judge correctly apply the law in those minority of situations in which the law calls for judgments that require empathy in order to correctly apply it. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/680 "2014-07-25T17:31:52Z")
Still, it’s not at all unheard-of for a judicial nominee to simply lie to the committee about their views, or even about not having them, in order to let their supporters hear what they want to hear, and keep their opponents from hearing what \*they \*want to hear. E.g. Scalia, Thomas, Alito … And you also seem to be overlooking that the Supremes don’t often \*get \*the cut-and-dried simple-reading-of-the-law cases. Those are resolved at lower court levels. What they do get are the law-\*making \*cases, and for them it very much matters that they be connected to society, not isolated and wordsmithy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614.md?page=33) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614.md?page=35)