GIGO, you’ve already amply demonstrated your willingness to try to re-write the past with respect to you explicit words. I can only imagine the revisionism possible with your “context,” a word that allows liberals to let their imaginations soar.
OK. I assume from your “context” that “I can be wrong” means that if the SCOTUS rules against your position you WILL be wrong, not just that it’s possible. “Can” suggests possibility but not certainty.
I agree that the justices are not that overtly political. Unlike Congressmen, they have to write detailed justifications of their decisions.
How about the simple fact that Congress DOES, in fact, have the power to tax?
Why couldn’t that have been his motivation?
Yes. Wickard v. Filburn compels that result.
I personally haven’t made a prediction. I have no idea what the supreme court will do, although I know what I hope it will do.
However, it seems to me that there have been enough rulings by actual legally trained judges, and opinions by actually legally knowledgeable individuals, that are pro-subsidy, including the pizza analogy mentioned recently; to cast doubt on the way that you’re trying to frame the issue.
That is, you’re trying to frame it as “well, CLEARLY the law says this, and anyone who thinks that the ruling should be otherwise is motivated purely by liberal-hypocrisy-and-ignorance-and-no-respect-for-rule-of-law-and-being-a-whiner”, when a fairer description would be “one portion of the law says, on its surface, one thing, but there are non-ridiculous legal arguments that non-morons could make which suggest that due to the context of the overall law, or circumstantial evidence about the intentions of the laws framers, or both – that the more correct legal decision is to view this as something akin to a typo, and rule in favor of the subsidies. The supreme court might not find those arguments persuasive, but they are not utterly without merit”.
The comical certainty you expressed earlier in the thread, and your sneering dismissal of everyone who disagrees with you, suggests that you would like the situation to be the former, but I think you are honest enough to admit that it’s the latter.
I disagree, in general. I think there’s a very very narrow context in which your whole betting approach actually really demonstrates something, and then a penumbra of contexts in which it demonstrates much less. So here would be the absolutely ideal situation for you, as far as your approach actually meaning something:
Some liberal: I am absolutely certain that we will control both houses of congress after the 2016 election, because reasons
Bricker: Absolutely certain?
SL: absolutey certain
B: Well, then we should bet on it. What amount of money would be good for you? Or would you prefer to bet purely for symbolic bragging rights?
SL: Umm, er, cough cough, evade evade, I hate you
then two threads later
SL: I am absolutely certain that Occupy Wall Street will happen again in 2015
B: Really? Absolutely certain?
SL: Absolutely certain
etc.
But that’s rarely how things actually go. And there are plenty of reasons to not want to bet about things, including:
-thinking it’s tacky
-thinking it’s unethical
-not wanting to have to remember the logistics of it
-not wanting to get into the nitty gritty details of hammering out precise victory conditions and so forth
-just not giving a shit about the SDMB enough to bother
-realizing that the world is a complicated enough place that it’s often impossible to use objective short- to medium- term criteria to measure the effects of complicated social changes
None of which necessarily mean that the person is a liar, or dishonest, or deluded.
It seems that you expect that that will recover your competency on being human, it will not.
You sound like Mojo Yo-yo repeating what it is clear in an attempt to get the opposite.
I can’t say 100% that it wasn’t, but I also don’t think SCOTUS is immune from political pressure. He had four other justices ready to dump the entire law. He’s human. I can’t imagine he wasn’t thinking about what that would do to the Supreme Court. But he also couldn’t roll over. Perhaps it’s coincidence that his decision enabled him to straddle the line, upholding the law while giving conservatives a pretty awesome precedent-setting limitation on the commerce clause. But I think it was just too tidy.
Sure, if you don’t see the individual mandate as pushing the envelope on the commerce clause by forcing the purchase of a product. In Wickard, the farmer was told NOT to do something. Saying that someone HAS to do something is a different matter for which there is no commerce clause precedent.
Indeed, something that some other poster would never understand.
Do you have a driver’s license, adaher?
No. And um, why?
If you did, then you’d know something about having to buy something.
When do you go back to school, kid?
So, yes, you’re celebrating a decision that will harm a very large number of people, based on an utterly twisted, demented, and baseless line of reasoning.
I hold you in the utmost contempt, you disgusting waste of human flesh. It’s times like this when viewpoints like Smapti’s, as sickening as they may be, to hold some merit - because the less political power we allow cretins like you, the better off we, collectively, are. In fact, the more people like you die horribly, the better off we, collectively, are.
You forgot step 6: “Pray that this has any effect on the medical care of the bottom 20%”. Because like every other “republican” “healthcare” “plan” (yes, EVERY ONE OF THOSE NEEDS SCARE QUOTES IN THIS CASE), it all boils down to “pray that the free market works in ways that it has never ever in the past worked”. Oh, I’m sorry, what’s that? Medical work is a time-intensive, extremely-high-skills field which everybody needs? I wish I lived in the same fucking fantasy world you did. Everything is so simple there.
It’s Mojo Jo Jo, you goof.
A) Not the federal government
B) What do you have to buy when you get a drivers’ license? You don’t have to get a car, even. If you’re referring to insurance, again, state requirement, contingent on desiring to drive. Since I don’t desire to drive, I am exempt from the requirement. Which again, is a state requirement. States are limited by their constitutions. The federal government is limited by its constitution. states can usually mandate purchases. The federal government cannot. Especially not a purchase for the privilege of existing.
A) Rule of law. Learn to love it or go somewhere where it doesn’t exist.
B) ACA itself harmed a lot of people in the name of helping even more. Terr sees the consequences of ACA as damaging to peoples’ independence. I too am concerned about the consequences of most Americans relying on direct taxpayer support to supplement their income. You were willing to break some eggs to make your omelet. So are we.
Which is why I didn’t address those words to you.
I didn’t say that stuff.
There are schools of thought about what the proper role of the judiciary is.
It’s not crazy to believe that a judge’s role should be to help create, mold, form, and grow the law in ways that are socially conscious and help society become better.
But it’s also not – in my opinion – consistent with our notions of self-government that judges should help create, mold, form, and grow the law.
So I’m not saying that people that favor the other side of this argument are poopy-head whiners. I am saying that people who are willing to grant judges the power to fix the law by adding to it in this way are ascribing a role to the judiciary that I don’t agree with.
And I’m saying, by implication, that neither would they if the judges stopped agreeing with them.
Comical but correct certainty.
Then let anyone who is offered a bet demur on one of those grounds.
And if I feel like casting doubt on the truth of their claims, I will continue to do so.
Judge Frank Easterbrook, chief judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago, said it better than I can: “It is possible to restate most actions as corresponding inactions with the same effect."
Kinda like, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it?”
You are unfortunately wrong, unless I’ve misunderstood the forthcoming cite. The federal government has indeed been able to compel a purchase, which seems at odds with your claim:
One more time:
This is not a case of clear wording vs. clear purpose. You can characterize it that way, Bricker, but don’t pretend that all your opponents *agree *with that characterization. Attempting to trump clear language based on legislative intent is not what any of the jurists finding against your position have done. Instead they have, correctly in my view, found that the wording of the statute as a whole on this subject is at worst ambiguous or contradictory.
If a piece of legislation has contradictory wording within it, how is it even possible to claim to be certain of the “plain meaning” of the thing?