Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

OT-P: President Obama Booed After Thanking Boston For Kevin Youkilis « CBS Boston

Political loyalties aren’t as strong as team loyalties.


NOTE: As I discussed in the Off-Topics, Politics, and the Redesign thread, in the redesign I’m making non-baseball content opt-in. Until the redesign is done (about two months), I’m designating one thread each month (similar to the basketball and soccer threads) as Off-Topic Politics (OT-P) and will restrict off-topic political conversations to that thread. Off-topic political comments which appear in other threads will be deleted. Since this thread has been highjacked, I’m designating this thread as the June OT-P thread.

Jim Furtado Posted: June 26, 2012 at 06:52 AM | 1396 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: red sox

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 13 of 14 pages ‹ First  < 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 > 
   1201. RobertMachemer Posted: June 30, 2012 at 04:47 PM (#4170168)
The defense presented alternative explanations for those things. Their explanations may not be sufficiently credible to deserve anything but derisive chuckles, but it's not impossible that the man was, in fact, the unluckiest man on the planet, as you suggested. Someone has to be. Saying that Simpson couldn't be is like saying Bonds couldn't have hit so many home runs at his late age through "honest" training -- just because no one else did, doesn't mean that he couldn't have. Although some people find that too incredible, they cannot rightly claim it's 100% impossible.
   1202. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 30, 2012 at 04:49 PM (#4170170)
I am amused that no one arguing that ACA is still unconstitutional is willing to tell us what constitutional means and who determines it. They hedge, backpedal, excuse and obfuscate brilliantly though, so there is that.

Regarding preventative services saving money, it is not that there is no evidence, it is there is mixed evidence. Some of the preventative services clearly save money and some do not. So as a class as it is currently not very effective, but that does not mean it can't or shouldn't be. I will concede it does not appear though that preventative services alone do not "save" money.

Still I don't think that was the question I asked(I know others asked similar things - I won't speak to what they were asking).

Does supplying health insurance (including the preventative services and such) "cost" society more or less than not supplying them the health insurance and providing emergency room and other ad hoc services? Remember that any surplus economic value generated from the newly insured (versus their uninsured state) gets to accrued against the cost of insurance.

That question is much more complex than the simpler preventative care question, which I am willing to concede.
   1203. tshipman Posted: June 30, 2012 at 04:49 PM (#4170171)
No. That group of people was left-wing. Look at the list.


Noted left-wingers like Eugene Volokh, Charles Fried, Ronald Dworkin, Orin Kerr also thought the individual mandate was constitutional.

The fact of the matter is that in 2010, the idea that the bill was unconstitutional was a very minority opinion.
   1204. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 30, 2012 at 04:49 PM (#4170172)
#1201, can you construct a scenario in which the Yankees did not win today? Any possible scenario? Doesn't it have to be an "aliens brainwashed everyone" type of thing?
   1205. Srul Itza Posted: June 30, 2012 at 04:51 PM (#4170174)
How did they cut his finger, for instance? Drug him around the time of the murders and slice his finger open, such that he magically began bleeding all over his property around the time of the murders?


Or, you know, he accidentally cut himself.

People do cut themselves, without necessarily having to murder somebody in order to do it.

People do get unlucky, and do find themselves the victims of coincidence and circumstance. In the real world, any way.
   1206. RobertMachemer Posted: June 30, 2012 at 04:52 PM (#4170176)
Incidentally, I'll point out that when you have to sit in a hospital for days on end(*), it's nice to have some nits to pick and arguments to pore over.

(*) Not for entirely bad reasons. My wife yesterday gave birth to our first child. :-)
   1207. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 30, 2012 at 04:54 PM (#4170178)
(*) Not for entirely bad reasons. My wife yesterday gave birth to our first child. :-)


How can you be sure!?!

:-)

Congrats.
   1208. Morty Causa Posted: June 30, 2012 at 04:58 PM (#4170181)
MLB.com says that the Yankees won today, 4-0. ESPN has it as a win, 4-0. Yahoo Sports has it as a 4-0 win as well. I'm sure people here who watched the game can report that the Yankees won, 4-0.


And who won that game over the the constitutionality of the ACA in the Supreme Court?
   1209. Morty Causa Posted: June 30, 2012 at 05:00 PM (#4170182)
1206:

Neat. Hope everyone is doing well.
   1210. RobertMachemer Posted: June 30, 2012 at 05:07 PM (#4170185)
1204: Well, I've not yet checked the score myself (I've only just heard about it from you), so (for now) there's a minimal number of brains for the aliens to have had to wash...

And, in slightly more seriousness, there are plenty of instances in recent years of one source's saying something incorrectly quickly and its being repeated around the world in millions of places before the mistake is caught. I'm not arguing that's happened here, but it does happen.

And in even more seriousness, the near-absolute certainty of the Yankees score (with tens of thousands of alleged witnesses at the scene of the crime, and millions being hoodwinked by tv and radio) does not make OJ Simpson more certain. The certainty of our knowledge of OJ Simpson's guilt is likely less than or equal to the certainty of the Yankees score: I'd say it's less certain. (I know, you'd say equal).
   1211. asdf1234 Posted: June 30, 2012 at 05:14 PM (#4170187)

A couple years ago Republicans were arguing that crushing a child’s testicles was constitutional. Now they want to argue that denying your child health care when he has leukemia is constitutional.


I'm unaware of any American--Republican, Democrat, or otherwise--who would prevent parents from procuring healthcare for their sick children. Acknowledging humanizing realities would probably cut bj.com readership by 95%, though, whereas shrill breathlessness makes a lot of people a lot of money.
   1212. RobertMachemer Posted: June 30, 2012 at 05:16 PM (#4170188)
My wife yesterday gave birth to our first child. :-)

How can you be sure!?!


For the moment, I can't(*), but I won't lose sleep over it. (Plenty of other reasons to lose sleep ahead).

(*) Unplanned c-section. I was sitting near my wife's head, with a huge cloth barrier in between us and the operation; technically, they had plenty of time to replace our child with Damian or Adam Young or someone else. Also I've not seen any DNA tests yet, and I have an entirely reasonable distrust of geneticists(**) and those bearing gifts.

(**) My wife does research in human genetics(***).

(***) I mean, that's her job. Not just the whole "gave birth to our first child" thing.
   1213. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 30, 2012 at 05:21 PM (#4170190)
No. That group of people was left-wing. Look at the list.

Noted left-wingers like Eugene Volokh, Charles Fried, Ronald Dworkin, Orin Kerr also thought the individual mandate was constitutional.


As it happens, Charles Fried was one of the self-selected Bloomberg respondents. Here's his section of the article:
A party-line vote would prompt questions about political motives because most constitutional scholars thought courts would uphold a mandate before small-government Tea Party activists rallied Republicans around complaints that Congress exceeded its authority to regulate interstate commerce, said Harvard University Law Professor Charles Fried.
“It’s become just a very partisan battle cry on behalf of an argument which a few years ago was thought to be completely bogus,” Fried, who represented Republican President Ronald Reagan’s administration at the Supreme Court as U.S. solicitor general from 1985 to 1989, said in a telephone interview. “For objective observers on all sides, this was thought to be a lousy argument and the only people who were making it were sort of the wing nuts.”


It won't surprise anyone that Fried and his conservative reputation have taken some bashing as a "RINO" and a "defector" in the wake of his assessment of the ACA. At least fellow traitor John Roberts will have someone to play Parcheesi with.
   1214. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 30, 2012 at 05:30 PM (#4170196)
As is Sam when he writes:


Well, at least we've arrived at your original mental error. You're a Platonist of the most idiotic kind.
   1215. Lassus Posted: June 30, 2012 at 05:32 PM (#4170197)
What is the issue, here? If a law is not supported by the constitution, then the law is unconstitutional. Pretty much by definition. If a person or group of people nevertheless hold that the law is constitutional, then those persons are wrong. As is the case here. They are wrong. The law should have been struck down.

I know I'm late, and don't even know if I'm repeating something someone else already said, but I am absolutely 100% confident in stating that these 9 people - yea or nay - know more about interpreting Constitutional law than you do.
   1216. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 30, 2012 at 05:32 PM (#4170198)
What is the issue, here? If a law is not supported by the constitution, then the law is unconstitutional. Pretty much by definition. If a person or group of people nevertheless hold that the law is constitutional, then those persons are wrong. As is the case here. They are wrong. The law should have been struck down.


So sayeth the God-King Ray DiPerna. Who reveres "liberty."
   1217. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 30, 2012 at 05:36 PM (#4170201)
I'm saying the exact opposite: that it's not personal and subjective, but rather objective.


And therein lies your basic irrationality. But hey, you keep dreaming, Pooh Bear.
   1218. villageidiom Posted: June 30, 2012 at 05:38 PM (#4170202)
Ray, just out of interest, what part is not constitutional? Or, more specifcally (in anticipation of "the whole thing is not constitutional") which specific parts of the law make the law unconstitutional? If you find it easier to list the aspects that are constitutional - such as Congress assessing taxes based on income, per the 16th Amendment - feel free to approach it that way.

FWIW, I've read the SCOTUS ruling - I had a long flight back from San Francisco - and was surprised to find I agree with the Chief Justice's ruling. Ultimately, the mandate is not a mandate. It is an income tax to pay for health care costs. The law regulates the administration of health care, which is interstate commerce except in an outdated (and misguided) Paul v. Virginia sense, by standardizing minimum coverage provisions. Per Congress it is necessary and proper to extend that coverage to all citizens, and to provide partial funding of this coverage through income taxes - with an exemption for those who are already funding it through health insurance premiums.

I assume given your prior posts that you find this unconstitutional under Article I Section 8. I'm one of those people who ascribe to the notion that the measures that are "necessary and proper" will vary with time - thus a law passed in 2010 could be necessary and proper, though unnecessary and/or improper in 1810* - and that the arbiter of what is "necessary and proper" to execute the powers of Congress is Congress, the Constitution notwithstanding. Do you disagree with either of these statements? Did I assume wrong, and there is another constitutional clause you find it violates?

* One could argue the opposite is also true: a law necessary in 1810 could be unnecessary in 2010. Section 8 expressly gives Congress power to establish post offices, which given the state of communications was probably necessary in 1810. I'd hardly say it was necessary in 2010.
   1219. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 30, 2012 at 05:44 PM (#4170205)
I am amused that no one arguing that ACA is still unconstitutional is willing to tell us what constitutional means
It means in conformity with the constitution. What part of that confuses you?
and who determines it.
Reality determines itself.
   1220. Morty Causa Posted: June 30, 2012 at 06:00 PM (#4170214)
David, you've just been busted. And you did it on yourself. Congratulations.
   1221. villageidiom Posted: June 30, 2012 at 06:06 PM (#4170216)
Since I can't seem to edit #1218... In case it wasn't clear, Ray, I'm really interested in your (and David's, per #1219) interpretation of this. A majority of people whose job is to know the Constitution just ruled that the "individual mandate" provision of the ACA is in harmony with the Constitution. I've read the decision and related dissents, and follow the majority opinion best. Two dudes on the internet who get upset when their taxes go up disagree with the majority finding. I'm asking you not to be as obtuse as David is in #1219, in an honest attempt to help me understand. Does a specific dissent capture your thoughts? In what specific ways does it not?
   1222. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 30, 2012 at 06:12 PM (#4170220)
A couple years ago Republicans were arguing that crushing a child’s testicles was constitutional. Now they want to argue that denying your child health care when he has leukemia is constitutional.
I won't get into what I think of John Cole generally. I'll just point out that everyone agrees with that last sentence. I don't know whether he's letting snark get in the way of accuracy or whether he genuinely misunderstands; I suspect the latter.
   1223. Spahn Insane Posted: June 30, 2012 at 06:13 PM (#4170221)
Reality determines itself.

Yeah? Cool. We can just do away with the entire judicial branch, then, as it's self-evidently superfluous.
   1224. formerly dp Posted: June 30, 2012 at 06:33 PM (#4170225)
#1221: Ray's trolling. You're feeding him.
   1225. Zipperholes Posted: June 30, 2012 at 06:44 PM (#4170230)
Yeah? Cool. We can just do away with the entire judicial branch, then, as it's self-evidently superfluous.
Any person, particularly a lawyer, arrogant enough to self-assuredly pronounce his interpretation of the Constitution as "reality" isn't to be taken seriously.
   1226. Ron J Posted: June 30, 2012 at 06:57 PM (#4170233)
#1165 Among the people arguing against the Marshall's take in Marbury were Jefferson and Madison -- and of course they were both central figures in the design of the powers and limitations of all parts of the US setup. (And it's worth noting that Madison wanted a system where it was really hard for any branch of the government to get their way over the objections of other branches.

I know I've posted this before, but:

Don't know about Madison, but I do know Jefferson was pretty vocal that Marbury v. Madison was unconstitutional. (quotes that follow are nabbed from the Jefferson on Politics & Judicial Review) There are many more. There are a couple of sections in the Federalist papers that argue pretty much as Marshall did. Hamilton seems to have written those sections, and if anybody involved was likely to have an uncomplicated, "somebody has to have the final say" point of view, Hamilton was a good bet.

"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches." --Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815.

"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823.

"But, you may ask, if the two departments [i.e., federal and state] should claim each the same subject of power, where is the common umpire to decide ultimately between them? In cases of little importance or urgency, the prudence of both parties will keep them aloof from the questionable ground; but if it can neither be avoided nor compromised, a convention of the States must be called to ascribe the doubtful power to that department which they may think best." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

And yes, there's nothing in the constitution that supports Jefferson's proposal either.
   1227. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: June 30, 2012 at 07:10 PM (#4170238)
It strikes me as extraordinarily classless to take shots directly at a poster who you've blocked from even seeing comments from.


Never said I was a role model. Or classy. Or even that I'm not wrong. But I think the next 50 odd posts of responses to him are a nice appendix to my classlessness.

   1228. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 30, 2012 at 07:13 PM (#4170240)
Since I can't seem to edit #1218... In case it wasn't clear, Ray, I'm really interested in your (and David's, per #1219) interpretation of this. A majority of people whose job is to know the Constitution just ruled that the "individual mandate" provision of the ACA is in harmony with the Constitution. I've read the decision and related dissents, and follow the majority opinion best. Two dudes on the internet who get upset when their taxes go up disagree with the majority finding. I'm asking you not to be as obtuse as David is in #1219, in an honest attempt to help me understand. Does a specific dissent capture your thoughts? In what specific ways does it not?
A majority of justices ruled that the mandate could not be upheld under the commerce clause -- leading to a ranting dissent from Ginsburg (*). I find those arguments compelling.

Roberts then joined the four liberals in ruling that the mandate was a tax, except when it wasn't. Even though Congress and the president expressly said it wasn't a tax, and even though there's an actual legal mandate, independent of any financial penalty used to coerce compliance with that mandate, and even though it was neither designed nor intended to raise revenue, but to coerce compliance. I find this view less constitutionally offensive than the claim that it falls within the ambit of the commerce clause. But i find it factually ludicrous. A fine is not a tax just because they're both denominated in money. The dissent eviscerates the argument that a penalty can also be a tax. (I do not argue -- nor does the dissent -- that Congress cannot craft a tax deduction for health insurance to encourage people to have health insurance. I -- and they -- simply argue that the mandate is not such an animal.)

(*) Which the liberal media will never term as such, because only conservative opinions are rants.
   1229. CrosbyBird Posted: June 30, 2012 at 07:23 PM (#4170242)
Can we say with absolute, 100% certainty, that the Yankees won today?

Well, the only reason I have right at this moment to believe that it happened is that you told me it did. I don't see any reason why you'd lie about it but I suppose there is the small possibility that you are mistaken. I do have the ability to verify this, however, and that's the difference.

If so, why can't we say with 100% certainty that OJ killed his wife?

Because there are hundreds of thousands of living eye-witnesses (direct and through video) for the Yankee result and one living eye-witness for the murder.

It's an honest question. Do we need a videotape of it to be sure? Why can't we be sure without that?

Didn't Dewey defeat Truman? Lots of people got some very convincing evidence about that, including a report by a fairly respectable authority. They were mistaken.

To me, the same principle applies in both cases. Deductive reasoning, logical and fact-based conclusions, etc.

But it's not the same principle.

People have been wrongfully convicted in the past. OJ's actual innocence combined with his apparent guilt would require a number of bad actors and remarkable coincidences, but that doesn't mean impossible. It means very (however many times you want to say very) unlikely.

That isn't certainty. There's only one living person who even has the ability to be certain of who killed Nicole Brown Simpson (assuming there was one killer).
   1230. Mayor Blomberg Posted: June 30, 2012 at 07:23 PM (#4170243)
Roberts then joined the four liberals in ruling that the mandate was a tax, except when it wasn't. Even though Congress and the president expressly said it wasn't a tax


reality determines itself, and SCOTUS is its messenger ;)
   1231. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 30, 2012 at 07:25 PM (#4170244)
Reality determines itself.

Yeah? Cool. We can just do away with the entire judicial branch, then, as it's self-evidently superfluous.
I don't think that remotely follows from what I said. We assign the judiciary the role of making these determinations. But the point is that, contra Sam and Morty, there's a right and wrong answer, and the goal of the judiciary is to find it. If there isn't a right or wrong, we might as well do away with the judicial branch. There's no reason to care about the personal opinions of nine people in robes.
   1232. tshipman Posted: June 30, 2012 at 07:40 PM (#4170247)
Roberts then joined the four liberals in ruling that the mandate was a tax, except when it wasn't. Even though Congress and the president expressly said it wasn't a tax, and even though there's an actual legal mandate, independent of any financial penalty used to coerce compliance with that mandate, and even though it was neither designed nor intended to raise revenue, but to coerce compliance. I find this view less constitutionally offensive than the claim that it falls within the ambit of the commerce clause. But i find it factually ludicrous. A fine is not a tax just because they're both denominated in money. The dissent eviscerates the argument that a penalty can also be a tax. (I do not argue -- nor does the dissent -- that Congress cannot craft a tax deduction for health insurance to encourage people to have health insurance. I -- and they -- simply argue that the mandate is not such an animal.)


So even though you agree that Congress *could* impose a tax on people who chose not to have healthcare, you think that the tax that they did impose is not a tax because it is too small?

You should realize that your argument is tied in knots when David Nieporent is arguing that the tax isn't high enough.



There are all sorts of fines, by the way, in the tax code, whose main purpose is to coerce behavior.
   1233. Srul Itza Posted: June 30, 2012 at 07:43 PM (#4170249)
there's a right and wrong answer, and the goal of the judiciary is to find it. If there isn't a right or wrong, we might as well do away with the judicial branch. There's no reason to care about the personal opinions of nine people in robes.


This is horseshit,, it's always been horseshit, and David full well knows it's horseshit.

The interpretation of the constitution and its application to law has always involved policy decisions and always will. Justices are chosen by the President and accepted/rejected by the Senate based on how it is believed they will come down on these policy issues, with the process wrapped up in a kind of Kabuki Drama that purports to hide this reality.

This is a country being governed, not a differential equation being solved.
   1234. Morty Causa Posted: June 30, 2012 at 07:54 PM (#4170251)
And with that in mind (the Court making policy)

Posner's second pass on Slate at the decision
   1235. Morty Causa Posted: June 30, 2012 at 08:15 PM (#4170255)
I don't think that remotely follows from what I said. We assign the judiciary the role of making these determinations. But the point is that, contra Sam and Morty, there's a right and wrong answer, and the goal of the judiciary is to find it. If there isn't a right or wrong, we might as well do away with the judicial branch. There's no reason to care about the personal opinions of nine people in robes.


This right or wrong answer you speak of, how do you get to it and what makes it one or the other?

Judges make decisions all the time, right or wrong, and they stand unless and until they are overruled or reversed. Happens every day everywhere in this country at all levels, and it always has. The only difference with the Supreme Court is that they are almost impossible to gainsay because of an artificial barrier set up originally in the very structure of the system. You or I deciding something, a president or governor using his executive powers to enforce and administer laws, the Congress and legislature enacting laws, administrative agencies promulgating procedures and regulations, and courts (all courts) interpreting and making laws (yes, they do)--it's all the same, except for imprimatur placed on these parties by the system. You and I, however right we might think we are, simply don't have much going, individually, for us in having that sense of right and wrong validated. That's the difference. Anybody can be right. You need the power or it ain't nothing (of course, it's something--we can persuade others and we can organize and join and thus impinge on the real decision-makers, but it ain't our brilliance and rectitude that is dispositive in the decision-making process).
   1236. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 30, 2012 at 08:40 PM (#4170262)
So even though you agree that Congress *could* impose a tax on people who chose not to have healthcare, you think that the tax that they did impose is not a tax because it is too small?
Actually, I said that Congress could give a tax deduction for having health insurance (just as it does for owning a home); I don't think that's precisely the same thing as "taxing people who chose not to have health[insurance]."

I think this is not a tax because (a) it wasn't intended to be a tax, (b) wasn't structured to be a tax, and (c) doesn't function like a tax. The mandate is not a tax. It is a command to purchase health insurance. The fact that the penalty for not doing so is monetary does not turn it into a tax. A city may fine you $100 if you don't keep your lawn mowed. If they collect that fine on April 15, that doesn't turn it into a lawn-mowing-tax. It's still a law and a penalty for violating it. It has nothing to do with the size of the penalty; I don't know how you got that from what I wrote.
   1237. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: June 30, 2012 at 08:40 PM (#4170263)
because only conservative opinions are rants.

In the best spirit of the Koch-funded Super-PAC ads, can I quote you on that?
   1238. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 30, 2012 at 08:56 PM (#4170267)
That isn't certainty. There's only one living person who even has the ability to be certain of who killed Nicole Brown Simpson (assuming there was one killer).
How do we know she's dead?
   1239. tshipman Posted: June 30, 2012 at 09:11 PM (#4170270)
I think this is not a tax because (a) it wasn't intended to be a tax, (b) wasn't structured to be a tax, and (c) doesn't function like a tax. The mandate is not a tax. It is a command to purchase health insurance. The fact that the penalty for not doing so is monetary does not turn it into a tax. A city may fine you $100 if you don't keep your lawn mowed. If they collect that fine on April 15, that doesn't turn it into a lawn-mowing-tax. It's still a law and a penalty for violating it. It has nothing to do with the size of the penalty; I don't know how you got that from what I wrote.


Under your interpretation, the IRS's habit of fining people who are late on their taxes is unconstitutional. After all--it's a mandate designed to coerce.
   1240. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 30, 2012 at 10:23 PM (#4170288)
How did they cut his finger, for instance? Drug him around the time of the murders and slice his finger open, such that he magically began bleeding all over his property around the time of the murders?

Or, you know, he accidentally cut himself.

People do cut themselves, without necessarily having to murder somebody in order to do it.

People do get unlucky, and do find themselves the victims of coincidence and circumstance. In the real world, any way.


Uh huh.

To preface this, I will confirm that I asked for speculation, so speculation on your part is a perfectly valid response to my inquiry.

Now: How in the world is this speculated scenario possible? A bunch of people who didn't know each other conspired immediately to frame a man they didn't know for murder - despite not knowing or caring what in the hell had just happened, or who the real murderer was. And their plan for this was... to plant drops of blood to the left of the footprints, which they planned to testilie later was his DNA, and then hope against hope that he had magically cut himself on his left finger that very same day?

Not. On. This. Planet.

(IIRC, the cut on his left hand even matched up with a slice in the glove.)
   1241. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 30, 2012 at 10:29 PM (#4170289)
Didn't Dewey defeat Truman? Lots of people got some very convincing evidence about that, including a report by a fairly respectable authority. They were mistaken.


My scenario was not a mistaken headline. My scenario was, go investigate whether the Yankees won today - go on the internet, go on tv, ask your friends - and is there any possiblity on god's green earth that your investigation will turn up a mistaken result.

No, there is not.

But it's not the same principle.

People have been wrongfully convicted in the past. OJ's actual innocence combined with his apparent guilt would require a number of bad actors and remarkable coincidences, but that doesn't mean impossible.


Yes, it does. This is not hard. There is absolutely no reason to require personal knowledge in order to be 100% sure of something.
   1242. RobertMachemer Posted: June 30, 2012 at 10:53 PM (#4170299)
There is absolutely no reason to require personal knowledge in order to be 100% sure of something.
Wrong. There's absolutely no reason to require personal knowledge to feel 100% certain of something, but the difference between actual certainty and your feeling of certainty is different.

Toss a coin in the air. Are you 100% certain it will land on either heads or tails? You can't be. There's a non-zero chance it will land on its edge. Of course it's such a negligible chance that we don't bother to even consider it when assigning probabilities to it -- a 99.999999999999% chance is so close to 100% that there's no point in worrying about the 1 in a hundred-trillion chance that it lands on its edge. But it could happen. That's the difference between the feeling of certainty and actual certainty.

   1243. villageidiom Posted: June 30, 2012 at 11:52 PM (#4170320)
David, thanks for the response.

A majority of justices ruled that the mandate could not be upheld under the commerce clause -- leading to a ranting dissent from Ginsburg (*). I find those arguments compelling.
As do I. Congress cannot require someone to engage in economic activity under the commerce clause. They can regulate someone's behavior when they so engage, as it pertains to interstate commerce.

Actually, I said that Congress could give a tax deduction for having health insurance (just as it does for owning a home); I don't think that's precisely the same thing as "taxing people who chose not to have health[insurance]."

I think this is not a tax because (a) it wasn't intended to be a tax, (b) wasn't structured to be a tax, and (c) doesn't function like a tax. The mandate is not a tax. It is a command to purchase health insurance. The fact that the penalty for not doing so is monetary does not turn it into a tax. A city may fine you $100 if you don't keep your lawn mowed. If they collect that fine on April 15, that doesn't turn it into a lawn-mowing-tax. It's still a law and a penalty for violating it.
I guess that's where we disagree. By having the "penalty" vary based on income and written into the income tax calculation, it is structured as an income tax, and it functions as an income tax no less than the tax on not having a child (called the child tax credit), the tax on not having a mortgage (called the mortgage interest deduction), the tax on having too many deductions (the alternative minimum tax), and many others. Heck, there's already a tax on not paying too much for health care (the medical cost deduction in Schedule A, which only kicks in if medical expenses exceed 7.5% of income, or some percentage like that). The mandate isn't even a mandate. Whether you choose to pay for it or not, coverage is provided. That is not a purchase; that's a welfare program. Failure to pay the taxes called for in the ACA is governed the same way any other evasion of income taxes is handled.

That leaves (a), which I find uncompelling in this case. If the law were unclear I would then want to know intent in order to gain clarity. But the law as written - at least the operation of the penalty as an income tax - is pretty clear. The choice of semantics makes it less clear, but if the constitutionality hinges on what they call a tax to make it sound nicer, we're all sunk. Worse, if SCOTUS rules based on what it's called rather than on what it is, then SCOTUS is far too easily manipulated.
   1244. Lassus Posted: June 30, 2012 at 11:52 PM (#4170321)
Yes, it does. This is not hard.

"Similar to the Obamacare case the Supreme Court just ruled on, in fact. Easy as pie. I figured it out just fine. And five of them STILL got it wrong."
   1245. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 01, 2012 at 12:05 AM (#4170332)
The Supreme Court upheld the law, and Roberts called it a tax. The first part of that sentence is a lot more relevant than the second part, since no matter what you choose to call it, the dough has still got to be coughed up one way or the other.

And if Obama wins re-election and gets to replace just one right wing justice, that Commerce clause non-decision that conservatives are all aflutter about will be even more irrelevant the next time a case like this comes up. The bottom line is that the November election is much more important than the nomenclature.
   1246. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 01, 2012 at 12:55 AM (#4170372)
The Supreme Court upheld the law, and Roberts called it a tax. The first part of that sentence is a lot more relevant than the second part, since no matter what you choose to call it, the dough has still got to be coughed up one way or the other.


One idea would be to have those who think this law is constitutional be the ones to cough up the dough.
   1247. Monty Posted: July 01, 2012 at 01:09 AM (#4170377)
One idea would be to have those who think this law is constitutional be the ones to cough up the dough.


Now, see, that seems clearly unconstitutional. It's the law of the land, so everybody gets to participate.
   1248. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 01, 2012 at 01:14 AM (#4170383)
Another way to do this would be to have those who support Obamacare pay for it. There are certainly enough people saying they support it.

But heaven forfend they volunteer to write a check for it.

Of course, if they had _really_ wanted to pay for it, they would have already banded together and done so, and there wouldn't have been any need for the mandate at all. There are how many tens of millions of liberals in this country with the means to open up their wallets and pay?

And yet they didn't.
   1249. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: July 01, 2012 at 01:15 AM (#4170384)
Another way to do this would be to have those who support Obamacare pay for it. There are certainly enough people saying they support it.
They're going to. So are you, since it's the law now.
   1250. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 01, 2012 at 01:34 AM (#4170397)
Was the problem that you guys just weren't organized enough to have someone coming around collecting your checks to distribute to your preferred class of free riders? If I'd known that I'd have headed up the check-collection effort myself.
   1251. Monty Posted: July 01, 2012 at 02:10 AM (#4170417)
Was the problem that you guys just weren't organized enough to have someone coming around collecting your checks to distribute to your preferred class of free riders?


Well, what happened was that a lot of people were of the opinion that in a civilized society, everybody would group together and make sure everyone had healthcare. Then they elected representatives who negotiated among each other until they had a law that could pass. And then the president signed it and the supreme court decided it was constitutional, so now it's the law. I'm surprised you didn't know all that, really. I mean, for someone who's such an expert on whether things are constitutional, you seem really confused about how a democracy works.
   1252. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 01, 2012 at 04:37 AM (#4170419)
and it functions as an income tax no less than the tax on not having a child (called the child tax credit), the tax on not having a mortgage (called the mortgage interest deduction), the tax on having too many deductions (the alternative minimum tax), and many others.
26 USC § 5000A (a) states:
(a) Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage

An applicable individual shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for such month.
That is the mandate, and you won't find any comparable provision for children, mortgages, or any of the "many other" deductions you mention. It makes it illegal to not have insurance. In contrast, it is not illegal to not have children or a mortgage.
   1253. greenback calls it soccer Posted: July 01, 2012 at 05:03 AM (#4170420)
It makes it illegal to not have insurance.

Seeing as the penalty for noncompliance is that your taxes are higher, this seems like a distinction in search of a difference. I think the similarity between "fines" and "taxes" her would be especially relevant for a group of people who spend all their time telling us that bureaucratic hair-splitting gets in the way of optimal, market-based answers.
   1254. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 01, 2012 at 07:31 AM (#4170424)
Well, what happened was that a lot of people were of the opinion that in a civilized society, everybody would group together and make sure everyone had healthcare. Then they elected representatives who negotiated among each other until they had a law that could pass. And then the president signed it and the supreme court decided it was constitutional, so now it's the law. I'm surprised you didn't know all that, really. I mean, for someone who's such an expert on whether things are constitutional, you seem really confused about how a democracy works.

He understands it completely, Monty. He just doesn't like it.
   1255. formerly dp Posted: July 01, 2012 at 09:48 AM (#4170438)
He understands it completely, Monty. He just doesn't like it.

Every time there's a policy he doesn't like, he whines about how unfair it is that he should have to obey and contribute to something he disagrees with. The rest of us pay our taxes without complaining, knowing full well they subsidize things we don't like/disagree with (the Afghan war, prisons to hold drug offenders, and organized religion are my biggest 3 right now), along with things we do like (education, roads, science, parks, ect). That's the part of being an adult in a democratic society Ray just doesn't seem to be able to come to terms with. Every time the outcome doesn't go his way, he wants to take his ball and go home.

Also, the OJ/ACA ruling analogy is one of the dumbest he's ever come up with (no easy feat, considering how high the bar's been set!), and you people should all be ashamed of yourselves for clogging up the intertubes responding.

Do they not teach Wittgenstein in law school?
   1256. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 01, 2012 at 10:45 AM (#4170450)
Well, what happened was that a lot of people were of the opinion that in a civilized society, everybody would group together and make sure everyone had healthcare.


And yet, there was no attempt to "group everyone together" who wanted to pay for it.
   1257. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 01, 2012 at 10:50 AM (#4170451)
Also, the OJ/ACA ruling analogy is one of the dumbest he's ever come up with


I didn't come up with it. Morty did.

Maybe if you try hard enough you can blame me for the Kennedy assasination.
   1258. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 01, 2012 at 10:50 AM (#4170452)
And yet, there was no attempt to "group everyone together" who wanted to pay for it.

Yes, as opposed to the rebate I got on my tax bill when Bush launched the Iraq war.
   1259. formerly dp Posted: July 01, 2012 at 11:11 AM (#4170456)
Maybe if you try hard enough you can blame me for the Kennedy assasination.

You could've never pulled it off. See Asimov's First Law of Robotics, referenced above.

On the other hand, it's a well-known fact that the analogy module on the RDP-7000 has never quite functioned properly.
   1260. Monty Posted: July 01, 2012 at 11:58 AM (#4170473)
He understands it completely, Monty. He just doesn't like it.


Yes, obviously. But if he's going to use the rhetorical trick of wide-eyed bafflement at what's going on around him, I think it's fair to point out the implications.
   1261. Morty Causa Posted: July 01, 2012 at 12:10 PM (#4170480)
I didn't come up with it. Morty did.


???

   1262. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 01, 2012 at 12:15 PM (#4170481)
It was you and Crosby, in #1155 and 1156. In 1156 you said we couldn't know for sure that OJ murdered Nicole, and that's all I responded to.
   1263. Morty Causa Posted: July 01, 2012 at 12:25 PM (#4170489)
At this point the only reason to continue to engage Ray and David is so that virgin lurkers don't get the impression that the two are anything but empty suits. To insure, since Ray and David post so much, that it's understood they've been thoroughly exploded as the frauds they are.

They have been reduced to goal-line stance rant and gibber. They still have not made the most basic legal argument in support of their rank assertions.

Frankly, I'm suprised. When I orginally asked my question, I thought they might have somehthing besides bluster. I thought they'd at least make some kind of a last-ditch philosphical proffer, however pitiful it would be, but they have not even attempted to justify their worldview. Instead, like cowboys at the end of the cattle drive, they want to continue shooting crazily in all directions.
   1264. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 01, 2012 at 12:28 PM (#4170492)
He understands it completely, Monty. He just doesn't like it.

Yes, obviously. But if he's going to use the rhetorical trick of wide-eyed bafflement at what's going on around him, I think it's fair to point out the implications.


Agreed. And I'm still waiting for Ray to argue that the Iraq war should have been funded by voluntary contributions from those who supported it, or to let me know why I shouldn't be able to direct Montgomery County not to use my taxes to protect Tea Party members from robberies.
   1265. Morty Causa Posted: July 01, 2012 at 12:32 PM (#4170494)
It was you and Crosby, in #1155 and 1156. In 1156 you said we couldn't know for sure that OJ murdered Nicole, and that's all I responded to.


Ah. It's been explain to you by a number of people here that your 100% certainty can't be so. I thought you had capitulated on that, for once accceding to the force of reason. You take it back?

Relativism is a #####, Ray. But if not for her, you'll have to go to the prom stag.
   1266. tshipman Posted: July 01, 2012 at 12:47 PM (#4170506)
So one interesting part of this ruling that hasn't been discussed here:

Under the logic of the ruling, Bush's Social Security privatization scheme was unconstitutional, as it mandated activity in financial markets where there previously was none.

That was interesting to me. I don't remember what DN and RDP's position on SS privatization was, but I'd be curious to hear if they agreed with that.
   1267. Morty Causa Posted: July 01, 2012 at 01:00 PM (#4170512)
Ray has to be goading Furtado to close this thread. It's all he's got left.
   1268. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 01, 2012 at 01:06 PM (#4170517)
Reality determines itself.


Precious. It's like you never heard that logical positivism was dead.
   1269. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 01, 2012 at 01:10 PM (#4170520)
But the point is that, contra Sam and Morty, there's a right and wrong answer, and the goal of the judiciary is to find it.


Naive Platonism. See, there's a Form of the Constitutional, and it exists in the Realm of Forms or something, and we're in a cave, with John Roberts doing a stick dance on the wall, right. Pass the bowl, man.
   1270. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 01, 2012 at 01:20 PM (#4170527)
So one interesting part of this ruling that hasn't been discussed here:

Under the logic of the ruling, Bush's Social Security privatization scheme was unconstitutional, as it mandated activity in financial markets where there previously was none.
Many people have made that argument (not here), but it's not correct. It -- that is, the actual bill introduced, as opposed to every possible variation that might have been considered -- did not mandate activity in financial markets. Rather, it permitted it. (You are correct to the extent that if the proposed law had said that people must invest x% of their income in securities of some sort, then it would be unconstitutional on the same lines.)
   1271. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 01, 2012 at 01:22 PM (#4170529)
Re: 1263. Ever notice how Morty keeps trying to declare himself the victor in debates? It's almost as if he realizes that nobody else will ever think that, so he'd better say it himself.
   1272. Morty Causa Posted: July 01, 2012 at 01:24 PM (#4170530)
Prove me wrong, children, prove me wrong.

Your remedy, counsellor, is in your hands. Make your argument wrt constitutionality.

   1273. tshipman Posted: July 01, 2012 at 01:34 PM (#4170538)
Many people have made that argument (not here), but it's not correct. It -- that is, the actual bill introduced, as opposed to every possible variation that might have been considered -- did not mandate activity in financial markets. Rather, it permitted it. (You are correct to the extent that if the proposed law had said that people must invest x% of their income in securities of some sort, then it would be unconstitutional on the same lines.)


I don't care enough to look this up, but I believe the bill mandated a private retirement account.

Edit: You guys (Morty, Sam) should knock it off. There's no point in childishly taunting DN and RDP.
   1274. Morty Causa Posted: July 01, 2012 at 01:37 PM (#4170539)
We've waited now for some 200 plus posts for the two of you to reveal the Truth. Me and a whole bunch of people have put it to you in numerous and various ways. Make your case about what constitutes a constitutional determination, we have coaxed, pleaded, cajoled--and you won't do it. We can only assume now (not with 100% certainty but a great deal of it) that you and Ray have nothing. You just keep rewinding and replaying, ignoring he enormous elephant in the living room. Why? What's the point? It has to be rank politics--getting your way any old way you can. You and Ray have not put up. If you won't, you should have the grace to shut up. Excuse yourself and go to your room. You may take your dessert.
   1275. caprules Posted: July 01, 2012 at 01:46 PM (#4170548)
And yet, there was no attempt to "group everyone together" who wanted to pay for it.


What stopped you from doing so?
   1276. Jim Wisinski Posted: July 01, 2012 at 01:50 PM (#4170553)
Youkilis is off to a pretty poor start in Chicago, .534 OPS with no walks in 23 PAs.

That's what you guys are talking about in this thread, right?
   1277. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 01, 2012 at 02:00 PM (#4170566)
Still waiting for Dave or Ray (or someone else) to explain to me who gets to determine what is constitutional if not the Supreme Court.

And no "Reality" is not an answer, because clearly not everyone here sees reality the same. So for purposes of whether people are going to end up paying the "tax" it has been determined constitutional, right? Ray and Dave might think it is not, but it really really is in fact constitutional and is the law of the land.

And yes we did band together to get those folks insurance. We contributed our time, money, and votes and now they will have insurance. Success! We did band together, pretty much all the Democrats in congress (after hearing from all of us banding together) passed the law and Obama signed it. It cost us time,money, and votes to get that done and we did it.

You may want us to have paid for it directly, but tough luck, you pay for what you want how you want it and we will pay for what we want our way.

Victory lap.
   1278. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: July 01, 2012 at 02:07 PM (#4170575)
Youkilis is off to a pretty poor start in Chicago, .534 OPS with no walks in 23 PAs.


I think there's a chance he's toast. But we'll never be able to know with 100% certainty.

THREADJACK.
   1279. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 01, 2012 at 02:09 PM (#4170577)
Edit: You guys (Morty, Sam) should knock it off. There's no point in childishly taunting DN and RDP.


I'm not taunting them. I'm pointing out the fundamental flaws in their reasoning. And I'm doing so not because it's fun to point out the canyon sized flaws in their thinking, but because it's their fundamental flaws of reasoning which leads them to the absurd conclusions they argue so frequently. I mean, seriously, logical positivism has been dead for damned near a century now.

The reasoning behind the "it's not constitutional, the Court just said it was in error" assumes one of two things. Either they believe there exists a form of Constitutionality floating about in the aether, like the 'perfect triangle' or something, and we're just so soiled down here in the realm of the living that we can't grasp the pristine perfection of It's glory (naive Platonism) or what is "constitutional" is to be determined by edict from the libertarian politburo of David, Ray and Partners, who shall dictate to us plebes what is and what is not to be.

Either they're really running and archaic, outmoded theory of being or their protestations of "defending liberty" doth protest to much. Either way, it's relevant to any ongoing political or philosophical debate with the two.
   1280. Srul Itza At Home Posted: July 01, 2012 at 02:09 PM (#4170579)
Ray has to be goading Furtado to close this thread. It's all he's got left.


That doesn't mean it's a bad idea.
   1281. Benji Gil Gamesh Rises Posted: July 01, 2012 at 02:20 PM (#4170590)
Re: 1263. Ever notice how Morty keeps trying to declare himself the victor in debates? It's almost as if he realizes that nobody else will ever think that, so he'd better say it himself.
I rarely agree with David on political issues, but except for the "at gunpoint" nonsense, I think he generally does a very good job making the case for his political side of things. The last few pages of this thread are a very rare exception to that.
   1282. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 01, 2012 at 02:36 PM (#4170610)
I don't care enough to look this up, but I believe the bill mandated a private retirement account.
The bill allowed one to divert (*) a portion of the social security taxes one paid to a private account. But despite the label "privatization" that some used, it didn't actually eliminate the government social security system. And one was free to simply pay all of those taxes directly to the government (as we currently do) and not privately invest any of them. Sort of a reverse public option, if you will.




(*) I'm not using technical language here; I'm speaking colloquially.
   1283. Monty Posted: July 01, 2012 at 02:43 PM (#4170619)
Ray has to be goading Furtado to close this thread. It's all he's got left.


Does he have money on the Under?
   1284. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 01, 2012 at 02:44 PM (#4170621)
Still waiting for Dave or Ray (or someone else) to explain to me who gets to determine what is constitutional if not the Supreme Court.
We all do. Of course, the Supreme Court's determination has force, because they have the guns to back it up. Nobody disputes that. (But see Andrew Jackson, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.")

The point is not that the Supreme Court's decisions aren't binding on the lower courts and the rest of the government, but that the Supreme Court's decisions can indeed be wrong. (Or did the Constitution permit segregation in 1896, and forbid it in 1954, even though it was the same Constitution?)
   1285. tshipman Posted: July 01, 2012 at 02:59 PM (#4170638)
(Or did the Constitution permit segregation in 1896, and forbid it in 1954, even though it was the same Constitution?)


Yes. The Constitution changes in its interpretation over the years. Cruel and unusual is a good example of this--when the document was written, sentencing 17 year-olds to die was within bounds by society. That changed.

Pretending that a 200 year old document has anything relevant to say about modern intellectual property law, for example, is the height of foolishness.
   1286. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 01, 2012 at 03:06 PM (#4170657)
I'm not taunting them. I'm pointing out the fundamental flaws in their reasoning. And I'm doing so not because it's fun to point out the canyon sized flaws in their thinking, but because it's their fundamental flaws of reasoning which leads them to the absurd conclusions they argue so frequently. I mean, seriously, logical positivism has been dead for damned near a century now.
You're both misunderstanding and misusing the term "legal positivism" and misunderstanding and misusing its place in legal philosophy. What we're discussing is not legal positivism, and legal positivism most certainly has not been dead for a century. You speak of what you do not understand.
   1287. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 01, 2012 at 03:32 PM (#4170692)
We all do. Of course, the Supreme Court's determination has force, because they have the guns to back it up. Nobody disputes that. (But see Andrew Jackson, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.")


Then why the instance by some that it is unconstitutional? We all, through every channel have decided it is. We all, does not mean every single person, I presume?

I accept that some believe it should be unconstitutional, but for right now it is constitutional. It was voted on, passed, signed into law, and so on. At some point reality doesn't care what you want to be true. Many liberals learned (and some didn't) this lesson when Bush beat Gore, no matter what people believed.

Bush really was elected. ACA really is constitutional and the law of the land. I promise.
   1288. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 01, 2012 at 03:34 PM (#4170696)
Yes. The Constitution changes in its interpretation over the years.
The Constitution changes in its interpretation? I don't think the Constitution is doing any interpreting of anything. The Supreme Court changed its interpretation of the Constitution, but the Constitution was static. (*) And since it was static, the Supreme Court's interpretation was wrong one of those two times.

(*) Well, there were changes, but those changes -- the 16th through 22nd amendments -- were irrelevant to the issue.

Cruel and unusual is a good example of this--when the document was written, sentencing 17 year-olds to die was within bounds by society. That changed.
Did it? Or did the whims of 5 people with robes change? (Not just since "when the document was written," but since 1989, when the Court said that it was constitutional to do so.)



Pretending that a 200 year old document has anything relevant to say about modern intellectual property law, for example, is the height of foolishness.
The document is the authorization for intellectual property law, modern or otherwise. Whether 200 years old or 20 or 2000. Whether you like what it has to say is a separate question from whether it says something. Of course, all it says is that Congress has the power to secure exclusive rights in their writings to authors for a limited time. That sounds pretty relevant to modern intellectual property law.
   1289. tshipman Posted: July 01, 2012 at 03:42 PM (#4170702)
Of course, all it says is that Congress has the power to secure exclusive rights in their writings to authors for a limited time. That sounds pretty relevant to modern intellectual property law.


What, exactly, does it have to say about whether form factor and design qualities can be considered viable copyright? What does it say about taps versus swipes?

Did it? Or did the whims of 5 people with robes change? (Not just since "when the document was written," but since 1989, when the Court said that it was constitutional to do so.)


Yes, society changed. The definition of what was written 220 years ago has shifted. Words have changed in meaning, both through interpretation and through society's judgement.
   1290. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 01, 2012 at 03:56 PM (#4170723)
#1288 & 1289: Thus writ small we have the difference between the conservative and progressive view point.
   1291. Tripon Posted: July 01, 2012 at 04:06 PM (#4170740)
Lets talk about something a bit more exciting, like Adventure Time. Or anything else, really.
   1292. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 01, 2012 at 04:12 PM (#4170749)
Still waiting for Dave or Ray (or someone else) to explain to me who gets to determine what is constitutional if not the Supreme Court.


The Supreme Court "gets to" have its determination count. That in no way means that I or anyone else can't have an opinion on the matter. I fail to see why people are having trouble comprehending this. Since when do people just blindly believe that court decisions can't be wrong?

   1293. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 01, 2012 at 04:18 PM (#4170757)
Yes. The Constitution changes in its interpretation over the years. Cruel and unusual is a good example of this--when the document was written, sentencing 17 year-olds to die was within bounds by society. That changed.


Whatever "changed" about this, it most certainly was not the constitution.

Pretending that a 200 year old document has anything relevant to say about modern intellectual property law, for example, is the height of foolishness.


The basis for federal patent and copyright systems is found in Article 1, Section 8, clause 8:

Congress shall have power ... to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.


That is not relevant to, say, the exclusive rights granted to the holder of a patent?
   1294. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 01, 2012 at 05:03 PM (#4170805)
Or did the Constitution permit segregation in 1896, and forbid it in 1954, even though it was the same Constitution?


1. Yes.

2. It wasn't the same Constitution, per se.
   1295. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 01, 2012 at 05:04 PM (#4170806)
You're both misunderstanding and misusing the term "legal positivism" and misunderstanding and misusing its place in legal philosophy.


I haven't said a single word about legal positivism. I've critiqued your outmoded and outdated reliance on logical positivism. Try to keep up.
   1296. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 01, 2012 at 05:04 PM (#4170807)
The point is not that the Supreme Court's decisions aren't binding on the lower courts and the rest of the government, but that the Supreme Court's decisions can indeed be wrong.

Of course the Supreme Court can be "wrong", in the sense that not everyone agrees with their interpretations of the Constitution.

(Or did the Constitution permit segregation in 1896, and forbid it in 1954, even though it was the same Constitution?)

Since the Constitution designates the three branches of government as its everyday spokesman, the answer to that question is clearly "yes".

-----------------------------------------------------

Still waiting for Dave or Ray (or someone else) to explain to me who gets to determine what is constitutional if not the Supreme Court.


The Supreme Court "gets to" have its determination count. That in no way means that I or anyone else can't have an opinion on the matter. I fail to see why people are having trouble comprehending this. Since when do people just blindly believe that court decisions can't be wrong?

Not a single person here has ever questioned your right to disagree with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution. What's inane is your idea that your opinion is some sort of final determinant of Constitutionality in anyone's mind but your own. The only time in which your opinion has any weight at all is when a case is under consideration by the Supreme Court, and the issue is still up in the air. Once it's decided, however, you might as well be Glenn Beck or Cynthia McKinney.

And I'm still waiting for you to tell us why the war in Iraq shouldn't have been funded exclusively by supporters of that war, rather than dragging the objectors into it.
   1297. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 01, 2012 at 05:07 PM (#4170809)
1. Yes.

2. It wasn't the same Constitution, per se.


3. The car oh tree hat woot woot Bernie not painting action trip.

As long as we're saying things that are gibberish.
   1298. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 01, 2012 at 05:38 PM (#4170830)
And I'm still waiting for you to tell us why the war in Iraq shouldn't have been funded exclusively by supporters of that war, rather than dragging the objectors into it.

Guess Ray must not have seen this the first two times around, but then he's never been very good at admitting there's something that he doesn't have a glib answer for.

If individuals should be allowed to reject the ACA mandate without penalty, why shouldn't Iraq war objectors have had a similar right to refuse to let their tax dollars be used for the war?

And please don't try to dodge this by saying "How could anyone know how much of their taxes were being used for it?" You know damn well that in both cases the principle involves coercion at gunpoint.
   1299. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: July 01, 2012 at 07:13 PM (#4170868)
It's almost as if he realizes that nobody else will ever think that, so he'd better say it himself.


Based on the last couple of pages, I think he's pretty well wiped the floor with you.

For the record.
   1300. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: July 01, 2012 at 07:28 PM (#4170872)
ONLY 83 MORE POSTS UNTIL THE OVER!
Page 13 of 14 pages ‹ First  < 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Phil Birnbaum
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 3 OMNICHATTER
(171 - 9:35pm, Oct 24)
Last: Pat Rapper's Delight

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3727 - 9:29pm, Oct 24)
Last: The Id of SugarBear Blanks

NewsblogBuster Olney on Twitter: "Sources: Manager Joe Maddon has exercised an opt-out clause in his contract and is leaving the Tampa Bay Rays immediately."
(76 - 9:25pm, Oct 24)
Last: boteman

NewsblogDid Adam Dunn Ruin Baseball? – The Hardball Times
(70 - 8:58pm, Oct 24)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogCurt Schilling not hiding his scars - ESPN Boston
(17 - 8:40pm, Oct 24)
Last: DJS and the Infinite Sadness

NewsblogRoyals get four AL Gold Glove finalists, but not Lorenzo Cain | The Kansas City Star
(13 - 8:11pm, Oct 24)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogJohn McGrath: The Giants have become the Yankees — obnoxious | The News Tribune
(5 - 8:05pm, Oct 24)
Last: Baldrick

NewsblogBeaneball | Gold Gloves and Coco Crisp's Terrible 2014 Defense
(2 - 7:47pm, Oct 24)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(380 - 7:45pm, Oct 24)
Last: rr

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(915 - 7:37pm, Oct 24)
Last: CWS Keith plans to boo your show at the Apollo

NewsblogHow top World Series players ranked as prospects. | SportsonEarth.com : Jim Callis Article
(16 - 7:29pm, Oct 24)
Last: zonk

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(871 - 7:22pm, Oct 24)
Last: Jim Wisinski

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(67 - 6:38pm, Oct 24)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogThe ‘Little Things’ – The Hardball Times
(2 - 6:34pm, Oct 24)
Last: RMc is a fine piece of cheese

Newsblog9 reasons Hunter Pence is the most interesting man in the World (Series) | For The Win
(15 - 5:31pm, Oct 24)
Last: zonk

Page rendered in 0.6424 seconds
52 querie(s) executed