Post: #1

So I just finished listening to day 1 oral arguments on Obamacare --

http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/03/audio-...-argument/

This argument was about the so-called "standing" issue -- that is, could you in fact bring a case before a court contesting a tax (assuming that the penalty for not buying health insurance, a central part of the Obamacare, is IN FACT a tax, but not a penalty).

Anyway, what was interesting were not the arguments -- the court's going to decide this anyway -- but the dynamic of the females on the court -- Ginsberg, Sotamayor, and Kagan.

At one point, the three of them started speaking at the same time. Roberts, the bemused father, has to step in to let Ginsburg to go first.

That Sotamayor is a pompous harridan. At one point toward the end she is interrupting one of the lawyers, who is running out of time to make a point, and he has to ask "May I finish the thought?" Roberts says "go ahead" -- again, acting in a necessarily paternal fashion.

It was great to see her slammed down, and by a member of the bar, no less.

I think it is no accident that Ginsberg seems the most pleasant of the three -- apparently devoted to her late husband, and children, her career aspirations in her earlier years took a back seat to her family. Contrast that with the celibate Sotamayor or the lesbian Kagan, feminist career-women in the worst sense. Kagan is a classic example of an intellectual lightweight maneuvering adroitly in the purely political realm of academia and leftist politics.

Post: #2

Since when is a woman talking over a person to keep them from making their argument unusual?

Post: #3

Countdown to Brian..

Post: #4

(03-26-2012 02:26 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  So I just finished listening to day 1 oral arguments on Obamacare --
http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/03/audio-...-argument/

I'm very interested to read that but I'm waiting until someone transcribes them so I can read it.

Quote:I think it is no accident that Ginsberg seems the most pleasant of the three -- apparently devoted to her late husband, and children, her career aspirations in her earlier years took a back seat to her family. Contrast that with the celibate Sotamayor or the lesbian Kagan, feminist career-women in the worst sense.

I have a lot of respect for Ruth Ginsburg (and Anthony Kennedy, who's the Justice for my Circuit which is great).

On the other side, Elena Kagan (and Samuel Alito) are two people who in my opinion have no place in SCOTUS. They're not Justices, they're copycats who'd sign off anything which corresponding with their political agenda.

Sotomayor, I haven't yet read any ruling she delivered. I'm sure she did some, but I have no interest in reading farm land or casino cases, so I'm still waiting for one.

Nevertheless the female Justice vote seem to be crucial in this case.

Post: #5

(03-26-2012 03:00 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  Since when is a woman talking over a person to keep them from making their argument unusual?

Of course, that is my point. In a place like the Supreme Court is should never happen, but of course, get 3 females together and it's squawk squawk squawk.

Post: #6

(03-26-2012 03:51 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  [
I'm very interested to read that but I'm waiting until someone transcribes them so I can read it.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_argumen...Monday.pdf

(03-26-2012 03:51 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  I have a lot of respect for Ruth Ginsburg (and Anthony Kennedy, who's the Justice for my Circuit which is great).

On the other side, Elena Kagan (and Samuel Alito) are two people who in my opinion have no place in SCOTUS. They're not Justices, they're copycats who'd sign off anything which corresponding with their political agenda.

Sotomayor, I haven't yet read any ruling she delivered. I'm sure she did some, but I have no interest in reading farm land or casino cases, so I'm still waiting for one.

Nevertheless the female Justice vote seem to be crucial in this case.

Kagan is a lightweight --what has she really accomplished before being on the Supreme Court? Never a judge, never a scholar, never a successful practicing lawyer -- the worst kind of life form, an academic administrator.

Contrast her with, say, Roberts -- a gifted member of the Supreme Court bar, who even the clerks (who get jaded after just a few months) always made a point to watch.

In contrast to Kagan, Alito spent years on the bench, wrote hundreds of opinions. I have read some, and have also heard him speak. He is impressive.

Sotamayor may yet turn out all right given her level of judicial experience, but the minute she became the "wise Latina" (ugh!!)...well, she has a lot of ground to make up.

Post: #7

I'm just curious as to how the federal government expects someone like myself to be financially able to go along with the insurance mandate.

As things are I'm living paycheck to paycheck, making barely enough to cover utilities, groceries, rent, etc. How the hell am I supposed to suddenly be able to afford something like health insurance?

Last time I had it was in 2008, and it cost me $320 per month (as a 20 yr. old). Over $3,600 per year. I don't have that kind of money above and beyond my current expenses.

Post: #8

(03-26-2012 03:01 PM)Roosh Wrote:  Countdown to Brian..

I think Tenderman has got this thread covered.

What could possibly go wrong when you put a bunch of liberal feminists in charge?

Post: #9

Liberals =/= Feminists

I really want to disentangle those two. There are plenty on the political Left (myself included) who are not feminists. A lot on the Right want to lump all the hippie, effeminate, androgynous wimps into our politics. There are manly leftists. We may be a minority this day and age, but we exist, and we're going to take our movement back from this guy.

   

Post: #10

(03-26-2012 04:57 PM)Brian Wrote:  

(03-26-2012 03:01 PM)Roosh Wrote:  Countdown to Brian..

I think Tenderman has got this thread covered.

What could possibly go wrong when you put a bunch of liberal feminists in charge?

I think Tenderman is Brian's grandpa.

Aloha!

Post: #11

(03-26-2012 04:42 PM)MSW2007 Wrote:  I'm just curious as to how the federal government expects someone like myself to be financially able to go along with the insurance mandate.

I think you're supposed to get the credit (i.e. pay lower premium) if you make below the poverty line.
If you make above, well, you need to change your spending priorities. I know some skydivers who claim they cannot afford health insurance, yet they could somehow afford to skydive which ain't cheap.

Post: #12

(03-26-2012 04:20 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_argumen...Monday.pdf

Wow. That was fast! Thank you very much for pointing out!

Quote:Kagan is a lightweight --what has she really accomplished before being on the Supreme Court? Never a judge, never a scholar, never a successful practicing lawyer -- the worst kind of life form, an academic administrator.

Contrast her with, say, Roberts -- a gifted member of the Supreme Court bar, who even the clerks (who get jaded after just a few months) always made a point to watch.

In contrast to Kagan, Alito spent years on the bench, wrote hundreds of opinions. I have read some, and have also heard him speak. He is impressive.

The problem is that Alito wasn't made a Justice just because he was impressive. He was put there by Bush to support the Republican agenda. Same as Kagan was put there to support Democratic agenda. There are other issues with her (she seem to recuse herself in quite a lot of cases which make the split possible).

Still after Gonzales v. Raich I can't see how the SC could limit anything related to interstate commerce while being consistent with that ruling. If the Congress has the authority through the "interstate commerce" clause to regulate someone who cultivated six marijuana plants for personal use, then I don't see what cannot be considered "interstate commerce".

Quote:Sotamayor may yet turn out all right given her level of judicial experience, but the minute she became the "wise Latina" (ugh!!)...well, she has a lot of ground to make up.

Made me thinking that this phrase received much more news coverage than it deserved.

Post: #13

(03-26-2012 08:29 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  I know some skydivers who claim they cannot afford health insurance, yet they could somehow afford to skydive which ain't cheap.

Don't skydivers have to pay a whole lot more than most people for medical insurance? Or the tandem masters or video shhoters, can they even get it?

I know that when I changed my job title from charter captain to entrepreneur my insurance went way down, even though I still drive boats. My high risk occupation was keeping my premium so high.

Will this Obama care stuff now give coverage at the same rate to high risk occupation people? What about smoker's?

Also, is the auditing gonna be as intense with government insurance as it is with private? I know my company's people stalk me and my people sometimes. Are we gonna have government agents creeping around?

Sorry to derail, but you guys sound like experts.

Aloha!

Post: #14

(03-26-2012 08:29 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(03-26-2012 04:42 PM)MSW2007 Wrote:  I'm just curious as to how the federal government expects someone like myself to be financially able to go along with the insurance mandate.

I think you're supposed to get the credit (i.e. pay lower premium) if you make below the poverty line.
If you make above, well, you need to change your spending priorities. I know some skydivers who claim they cannot afford health insurance, yet they could somehow afford to skydive which ain't cheap.

The credit (voucher, or whatever they're going to call it) had better be quite generous, otherwise lots of people still aren't going to be able to afford it.

Even more troubling is that the law mandates purchasing from most for-profit institutions. They'll push premiums as high as people are perceived to be able to handle (see: gas companies)

And I know plenty of people who are technically above the poverty line, that are still struggling. "Low Income" socioeconomic status is regarded as being barely above poverty, and half of the country falls into one category or the other.

Post: #15

(03-26-2012 04:42 PM)MSW2007 Wrote:  I'm just curious as to how the federal government expects someone like myself to be financially able to go along with the insurance mandate.

As things are I'm living paycheck to paycheck, making barely enough to cover utilities, groceries, rent, etc. How the hell am I supposed to suddenly be able to afford something like health insurance?

Last time I had it was in 2008, and it cost me $320 per month (as a 20 yr. old). Over $3,600 per year. I don't have that kind of money above and beyond my current expenses.

Of course, that's the one of the key objectives of Obamacare, isn't it?

To get healthy young people like you, who really don't need anything but the most minimal of health insurance, if any at all, to pony up $200 a month or therabouts so folks like me, in their late 50s, won't have to pay the full cost of a $200,000 intensive care unit episode I am bound to have in the next 15 years or so...right?

It never ceases to amaze me that so many "young people" just went ga ga over Obama, when one of his signature initiatives, Obamacare, is really a proposal to engage in this kind of appalling generational theft.

Meanwhile, here is a telling exchange from today between Alito (dissed above, unfarily) and the Solicitor General Verrilli:

Quote:JUSTICE ALITO: Suppose a person who has been receiving medical care in an emergency room -- has no health insurance but, over the years, goes to the emergency room when the person wants medical care -- goes to the emergency room, and the hospital says, well, fine, you are eligible for Medicaid, enroll in Medicaid. And the person says, no, I don't want that. I want to continue to get -- just get care here from the emergency room. Will the hospital be able to point to the mandate and say, well, you're obligated to enroll?
GENERAL VERRILLI: No, I don't think so, Justice Alito, for the same reason I just gave. I think that the -- that the answer in that situation is that that person, assuming that person -- well, if that person is eligible for Medicaid, they may well not be in a situation where they are going to face any tax penalty and therefore --
JUSTICE ALITO: No, they are not facing the tax penalty.
GENERAL VERRILLI: Right, right.
JUSTICE ALITO: So the hospital will have to continue to give them care and pay for it themselves, and not require them to be enrolled in Medicaid.
GENERAL VERRILLI: Right.

So, here ya go. The government, as represented by Verrilli, says you don't have to sign up, you'll STiLL get emergency room care, and you STILL won't have to pay the penalty/tax for NOT signing up for insurance.

Obamacare...supposed to take care of the "free rider" problem, but in the end, the law is a fucking joke.

I hope at least 5 of the justices take an actual copy of the bill and, after they strike the whole mess down, toss the 2700 pages into an ashcan right in front of the bench.

Wouldn't that be special?

Post: #16

if Obama wins in 2012 the USA is so fucked beyond belief it wont last thru 2016. America is getting the leader it deserves. now go back to watching American Idol.

Post: #17

(03-26-2012 08:53 PM)Kona Wrote:  Don't skydivers have to pay a whole lot more than most people for medical insurance? Or the tandem masters or video shhoters, can they even get it?

No, not at all (I can only speak for CA and AR though). They don't even ask such questions in the enrollment forms here.

But life insurance - hell yeah, most skydivers cannot even get one.

Quote:I know that when I changed my job title from charter captain to entrepreneur my insurance went way down, even though I still drive boats. My high risk occupation was keeping my premium so high.

Health insurance? Interesting. I'd understand life insurance, but health? Riding a bike is likely much more risky health-wise than driving the boats.

Quote:Will this Obama care stuff now give coverage at the same rate to high risk occupation people? What about smoker's?

There are no restrictions on either category yet. Keep in mind that Obamacare is not really giving coverage to anyone, it just requires everyone to have the coverage or pay the fine. Only for those who cannot afford the premiums they'll be enrolled in Medicare.

Quote:Also, is the auditing gonna be as intense with government insurance as it is with private?

Would probably be the same as with Medicaid now.

Post: #18

Brian and Tenderman giving each other reach arounds again (with their right hands of course), fantasizing about taking a time machine back to the end of 2007.

Post: #19

(03-26-2012 11:09 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

(03-26-2012 04:42 PM)MSW2007 Wrote:  I'm just curious as to how the federal government expects someone like myself to be financially able to go along with the insurance mandate.

As things are I'm living paycheck to paycheck, making barely enough to cover utilities, groceries, rent, etc. How the hell am I supposed to suddenly be able to afford something like health insurance?

Last time I had it was in 2008, and it cost me $320 per month (as a 20 yr. old). Over $3,600 per year. I don't have that kind of money above and beyond my current expenses.

Of course, that's the one of the key objectives of Obamacare, isn't it?

To get healthy young people like you, who really don't need anything but the most minimal of health insurance, if any at all, to pony up $200 a month or therabouts so folks like me, in their late 50s, won't have to pay the full cost of a $200,000 intensive care unit episode I am bound to have in the next 15 years or so...right?

It never ceases to amaze me that so many "young people" just went ga ga over Obama, when one of his signature initiatives, Obamacare, is really a proposal to engage in this kind of appalling generational theft.

Meanwhile, here is a telling exchange from today between Alito (dissed above, unfarily) and the Solicitor General Verrilli:

Quote:JUSTICE ALITO: Suppose a person who has been receiving medical care in an emergency room -- has no health insurance but, over the years, goes to the emergency room when the person wants medical care -- goes to the emergency room, and the hospital says, well, fine, you are eligible for Medicaid, enroll in Medicaid. And the person says, no, I don't want that. I want to continue to get -- just get care here from the emergency room. Will the hospital be able to point to the mandate and say, well, you're obligated to enroll?
GENERAL VERRILLI: No, I don't think so, Justice Alito, for the same reason I just gave. I think that the -- that the answer in that situation is that that person, assuming that person -- well, if that person is eligible for Medicaid, they may well not be in a situation where they are going to face any tax penalty and therefore --
JUSTICE ALITO: No, they are not facing the tax penalty.
GENERAL VERRILLI: Right, right.
JUSTICE ALITO: So the hospital will have to continue to give them care and pay for it themselves, and not require them to be enrolled in Medicaid.
GENERAL VERRILLI: Right.

So, here ya go. The government, as represented by Verrilli, says you don't have to sign up, you'll STiLL get emergency room care, and you STILL won't have to pay the penalty/tax for NOT signing up for insurance.

Obamacare...supposed to take care of the "free rider" problem, but in the end, the law is a fucking joke.

I hope at least 5 of the justices take an actual copy of the bill and, after they strike the whole mess down, toss the 2700 pages into an ashcan right in front of the bench.

Wouldn't that be special?

"Wouldn't that be special?"

Nice late 80's SNL Dana Carvey reference

Post: #20

(03-26-2012 11:09 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  To get healthy young people like you, who really don't need anything but the most minimal of health insurance, if any at all, to pony up $200 a month or therabouts so folks like me, in their late 50s, won't have to pay the full cost of a $200,000 intensive care unit episode I am bound to have in the next 15 years or so...right?

The problem now is that if those young people somehow need care, they cannot afford it. Which means you and me are paying for their care right now - through the premiums increase (mine doubled during the last five years while being at the same age bracket). Indeed young people are healthier overall, but they often engage in more risky activities. Some are just unlucky - one of my friends recently had brain surgery, and he is just 26 and otherwise very healthy.

The mandated health insurance is very minimal though.

Quote:It never ceases to amaze me that so many "young people" just went ga ga over Obama, when one of his signature initiatives, Obamacare, is really a proposal to engage in this kind of appalling generational theft.

I disagree here. The insurance simply cannot work if only high-risk people participate in it, this would make premiums unaffordable to anyone. It is like earthquake insurance coverage here in CA which costs $2K a year to get a 500K coverage with 100K(!) deduction. Obviously nobody has it (only 3% of the population is covered which are located in the highest risk areas).

Post: #21

(03-26-2012 08:31 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(03-26-2012 04:20 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_argumen...Monday.pdf

Wow. That was fast! Thank you very much for pointing out!

Quote:Kagan is a lightweight --what has she really accomplished before being on the Supreme Court? Never a judge, never a scholar, never a successful practicing lawyer -- the worst kind of life form, an academic administrator.

Contrast her with, say, Roberts -- a gifted member of the Supreme Court bar, who even the clerks (who get jaded after just a few months) always made a point to watch.

In contrast to Kagan, Alito spent years on the bench, wrote hundreds of opinions. I have read some, and have also heard him speak. He is impressive.

The problem is that Alito wasn't made a Justice just because he was impressive. He was put there by Bush to support the Republican agenda. Same as Kagan was put there to support Democratic agenda. There are other issues with her (she seem to recuse herself in quite a lot of cases which make the split possible).

Still after Gonzales v. Raich I can't see how the SC could limit anything related to interstate commerce while being consistent with that ruling. If the Congress has the authority through the "interstate commerce" clause to regulate someone who cultivated six marijuana plants for personal use, then I don't see what cannot be considered "interstate commerce".

Quote:Sotamayor may yet turn out all right given her level of judicial experience, but the minute she became the "wise Latina" (ugh!!)...well, she has a lot of ground to make up.

Made me thinking that this phrase received much more news coverage than it deserved.

Yes...the "wise latina" thing was lifted out of context from a speech she made. I have it somewhere, but have to dig it out.

Post: #22

(03-27-2012 06:40 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  Yes...the "wise latina" thing was lifted out of context from a speech she made. I have it somewhere, but have to dig it out.

The controversial quote, taken from a New York Beta Times article:

Quote:“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,”

Another gem:

Quote:a video surfaced of Judge Sotomayor asserting in 2005 that a “court of appeals is where policy is made.”

Post: #23

(03-26-2012 05:03 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  Liberals =/= Feminists

I really want to disentangle those two. There are plenty on the political Left (myself included) who are not feminists. A lot on the Right want to lump all the hippie, effeminate, androgynous wimps into our politics. There are manly leftists. We may be a minority this day and age, but we exist, and we're going to take our movement back from this guy.

You and me both, O Great King Of The Two Lands.
But I doubt it will ever happen.

Post: #24

(03-26-2012 05:03 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  I really want to disentangle those two. There are plenty on the political Left (myself included) who are not feminists. A lot on the Right want to lump all the hippie, effeminate, androgynous wimps into our politics. There are manly leftists. We may be a minority this day and age, but we exist, and we're going to take our movement back from this guy.

Good luck with that. Give us a status report from time to time...assuming you have stomach to do that.

The Feminists -- the Title 9ers, the pro-abortioners, and so on -- have become a major strain, if not THE major strain, of modern American leftism.

These are your bedfellows. And, like it or not, you are exchanging bodily fluids with them.

Post: #25

(03-27-2012 08:26 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  The Feminists -- the Title 9ers, the pro-abortioners

Who are those "pro-abortioners"? Is there some movement which encourages people to have abortions, or proposes legislation which would force anyone to get abortion?

Anyway I finished the Tue arguments. Some are just ridiculous:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: It may be a good one. But what I'm concerned about is, once we accept the principle that everybody is in this market, I don't see why Congress's power is limited to regulating the method of payment and doesn't include as it does in any other area.
What other area have we said Congress can regulate this market but only with respect to prices, but only with respect to means of travel? No. Once you're -- once you're in the interstate commerce and can regulate it, pretty much all bets are off.

Now if I were Verrilli I would say, "Dear Justices, just a few years ago you decided that growing six marijuana plants for personal consumption with no intention to sale it or move it anywhere falls under interstate commerce. So all the bets are already off thanks for Justice Rehnquist's court, and everything already falls under interstate commerce."

Maybe I should have submitted amicus brief.

Anyway, any bets? My bet so far is the law will be upheld with 5:4, and it will be interesting split, with Justice Roberts concurring and Justice Kennedy dissenting.