Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Upholds Key Obamacare Subsidies
HughPickens.com writes: Retuers reports that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled 6 — 3 in favor of the nationwide availability of tax subsidies that are crucial to the implementation of President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law, handing a major victory to the president. It marked the second time in three years that the high court ruled against a major challenge to the law brought by conservatives seeking to gut it.
"Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them," wrote Chief Justice Roberts in the majority opinion (PDF). He added that nationwide availability of the credits is required to "avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid." The ruling will come as a major relief to Obama as he seeks to ensure that his legacy legislative achievement is implemented effectively and survives political and legal attacks before he leaves office in early 2017. Justice Antonin Scalia took the relatively rare step of reading a summary of his dissenting opinion from the bench. "We really should start calling the law SCOTUScare," said Scalia referencing the court's earlier decision upholding the constitutionality of the law.
"Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them," wrote Chief Justice Roberts in the majority opinion (PDF). He added that nationwide availability of the credits is required to "avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid." The ruling will come as a major relief to Obama as he seeks to ensure that his legacy legislative achievement is implemented effectively and survives political and legal attacks before he leaves office in early 2017. Justice Antonin Scalia took the relatively rare step of reading a summary of his dissenting opinion from the bench. "We really should start calling the law SCOTUScare," said Scalia referencing the court's earlier decision upholding the constitutionality of the law.
That is of course quite absurd, and the Court's 21 pages of explanation make it no less so.
You would think the answer would be obviousâ"so obvious there would hardly be a need for the Supreme Court to hear a case about it.
I particularly enjoy seeing him jump on the conspiracy bandwagon with this tasty morsel:
But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.
(Understatement, thy name is an opinion on the Afford- able Care Act!)
This little circular snippet is fun as well:
Who would ever have dreamt that âoeExchange established by the Stateâ means âoeExchange established by the State or the Federal Government â?
Considering he is a known fan of constitutional amendments where "state" means "federal government". Of course, here it doesn't matter because .... well, whatever.
The Court's next bit of interpretive jiggery-pokery
For its next defense of the indefensible
Well, it is good to know that he clearly didn't have any strong opinions on the matter before the case made it to the bench. After all, a predetermined judiciary is what justice is all about in this country, is it not? I would say that he was posturing himself for a new career with Fox News, but there is no good reason for him to do that, being as he already has a job for life.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
“Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’ Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.” If SCOTUS can twist these words what stops them from twisting ANY words?
it is the fact that 3 judges actually sided with the idea that this was not legal based on wording.
It means that these 3 did not look at, nor care, about intentions. In addition, even looking at the wording, and taking it to this extreme, shows that these 3 are working hard to legislate via the bench.
These 3 judges are some of the WORST that America has ever had who puts their politcs over the constitution or what our framers wanted.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
A small part of me wanted to see this go down, just to watch the shitstorm that resulted and see the Republicans claim that it wasn't their fault.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
In other words, the majority's decision was based not on the law itself, but on its effects and/or would-be effects.
Not one Congressman has read the law in full — not before it was passed, not after. It is too long and too complicated.
Though it is acceptable for courts to turn to legislative intent sometimes, that's specifically reserved to cases, where the laws language is unclear.
That was not the case here — as written, the law clearly only allows subsidies for residents of those states, that have set up "health exchanges" of their own. Whether that was the intent of the law-makers or not is irrelevant. The court's decision is wrong.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
This astonishing track record bears repeating: Only 16 out of 50 states chose to create state health exchanges, even though the law stated that by not doing the citizens of the remaining 34 states would not get federal subsidies (the whole point of the Supreme Court case). Yet, of those 16 that did create exchanges, more than half have failed to work or have gone over budget, after wasting more than $4 billion in federal funds. On top of that, three are now under investigation.
If SCOTUS can twist these words what stops them from twisting ANY words?
Except that if "State", only means individual states, then many of the constitutional amendments - including the second - fall apart on the federal level.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I hope the next president does away with this BS act! Tax people that don't have health care, and charge the rest an insane amount to have health care. 0.o This act needs to go.
Well, it is a short term victory. However, come 2017 when the next CIC gets into the White House (it would be nice to have Bernie, but most likely Hillary will win the Dem vote, and everyone winds up voting for the guy on the right just because they don't want her in office), it will be someone with an (R) trailing their name.
Changes to the ACA:
Out go the protections for pre-existing conditions.
Out go rate caps and scales by income.
The result? Pre-AHCA insurance company rates that can be hiked for almost any reason... However, in the past, you -could- "go bare" and risk disaster. Now, you will have to pay their hyper-inflated premiums... or go to jail.
Unemployed? No excuse.
The private prisons are going to love this, since there will be a good section of the US population that will be facing long prison times... and when they get out and still can't afford the premiums, they go back in for more prison time.
Realistically, since the US pays twice as much as any other country for health care, all this crap needs to be tossed and we move to a single payer system, but with the people in office, it won't be surprising to see the existing ACA (which is a good thing now) will get perverted into a way to legally toss a good section of the population in debtor's prison, and keep them there for life.
Oh well... Vagrancy laws part 2.0.
In other words, the majority's decision was based not on the law itself, but on its effects and/or would-be effects.
Yes. In the real world SCOTUS looks closely at what impact their decision will have. "not based on the law itself" is a ridiculous criticism--they are being *asked* what the law is, and part of deciding what the law is when there is any ambiguity or potentially counterintuitive result is to figure out what are the consequences if the law is way X vs. way Y.
That's why SCOTUS often considers "administrability" when they are making decisions. It's a fundamental part of how the court operates. Would you rather they kill people Congress didn't intend to kill or that they say "this is a typo and in the context of what you are doing, it's pretty damn clear you would have intended this to mean X if you had bothered to read the law you wrote."
There is zero ambiguity here in terms of what Congress intended; it's clear that a law was poorly drafted. This is a not a maybe-they-meant-Y situation, this is a "hey, they accidentally used a sentence that probably says Y."
If SCOTUS can twist these words what stops them from twisting ANY words?
Except that if "State", only means individual states, then many of the constitutional amendments - including the second - fall apart on the federal level.
That's why in laws (especially 2400 page monstrosities like this one) they have sections on Definitions to specifically say whether "State" means "50 States", "50 States + US Territories like Puerto Rico", or "50 States + Territories + District of Columbia", etc.
In this case, the law was originally drafted to deal with State-level exchanges. A Federal exchange was an afterthought one they didn't expect/hope would be used. (And according to Gruber, was intentionally left out of this clause.) Whatever the case, the courts should be rewriting when it's a clear cut, cut-and-dried case of an error. As long as there's a plausible rationale for why the text is the way it is ("To discourage States from relying on the Federal exchange, at the cost of the Federal funding that we'd otherwise be giving to the citizens of that State to help with the insurance fee we're forcing them to pay"), we should be relying on the text.
Typos can indeed lead to ludicrous conclusions that can be corrected judicially. This was not one of them.
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
Viewing these words as a mistake is the simplest interpretation of the law. The other option is to re-interpret lots of other sections, and change the law to be at odds with how the people writing it meant for it to be interpreted.
The writers of the law clearly wanted to establish state exchanges for any state that wanted them, and a federal exchange for any state that didn't want to roll its own, and that all of these exchanges do the same thing. This might not be apparent in that little snippet, but it's very much apparent in the text of the law itself.
It's not as though the SCOTUS majority is pulling meaning out of nowhere for just this passage. Quite the contrary, they'd have had to re-interpret a lot of text to infer that the law was written so as to exclude subsidies for the federal exchange.
Since the employer mandate has not kicked in yet I am pretty sure that is not the ACAs fault.
I also do not believe that yur coverage went up that much.
Also an illegal alien cannot get healhcare for free in general, you are making shit up.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
The court doesn't need to twist anything. They use week established rules of construction. This is necessary because a single textual document will never convey every nuance.
"We begin with the familiar canon of statutory construction that the starting point for interpreting a statute is the language of the statute itself. Absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.:" Consumer Product Safety Commission et al. v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. et al.,447 U.S. 102 (1980).
But the language of the statue has to be understood as a whole.
For example, noscitur a sociis ("a word is known by the company it keeps"):
When a word is ambiguous, its meaning may be determined by reference to the rest of the statute.
That's exactly what the Court did here, and is exactly what most reasonable humans do in establishing the meaning of any word or words.
Gov Brown voted it in dipstick.
So when you go to interpret a law, you can't count on what it says anymore?
If the law intended for the federal government to subsidize all plans on exchanges established by the states OR the federal government, why didn't it say so?
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Except there's a definitions section to the law that defines the State as "one of the 50 states". But go ahead. Ignore that.
is stupid enough to leave the health of its citizens up to the vagaries of the profit motive? How many assets does a a nation have that are more valuable than a healthy population?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
No, it is a twisted interpretation of the law. "The state" is used seven times in the law and this is the only instance where the court has decided it must mean the sate and the federal government.
So in other words I was correct, in general, an illegal alien cannot get free healthcare, it is only in the limits of the state of CA.... In addition the bill you are talking about is mostly targeted to minors, who you cannot really blame for their parents breaking the law.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
14th Amendment is what fixes those, as it has for the past 150 years.
Ultimately I believe that the court ruled incorrectly here. The way this should have been handled is that the court should have ruled based on the law as written. The thing is, if our political system wasn't so messed up it would have never reached the supreme court. Congress would have simply fixed the law itself to clarify the actual intent and life would have gone on. Although it is pretty clear what the intent was in this circumstance I think it is dangerous to allow for that broad of discretion for the judicial branch.
Like how drug laws are enforced under "insterstate commerce" even when nothing has crossed a state line.
keep those lies a-rollin'
trollin', trollin', trollin', rawhide!
http://cdn4.everyjoe.com/wp-co...
Table-ized A.I.
... I'm not a fan of Obamacare. In fact, that's putting it lightly. However, I think the court got it right on this one. Trying to get a part of the law thrown out on a technicality in an effort to get the law to implode on itself and hurt the American people is not the right way to get the law repealed.
The way to get the law repealed is for Congress to repeal it. If they don't have the majority yet to do it, then we need to win people (and seats in Congress) over to our side.
Note: my criticism does not not apply to the earlier challenge which, while perhaps weaker, was more legitimate in questioning the legality of the law on constitutional grounds. This challenge amounted to "nuh uh because you wrote State but you should have written State or Federal, hah!" Be glad you don't live in a world where courts always rule strictly on literal interpretations. That would be a really, really shitty world.
Typos can indeed lead to ludicrous conclusions that can be corrected judicially. This was not one of them.
Apparently, six justices disagree with you...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
"the courts should be rewriting "
And thus harkens the downfall of the Republic. Hyperbole? Perhaps... and I hope. I have my fears.
The job of the federal courts is not to re-write law but to affirm or strike down laws which are or are not Constitutional.
It's the job of Congress to write (and maybe re-write when necessary) laws. If a law fell short the first time through it should *NOT* be the job of the courts to fill in the gaps.
Unfortunately, Congress is ceding power to both the Executive and Legislative that can only weaken our rights and liberty. They are becoming less and less relevant.
Yes, I think you win that title. Those three judges read the law and interpreted it on how it was written. That is obviously the WORST thing that has ever happened in American politics.
The fact that I actually read a comment that said this and is marked insightful shows that /. has become completely worthless. Just last week I had a program that didn't work and the computer was the worst thing to every technologically run in America ever because the computer should have interpreted my intentions and not what the program actually told it to do.
lol
"The other option is to re-interpret lots of other sections, and change the law to be at odds with how the people writing it meant for it to be interpreted"
I think I read that book in high-school. Wasn't it called 1984?
From today forward, Congress may write laws to state "We intend for this bill to make [some given thing] better." and it shall fall to the Supreme Court to interpret that into reality. Whatever makes it work is within the power of the Supreme Court, as we've seen today. If they can say that the intention was the opposite of the language used, and enforce their interpretation of that intention, they can say anything. Brave new world!
Tis I: Me.
Imagine states scrambling to set Exchanges, vet software/platforms, etc;
The media coverage would have skewered the Republicans over a hot flame.
This decision actually helps the Republicans in 2016. The SCOTUS gave them a pass.
The people who would lose their insurance are more likely to be white, employed, from the South and high school graduates.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
The intent matters just as much as the plain language. Scalia himself has defended that intent matters more than plain language multiple times including pulling out 300 year old dictionaries. The affirming verdict itself quotes Scalia from the last ruling where he completely contradicts what he claims in this dissent. He's an inconsistent little troll, he rules whatever he wants, not what the constitution requires.
If I wanted to wade through political quagmire I would have gone to huffington post, foxnews or zerohedge
Wickard vs Filburn.
There ya go.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Also an illegal alien cannot get healhcare for free in general, you are making shit up.
The heck they can't. Just walk into an emergency room and voilà, free healthcare without anybody checking if you can pay or not. It's HOW this thing works you know. Yea, the ER can come after you for payment later, but they cannot refuse you lifesaving care and just dump you out on the street.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
As long as there's a plausible rationale for why the text is the way it is ...
The reason the text is the way it is, is because of the election of Scott Brown to fill the seat of the recently deceased Ted Kennedy. The Democrats lost their 60 seat super-majority required to override a filibuster. So congress had to pass the bill "as is" with no changes or edits. It was either a flawed law or no law.
Too bad it's not a victory for people. Maybe those who don't have to pay for it, but oh - that's Medicaid - not ACA.
When Big G finally kills off private healthcare, I can look forward to over 50% increases in premiums.. That what our options were on the market this year - 53% increase in cost for private insurance with comparable coverage.
SCOTUS on the scrotum.
The writers of the law clearly wanted to establish state exchanges for any state that wanted them, and a federal exchange for any state that didn't want to roll its own, and that all of these exchanges do the same thing.
Johnathan Gruber didn't seem to think so. He bragged that the idea was to intimidate conservative states into exchanges by withholding subsidies from citizens of states which declined to create them.
If they were to opt for constitutional on this then they end up with government shutdowns. That makes it a cakewalk for those with an agenda as the list of big pharma bitches grows.
"The job of the federal courts is not to re-write law but to affirm or strike down laws which are or are not Constitutional."
Actually, Judicial Review is NOT in the Constitution. But when it happened it was accepted and so it is now enshrined.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
The act uses the term "the state", not "a state". The opinion of authors was that if they had a chance to rewrite it, they'd make it clear "the state" referred to the federal government. Scalia himself has reasoned cases on Congressional acts that said the entire act must be looked at to get the meaning of the terms. He cannot very well turn around now and claim the narrow interpretation he wants simply because he doesn't like the act.
What is written is not what is meant by intent, what is meant by intent is what the law was meant to accomplish. In this case if you remove all context from those few lines you can make it look like the intent was not to provide subsidies to these states (if you ignore that the word state has dual meaning in legislation), however when you look at the full bill, or heavens forbid, talk to the drafters of the law, you can see that the intent was to provide the credits either way.
If intent is King, why is ACA more than two sentences long--much less 2400 pages long? The simple talking point of "Everyone must have healthcare" is good 'nuff. Anyone that files suit against the implementation will lose, the courts citing "intent".
obamacare is obviously grotesque
but what it does is plainly acknowledge that american healthcare is an grossly inefficient piece of shit. our system is insanely expensive and people avoid basic healthcare. because of the misguided notion that capitalism has anything to do with a basic right. there is no competition in healthcare, it is a *natural monopoly* (look it up, retards). all we will ever get in the system that makes believe there is competition, because free market fairies and unicorns, is rent seeking parasites funneling money off for no added benefit, and paying congresscritters top keep it that way. and of course propagandized fox news morons believing the scaremongering ignorance that they shovel out should we try to get a better system
all of our social and economic peers spend A TENTH OR LESS WHAT WE SPEND, AND HAVE FAR BETTER HEALTH OUTCOMES. ask any canadian, british, french, german, japanese, australian: our system scares the hell out of them, they shake their heads in horror at what americans have to put up with. it's not about "freedom" unless you wish to be free from quality low cost healthcare (if you don't want to buy health insurance, you're basically saying you want to be a freeloader and avoid your bill... an irresponsible ignorant douchebag, not a freedom fighter)
republicans kick and scream. and offer nothing better
because they don't want to admit that they are ideologically bankrupt on the question. instead of admitting they are wrong, they have no problem with americans having extremely expensive, shoddy healthcare, and dying too early and broke. there's your "death panels": lower middle class? fuck you, go bankrupt and die
again, obamacare is horribly imperfect, but it's the first step and a basic acknowledgment of how broken our system is
and now we must take the other 1,000 steps we need to take to reach single payer universal healthcare, the only fucking answer that makes any fucking sense on the subject of a functional healthcare system
i'm sorry so many americans are so fucking stupid and ideologically blinded that they would rather have extremely expensive healthcare or just plain die, rather taen understand or admit the fucking obvious. but you morons won't hold us back from what is obvious to anyone moderately intelligent on the topic and not propagandized by right leaning media lies
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
He cannot very well turn around now and claim the narrow interpretation he wants simply because he doesn't like the act.
Well, he can because he did. But doing so exposes his fundamental intellectual dishonesty.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
USA should be known as Illegal States of America specifically because it is not a nation of laws but a nation of men.
The 3 judges who went against the ILLEGAL law were trying to preserve the nation of laws, the people on the bench who for political reasons upheld the illegal law have crossed the t and dotted the i for you.
USA doesn't exist, now it's ISA.
You can't handle the truth.
"The act uses the term "the state", not "a state". "
Maybe elsewhere, but not in the context that was being litigated: "established by a State".
Implied powers. Their authority is spelled out in the constitution -- how it was to be exercised was not. But that's true for all three branches of our government.
Who cares, they are not spending their own money.
It is all coming from the 1% or some other schmucks in IT.
There are more Poor to vote and keep them in office than there are workers to vote them out.
Typos can indeed lead to ludicrous conclusions that can be corrected judicially. This was not one of them.
Apparently, six justices disagree with you...
But if six judges disagreed with you, and they happened to rule against your favored political party, would you placidly accept their decision?
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
I'm curious as to which part of the Second falls apart on the Federal level. I'm assuming it's "shall not be infringed", but I'm not sure what that has to do with the "State".
Note that "being necessary to a free State" does not actually imply that the Federal Constitution is any less bound by "shall not be infringed" (since the Second is a modification of the FEDERAL Constitution, not a State Constitution).
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
As long as there's a plausible rationale for why the text is the way it is ...
The reason the text is the way it is, is because of the election of Scott Brown to fill the seat of the recently deceased Ted Kennedy. The Democrats lost their 60 seat super-majority required to override a filibuster. So congress had to pass the bill "as is" with no changes or edits. It was either a flawed law or no law.
Regardless, I'm pretty sure they passed it without reading it. And not because, say, they wouldn't have passed it if they did; rather, because the bill as a whole is entirely unreadable.
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
Unfortunately, Congress is ceding power to both the Executive and Legislative that can only weaken our rights and liberty. They are becoming less and less relevant.
Uh, unless things have changed around here, Congress IS the Legislative branch of the US Federal government.
"A little misunderstanding? Galileo and the Pope had a little misunderstanding."
Members of congress are too busy to actually write laws because they are trying to get reelected so they get that sweet pension.
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
The heck they can't. Just walk into an emergency room and voilà, free healthcare without anybody checking if you can pay or not. I
really? so cancer patients can get chemotherapy in the emergency room? pregnant women get checkups in the emergency room? what universe do you live in?
Thank you. It's amazing how blind and stupid some people are. They must live in some secret place where they don't see this crap going on.
Let's watch a bunch of non-lawyers argue which ignorant lack of understanding of the law shows why the Supreme Court is wrong.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Ayup. I mis-typed. That should read "Congress is ceding power to both the Executive and Judiciary".
My bad.
Repeal the 17th amendment. At least you would have one house that isn't campaigning all the type.
IMO, the 17th broke a fundamental safeguard of our republic.
And I think misunderstand his point: Congress IS ceding its power to the other branches when it lets the Executive dynamically rewrite the law to suit its whims and the Judiciary to do likewise.
Also an illegal alien cannot get healhcare for free in general, you are making shit up.
The heck they can't. Just walk into an emergency room.
Of course you *could* be trying to say that getting treated in an emergency room isn't "health care" but you'd be wrong..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Seems straightforward if that is what it says.
Why did they need to use other arguments than that one?
If that is what says, it is prima facie and there would have been no case.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
"Johnathan Gruber? Who's that?" - Obama administration
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
I find it interesting that the principles of the affordable care act were almost entirely conceived of and proposed by the Republican part back in the 90s in response to the Clinton health care reform initiative which failed. And no matter what they claim, a Republican administration in Mass (Romney) largely implemented much of the ACA on a state level and it worked very well indeed. Why it would suddenly become so repulsive to Republicans I do not know.
During the time of the passage of the ACA, my coworker, who was going through cancer treatment and other health issues read the bill in its entirety and he felt it was not at all perfect but it was better than what we had. A lot of the FUD going around (still is) was just that. He was comfortable with the bill as passed, even if the majority of congress critters seemed to not be familiar with it. I'm glad the supreme court upheld it. It the Republicrats want to get rid of it, they need to do it the proper way, and replace it with something better. No, going back to the status quo will not work. If they would propose a better, more equitable plan, I would support it. But so far they seem to be offering absolutely nothing. If they manage to get the White House, it will be over a campaign promise to roll things back to the good old days and then do absolutely nothing. The last part sounds good actually.
During the FUD and absolute crap going around during the passage of the ACA, many people talked about socialized systems in other countries (who was it that said they'd move to Canada to get away from the ACA?). The irony of all that is that between the VA, Medicare, and Medicaid, the US gov't runs the largest socialized healthcare system in the world. And it's one of the most expensive. Maybe the gov't should merge them all together into one program, and then require all federal employees, including elected officials and the president and all his advisors to use it as their primary health care insurance provider and system. You can bet all the problems would clear up in a a matter of months! And it just might end up being a really good program.
Read his actual dissent: he did in fact consider this argument and the rest of the text and finds the text strongly support the plaintiffs. He provides numerous examples.
So you are pointing to specific cases to prove a general case? or did you not see the part that said "in general"
When you cant win, ad hominem.
I have shown quotes, the claim and my answer. I think your claim was wrong... Full Stop...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I hope those claiming to be coders here know more about code than they do about the law. Political hack quacks like Scalia have no regard for the court, the law or anything but their ideology.
"Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them,"
"Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve profit margins for health insurance companies, healthcare clinics and hospitals, not to help poor or sick people."
Most of the comments here seem to be saying that the case was decided incorrectly because the text of the law was clear and the intent doesn't matter. However, there are lots of other cases where the text of the law is equally clear and yet SCOTUS has ruled that intent matters. Let's start with the First Amendment. It's obvious that slander laws run afoul of the plain text of the First Amendment. Which part of "Congress shall make no law..." is unclear? None at all. Yet SCOTUS has ruled slander laws are allowed, as well as laws preventing inciting a riot (e.g., yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater).
For another example near and dear to conservatives' hearts, consider the Second Amendment. The Roberts court has ruled (District of Columbia vs. Heller, 2008) that the Second Amendment establishes an individual right to carry arms, despite the fact the amendment only mentions carrying arms in the context of a militia.
With the current case, the intent of the law was clear (and most of the drafters are still around to ask), so that's what SCOTUS used. Judges aren't just implementations of parsing algorithms that spit out yes or no results based on the text of the laws.
Like the Supreme Court ruling in 2000 about the Florida electoral votes? (Whether it was the correct decision or not, lots of people thought it wasn't.)
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
If you interpret the word 'State' in this way, there is another section in the ACA that would mean no one is eligible to sign up for the federal exchange AT ALL. Clearly congress did not intend to create a federal exchange that no one was allowed to sign up for. The word has to be interpreted in context of the entire bill, not just a couple of cherry-picked sections.
Good luck with that.
I think you'd find that most people like to vote for their senators.
You'd need 2/3 of each house and 38 states to ratify this amendment. Ain't gonna happen.
Down with the Opulent Minority. It's time has passed.
I suppose you also want white male landowners with a net worth > 10 million USD in today's dollars to only have the vote like it was prior to 1832.
I don't think that was GP's idea of "in general". Anybody can show up at an emergency room and get stabilizing treatment for a life-threatening condition, but getting, say, an eighth-month gynecological exam isn't covered.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
No but having only taxpayers able to vote would likely be a good idea.
Its doing neither. Congress fucked up when it wrote the PPACA, so now the Judiciary branch made the decision that America lives in the real world, and its not in its interest to screw over a significant population because Congress wrote a provision ambiguously. There is a different standard in civil contract law, but even it does not always side with a plaintiff's interpretation of how an agreement is to be implemented.
If the wording in the PPACA is unacceptably flawed, there is nothing to stop the Congress from amending the law to reflect its intended wording. It should be a cakewalk, considering the Republican party controls both houses. Guess what? Your congressman/senator is choosing to accept the SCOTUS ruling.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
This ruling was wrong. Scalia, whether you like him or hate him, is right.
Perhaps, but a month later, if she shows up in labor the delivery WILL be done without any requirement to have insurance or evidence that she has the ability to pay.
It may not be full health care, but it's health care and it's expensive and other's pay the costs for it though higher fees, which is the very thing the ACA was *supposed* to fix, but hasn't and if truth be told, can't fix.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Typos can indeed lead to ludicrous conclusions that can be corrected judicially. This was not one of them.
Apparently, six justices disagree with you...
But if six judges disagreed with you, and they happened to rule against your favored political party, would you placidly accept their decision?
Yes. That's how this works. Part of the function of the Supreme Court is to do what *they* interpret as correct WRT to the law and Constitution, not the most popular or the wishes of the masses or majority.
Congress is free to amend or write a new law - but if they weren't spoiled, selfish children, they would have done that already. They could have easily clarified this, but didn't because Republicans would have used the opportunity to destroy the ACA rather than helping to make it even a little better -- especially important in light of the *fact* that the Republicans have no alternative to the ACA, except to get rid of it. Don't know why they don't want to keep the poor and middle class from getting health insurance...
The person who brought this particular suit is special kind of asshole as he has admitted he has no personal standing as he is already eligible for VA or Medicare coverage - so nice for them to have *his* Universal Healthcare Coverage taken care of...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Whatever the case, the courts should be rewriting when it's a clear cut, cut-and-dried case of an error.
Such as this one.
Now THERE is a ruling that could use a corrective law or amendment.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
Except that if "State", only means individual states, then many of the constitutional amendments - including the second - fall apart on the federal level.
If the meaning of words don't matter any more, then sure, those pesky constitutional obstructions fall apart.
We should care when someone, yet again, plays language games merely to protect a government program. Because the scheme can not only be applied to things you favor, but also things you don't, like universal surveillance or the next war. And for some reason, it always seems to favor the powers that be, when that game is played.
The Second Amendment doesn't contain the word "state" in referring to who has the right -- it contains the word "people" (and the phrase "not be infringed") when describing who retains the right. How does any definition of state (no matter what it is) affect the definition of the word "people"?
Consider if an amendment read something like "A well informed public being essential to effective democratic processes within a state, the right of the people to speak freely shall not be infringed". Would you argue that the right to speak freely was granted to the state, not retained by the people?
As well, through (an admittedly somewhat creative) interpretation of the 14th amendment, most of the individual rights listed in the Bill of Rights have been "incorporated" onto inferior governments (state, regional, local). This now includes the Second Amendment (McDonald v. Chicago) in the wake of Heller validating that the right is one the people have -- just like it says in the plain text.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
Unfortunately, Congress is ceding power to both the Executive and Legislative that can only weaken our rights and liberty.
Only if you assume that the one who ceded can't uncede.
Though every problem comes back to FPP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... would be a much better system, but the one thing both parties agree on is they don't want electoral change. It weakens their monopoly, so it'll never happen.
Abolish the elections as held today. Have the MMP system adopted, with electorate winners making up the Senate, and list members making up the House. Though, most systems using MMP don't have two houses, so I expect this would cause major problems, but the problems could be good. The smaller parties will be concentrated in the House, so the Senate would represent the big parties. That was the original intent, but didn't work out as expected, when parties trumped the checks and balances, and judges worked with executives and legislators to break the intentions, leading to what we have now. So I don't know if the original idea was ever a stable one, in a world of politics.
Learn to love Alaska
You are aware, right, of why the 17th Amendment exists?
But this was always the case! And it drove much of the costs - anyone could go to the emergency room and be treated, but they were not guaranteed to pay so everyone else was already bearing the cost.
All the ACA does is make the cost explicit. Now everyone (mostly) has insurance of some form or other the cost is levelled across the whole country - and the cost of care has fallen slightly as a result.
Rational thought is the only true freedom
If you're going to go ahead and ignore the clear intent of the law, scrap the whole thing, and take away insurance from millions of people over what's essentially a typo, then OK, I get to go ahead ignore the definition of 'state'.
"Its doing neither."
Yes it is. With regards to the judiciary, they are deliberately affirming judicial nominations who believe in the idea of re-interpreting the constitution -- and in the extreme, basically writing law themselves.
" so now the Judiciary branch made the decision that America lives in the real world"
Sorry, but when they can bend over backwards and re-define eminent domain to allow the government to take private property from a citizen and force a sale to another private citizen or entity for the sole purpose of the enrichment of the government coffers we've jumped the shark.
IMO, the 17th Amendment did no such thing.
That's explicitly legal. The federal highway funds have been similarly held hostage for 50+ years, without a successful challenge. Forcing speed limits, seatbelt laws, drinking laws, and all sorts of other "unconstitutional" things, by extorting the states to do them themselves.
Learn to love Alaska
Implied powers. Their authority is spelled out in the constitution -- how it was to be exercised was not. But that's true for all three branches of our government.
When I think of the elder Statesmen in Congress having to administer law in a technological age they are ill equipped to understand, I am worrying about a generational change. A Senator who grew up in the '50s or '60s, for example, who's spent a great deal of his free time getting reelected the last two or three decades is probably not the best equipped guy to determine internet protocol... sadly, he might do just that under the advisement of a clever lobbyist.
Now, just imagine how life was in 1780's America. There is no pfocking way Benjamin, Samuel, John(s), Thomas, Alexander, and George saw this future.
Many tenets are implied powers. Without the room for some evolution in a Republic's lawmaking, a representative government will not long survive.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
The Bush/Gore case was, I think, the most legally flawed SCOTUS decision of the past 25 years. Today's ruling is, however, in the top 20 of most legally flawed SCOTUS decisions of the past 25 years.
They should have just refused to hear the Bush/Gore case when it was presented and, if four justices voted to grant cert, the rest should have ruled in the majority that the case was, at that time, not ripe. Yes, in a few weeks, they would likely have had a legitimate case before them and the correct legal decision would have resulted in the same outcome. When the second case came before them, the deadline for certification would have passed and the court should have ruled THEN that the only valid indication of the will of the voters was the original count since no recount had met the criteria set down in the law and Florida must either certify that count or refuse to certify any count (and a few weeks later possibly be faced with addressing what the law says about how to handle the case of a state refusing to certify election results for a Presidential election).
At least the Bush/Gore case was likely to become a Constitutional issue where SCOTUS appropriately would exercise more latitude because the Constitution generally lacks much detail and because there is no realistic way to change it quickly to add detail that was left out or resolve ambiguities. Federal statutory law, on the other hand, is easy to change (consider how many words are in bill signed each year by the President) and can be done quickly without election or concurrence of the states. In this PPACA case, the court substituted their opinion instead of letting the legislative branch "fix" the law if they felt it needed "fixing".
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
The Federal courts also legitimately decide cases of statutory law, not only those based on Constitutional issues.
To pick an extreme example (which would get dispatched by the lower level courts and never get accepted by SCOTUS), if a Federal law said that no one shall possess cannabis but someone claimed that they possessed "pot", "weed", or "grass", not "cannabis" so were not guilty of the crime, the courts would rule against them and allow charges for possession of cannabis to stand. That's clearly an interpretation of statutory Federal law and within the Federal courts' purview.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
Shesh... I'll make ONE more comment...
Unless you are being sarcastic.... The ACA did NOT make insurance universal...Far from it. It's had a small net positive effect, but it's been a HUGE expense for the few additional covered people it produced. The 70 million target that was touted as the "uninsured" in the USA during the bill's marketing still largely exists, they don't have insurance and are not paying the fines either...
But this was about ILLGEALS, who don't file taxes, won't be fined, are NOT entitled to insurance subsidies though the ACA and are NOT getting insurance coverage anyway. They get free emergency health care just by showing up to the emergency room.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
You do know there was a reason the 17th Amendment came about don't you?
State legislature races were becoming one issue elections - namely who they would vote for for Senator.
Until this month, 6 justices agreed with him, now, 4 of 7 disagree. This was a split verdict.
So in other words I was correct, in general, an illegal alien cannot get free healthcare, it is only in the limits of the state of CA...
CA is the most populous state and has the most illegal aliens, so in general, illegal aliens can get free health care... and driver's licenses, too.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Could you cite that please? I'd truly like to see that.
“By eliminating their exemption from ObamaCare, they will see firsthand what the American people are forced to live with,” he added.
Actually, the case was about the phrase "established by the state."
http://www.npr.org/2015/06/25/417435290/breaking-down-the-supreme-court-ruling-on-obamacare-subsidies
President Ronald Reagan signed a law that required all hospital emergency rooms, throughout the entire country, to provide all necessary care to anyone that needed it, without consideration for cost or payment.
In other words, you are full of shit, and have been wrong for more than 30 years. An illegal alien can walk into an ER and get the same care that any other US citizen or resident would get, rich or poor, criminal or not.
This ruling is actually very good for individual freedom. I'm happy to see that the supreme court made an intelligent ruling. I'm 54 and semi-retired. I have pre-existing conditions and if we went back to the way things used to work, I'd have to become employed full time again, or emigrate to the UK where I also
have citizenship.
I hate everything American employment stands for. Age discrimination, employment-at-will, invention agreements, covenants not to compete, and binding arbitration to name a few.
what's it like being a lying shitbag?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Can you say 'Veto'
Fine. Then it's a perfectly legal method for the Federal government to try to extort the State government into providing exchanges. One that should have backfired when the States refused to do so. I'm glad you agree with the minority in today's decision.
My insurance has gone up over $200 a month in the last two years, and my company has switched insurance providers twice to limit the increase to only $200 a month.
And the whole healthcare system has turned into a money game. Just had a baby, so I have some reference points for this. Over $25,000 in line item costs, of which the hospital reduces by almost half because an insurance company is paying for it. So $25,000 becomes $12,000. Insurance then pays $8000, and I pay $4000. (On top of my $500/mo and my business paying ~1200/month). If I could get the 50% reduction I'd be better off not having insurance and saving well.
Why does the hospital discount it for an insurance company, but not me if I want to pay for it directly? Why give away half your revenue because of a third party? So you can claim that much more of a loss for someone who doesn't pay is the only thing I can think of. So stop allowing medical providers to have agreements with insurance providers, let the costs be real costs. Stop the scamming.
As a liberal leaning independent I completely agree with you. Most Amendments clarify or guarantee rights that are not addressed in the constitution, the 17th flat out dumps an entire section of Article I. Usually not a good idea to change the fundamental functioning of the way the government works when it was designed to work a specific way.
What are 7 day established rules of construction?
I don't know what you are talking about and evidently neither do you. Congress has voted to remove that wording several times now. Even Obama references those attempts.
And no. Congress was definitely not ambiguous in the wording on this. Supports made mention of it as a tool to force republican governors to create state exchanges when promoting the law to supporters.
This is twice now that scotus has changed plain language wording or ignored it altogether in this law in order to keep it alive.
because of cronyism in state legislatures and a period of time where people thought they could amend their way out of corrupt practices? They could have just passed laws in each state that gave harsh fines and better oversight of the process that the state governments were involved in.
It has been well documented that it was not a 'typo.' Try something else. Maybe another heaping of 'millions of poor people' will convince somebody of something or other.
the 17th was put in place so there would be less corruption and more accountability to the people instead of statehouse cronies
you actually get the intent of the 17th by getting money out of elections
which i am not saying is easy, but you're historically ignorant if you don't understand why the 17th amendment was ever adopted. it is for reasons far worse than what you are complaining about that are the result of the 17th
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
exactly, well said
-Chief Justice Roberts
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/...
all Scalia has is a bunch of mental masturbatory snark. the guy thinks he is so clever and witty, you can tell he likes listening to himself. thing is, he is a witty wordsmith, actually
but he's fucking wrong on the substance of the matter, and that's what really matters
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
All of those things have to do with driving. The court has rules recently that you can not use federal funds like the highway fund to bully states to do something that they do not want to do when the funds have no relationship to the act that is being compelled.
In this PPACA case, the court substituted their opinion instead of letting the legislative branch "fix" the law if they felt it needed "fixing".
WRONG. In this case, the court refused to substitute their opinion over that of the regulatory body charged with enforcement of the tax subsidies instead.
Sigh.. the law defines what cannabis is not you. You cannot claim a hammer and pribar is a key so you didn't break and enter. Calling something by a different name doesn't change what it is. A rose by any other name. ...
Its not interpreting federal law, it is interpreting the circumstances.
genuine freedom is not the "freedom" to be irresponsible
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I'm glad you agree with the minority in today's decision.
I agree with the decision in a vacuum, but no decision is made in a vacuum. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that it's fine for the feds to extort unconstitutional laws from the states. For consistency, the majority was right. If you are a corporate whore who changes your mind depending on ideology, not law, then the minority was right.
Learn to love Alaska
My insurance has gone up over $200 a month in the last two years, and my company has switched insurance providers twice to limit the increase to only $200 a month.
That's nothing, mine went from under $200 a month for a Major Medical Policy to over $950 for the same policy. I then got a new policy on the exchange, the cheapest one possible was about $350 a month, more than double my previous premium, and it doesn't cover my kids, and the deductibles are higher.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Sure it is to a degree. There was something about a court case in which they inverted it and said that the feds can only withhold additional funds.
But if the point is true and legal, it shows that the court got it wrong.
If the job of the SCOTUS is striking down what is not Constitutional, then the ACA should not be stricken. Vague or ambiguous is not sui generis unconstitutional.
No, changing the drinking age from 18 to 21 is not related to driving.
Learn to love Alaska
Please implement a simple timer in your "update" algorithm. I was reading the summary of this article, and had used the arrow keys to move the page less than 30 seconds ago, and the fucking page updated. This has happened a lot and this is the first time I'm complaining.
If someone is interacting with the page, they don't want it to jump around on them! Fuck you, Dice.
You can make the claim - the courts can rule against you. In doing so, they are doing elementary interpretation of the law.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
No, they didn't disagree with him. They rewrote the law because it didn't say what they wanted it to say.
What are they forced to live with? Their employer providing healthcare (cause that is part of Obamacare)
You should read the majority opinion -- at which time you will discover you couldn't be more wrong.
This decision decided that the traditional Chevron analysis wasn't applicable here and and instead invoked a less well developed legal theory and therefore didn't rely on the IRS's interpretation at all. They explicitly formed their own interpretation.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
We are talking about a form slavery here folks (people only being able to get health coverage through employment, and employers calling the shots), only now it's called wage slavery. The last time there was a conflict like this it did result in a civil war.
It's highly likely there'd be second civil war before an article V convention is called. Congress ain't going to allow it. Not only that, regardless of the right thinking they could control an Article V convention, they better be careful what they wish for.
And happening so fast, I can't explain it.
We have this court now, pretty much ignoring the constitution on this law, it really should have been a given, but they seemed more interested in not causing chaos for a lot of people that would have been thrown off the federal dole on this.
We've seen the Rebel flag suddenly become a horrible symbol of oppression, and hate and vilified all of a sudden and yanked even from online stores and private individual sales on ebay.
It is now going so far that there seems to be a rush to destroy history, and take down all statues or anything of confederate soldiers...things no one had ever previously thought were any type of hate symbol, but merely marks of history. I'm shocked in New Orleans there is actual talk of taking down the statue and renaming Lee Circle, an icon of the city for many many many years. That and other statues and landmarks of the city. I mean, if you want to re-write history, lets mow down the French Quarter entirely, I mean lots of slaves were sold through there and used there...etc. Where does it stop?
I'm just shocked at the way folks here are laying down and how fast this is rolling over tradition and history, especially things that have NEVER before been thought to be racist or troubling for anyone....but now the baby is being thrown out with the bath. History...if nothing else, it should remain as a reminder.
The old saying goes...."those that forget history are bound to repeat it".
I'm just flabbergasted that some things are moving this fast, and this isn't all for the better.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
You keep repeating this BS. The ACA says what it means by "State". Read the case background on scotusblog or something. It won't take long, I promise. Then you can go back to trying to sound smart.
We frequently have a 5-4 split just because what you assert is not plainly obvious to all 9 Judges. The intent matters to some, interpreting the Constitution as a "living document" that must be interpreted in modern times. Not everyone sees it that way.
We have arguments about why the following text appears, and what it was intended to mean, does mean, or if we can just ignore the meaning completely: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"
If the intent matters, then we can't ignore those words, but many do.
I think you have interpreted the Constitution in your own way here. If the ruling were somehow prescribed, we wouldn't need judges to interpret. But the Constitution explicitly set them up to do exactly that.
So what you said is "I disagree". And thanks, but you're not helping.
The day that the courts, or any part of the government for that matter, can openly "reinterpret" a basic word to mean something completely different is a dark day indeed. Love or hate the ACA, you can't argue with a straight face that the provision in question, "enrolled in through an exchange established by the state" means anything but what it says. An exchange established by any one of the 50 states. Either congress/president should have to correct the wording through a legislative process or simply accept that states that didn't establish exchanges would not receive subsidies. Arguing "intent" that goes directly against the wording of the passed law itself sets a dangerous precedent.
The govt argued it was effectively a typo and when the authors wrote the section on subsidies they didn't have in mind the definition in the definitions section and obviously congress meant it to apply to exchanges set by state or the Feds. There was wording that said "such Exchange" and the govt argued that referred to an exchange set up in either way. SCOTUS bought it because they wanted to, just like the first ACA case.
You seem to be confused about the purpose of a court.
Let's say the authors did intend it as you say. Did the representatives voting on it understand that when it said what it said, it really meant something else? How about the people who decided whether to call their reps in support or opposition? How about the citizens and companies planning to comply with the law: did they know that what it said wasn't really what the authors meant?
Do you see the problem here? There is a legitimate enough debate for this to make it to SCOTUS and you're saying we should let it go because obviously the authors meant it that way.
Except John Gruber is on video explaining how the states who try to stop Obamacare by refusing to set up an exchange will get pummeled by the people who realize they are paying taxes for Obamacare but are not eligible for any of the tax credits because their dumb Republican governor played politics and didn't set up a state exchange.
So what really happened here is revisionism after the fact, at worst, and definitely no consensus amongst authors, reps voting, and the citizens deciding on support.
Oh, that would be so awesome!
Yes, indeed. You should read up then on the other case handed down today, the one where Scalia _refused_ to adopt the clear text of the Fair Housing Act. The lesson is it's all politics, not at all some balls-and-strikes impartially-reasoned judicial decision.
Unfortunately, Congress is ceding power to both the Executive and Legislative that can only weaken our rights and liberty. They are becoming less and less relevant.
I know, the Republic comes to a halt when Congress cedes power to the Legislative. Wait, what?!?! Mama always told me, it is better to remain silent and be thought....
Don't you mean: "Don't know why they want to keep the poor and middle class..."?
If so, I'll answer: I don't want to keep them from anything THAT THEY PAY FOR (or get as a side effect of their job, etc.).
We've seen the Rebel flag suddenly become a horrible symbol of oppression, and hate and vilified all of a sudden and yanked even from online stores and private individual sales on ebay.
It has always been a horrible symbol of racism, oppression and hate. What surprises me is there are still people pretending it not.
Obamacare SUCKS!!!!!!!!! Any company you work for can no longer afford to offer you any healthcare packages! Obamacare slits your throat then charges you half your income to help yourself by going to the hospital!!!!
This wasn't a 5-4 split, it was 6-3. We have these splits because some judges play partisan politics and there are sometimes genuine disagreement about meanings.
To rule as Scalia would have liked would have made a mockery of the other 2500 pages. You had a single sentence, nay a single word that was incorrect against 2500 pages that said the exact opposite. To take this one word as paramount over the remaining 2500 pages is the real mockery.
This is EXACTLY what Roberts said in the opinion. The one word is an error, and because of that it's clear the meaning is ambiguous when you consider the totality of the law. Because of that ambiguity they then turn to the intent of the law per their own precedent and the intent is clear, particularly in the rest of this rather large law. To take this word as paramount over the remainder of the law would have required them to rewrite entire chapters of the law.
There's nothing partisan about this ruling. If the ACA was going to fall it should have fell with the first ruling. Bringing in a typo from a single sentence to eviscerate a law that spans 2500 pages is insanity and that would have been partisan.
Chief Justice Roberts is correct. The intent was to improve health insurance markets. That being said, the law is an abysmal failure. The purpose of the Supreme Court is not to fix laws. It is not to bail out the President or Congress. What the court did was uphold the idea of a law, and it's effect is to uphold a shitty law, that never should have been passed in the first place. Much better would have been to uphold the law as written and forced Congress to have another go.
Bullshit. The other 2500 pages were not relevant to the matter in front of the court. The reason the court even heard this case was because the law was so specific in the relevant section. If the other 2500 said the exact opposite, it would have obviously been seen as a typo, and it never would have made it to the court.
The ACA is a broken grotesque mess.
And yet it is still massively superior to the American Healthcare system beforehand.
Therefore, it is simply a tentative step forward, whose end game is single payer universal healthcare under the Democrat who wins 2016.
We have to take the first step, as weak as it is. And not in a million years can anyone claim that the ACA should not have happened, because the status quo beforehand was abysmal, and no one else has anything better to offer that would get past the screaming braindead hordes on the right that actually want expensive shoddy healthcare for some reason.
"The right doesn't want that!"
So offer something better.
crickets
Single payer universal healthcare is the endgame. There simply is no other real solution to our broken fucked up healthcare system.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
So you did what the guy who wrote "the State" instead of "the State or Secretary" did? Why shouldn't we hold you to your mistake, instead of the correction? It's pretty obvious what you meant, but what if slashdot editors banned you before you had a chance to correct yourself, should we stand on a strict, literal interpretation of your comment? Or can we all agree that you made a simple mistake, and interpret your words as you obviously meant them?
Because you want Senators to be bought on the floor of statehouses? Now they at least have to go through the motions of serving their constituents.
The Confederacy flag always was a horrible symbol of oppression. People just got a little reminder of just what it actually stands for. I guess some of them don't like the real face of the Confederacy so much.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Visit the parking lot at a hospital near the maternity ward in a border town, look at the license plates. The last time I was there, it was 90% mexican license plates with the mexicans in the car waiting for the expected mom to go into labor. Free healthcare and a ticket for free welfare as soon as it's born.
I think people have somewhat overreacted.. But you mean the flag of the *LOSING SIDE* that was fighting for *at least partially* the continued existence of slavery?
Yes, that's legal. The point is that Johnathan Gruber showed that the intent of the law was for state exchanges with state subsidies to force the conservative states into having exchanges. Thus, the supreme court ruled incorrectly.
I don't know where you are from, but it has never been that in my life, nor the people I've known and grown up with all my life.
It has never been thought of or used in a racist or threatening manner growing up in the south in my experience.
It was just a common symbol of living in the south, southern pride...a backdrop at a Lynyrd Skynyrd concert...the top of the General Lee.
None of those things are racist or hateful....
I think this uproar is just caused mostly by one sad picture of that jackass that killed those innocent church goers and had one picture I"ve seen of him holding a small Rebel Battle Flag....but now it is being fanned by the 24/7 news channels (coincidentally all based in the northeast) that have to have something new to churn up the viewers, and it is the "next" bandwagon for the social medial addicted millenials to jump on board with as the next cause for some form of 'justice".
What's next? Do we mow down all symbols of the civil war? Anything confederate history related? Anything slave related?
Do we mow down the French Quarter in New Orleans? I mean, a LOT of slaves were bought, sold and owned there. What about the Thomas Jefferson? He was quite the slave owner...should we burn down Monticello? Raze the Jefferson memorial in DC? Change the money?
Where does it stop?
This rebel flag being a symbol of oppression, racism or hate is a VERY RECENT thing....if you think otherwise, you are not a very old person and have not grown up with the experience of it and knowing it of the past 50+ years.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
As someone that has grown up in the south and is more than a few years old...no, that is not the case.
This uproar and associated meanings with the Rebel Battle Flag is a recent occurrence. I grew up with it and it was never that way....it was a backdrop for a Lynyrd Skynryd concert, or the top of the General Lee. Harmless symbols of southern pride.
All this because one jackass that killed a bunch of innocent people had a picture of him holding a small version of it. Sad...but these days, it takes so very little to have the social media addicts jump on the bandwagon of the month....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
This may surprise you, but Gruber does not get a pen at markup and his intentions are not legislative intentions.
One little tidbit that you are either ignorant to or ignoring on purpose is that:
A. The ACA has a definition of terms section and EXPLICITLY DEFINES 'STATE' as one of the 50 states or the district of Columbia and explicitly differentiates it from the Federal government.
B. We have multiple recorded statements by one of the actual authors of the law stating that the intent of the law was to punish states who did not create the exchange by preventing their citizens from getting the federal subsidy, and therefore create a backlash against states not participating in the ACA by setting up an exchange.
So as long as you ignore those facts, and the plain language of the law, then sure, you can pull whatever ruling you want out of your ass, just realize that this is anathema to the function of the courts, which are supposed to faithfully and accurately interpret the law as it is written, not telepathically interpret the intent after the fact, especially when it is directly opposite to the letter of the law because it is convenient politically.
Posting as AC because there are way too many narrow-minded down-modders these days on /.
That seems a lot more complex of an argument if the document says what Bartlies says is in the definitions section.
So why are they arguing that if the definitions section makes it clear without a typo?
(A typo an author of the bill says is not there, that is exactly what they intended to do: punish states that did not set up an Exchange)
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
are you sure you know what sui generis means?
He ignores the greater context of the act though. He assumes once a word is used in one place, it has to mean the same everywhere. He forgets that natural language is fault-tolerant, and permits errors to be corrected by the reader. He wants to be a nit-picking schoolteacher or grammar nazi who knows exactly what you mean, but wants to fail you because of a spelling mistake or accidental misuse.
It can happen
Open insurance across state lines. Free market. Tariffs on foreign health care products. End the welfare. Suck it!
The two points you miss again stupid is:
1) The Congress fucked up the wording in a sentence in the law they cobbled together. When Congress fucks up, the Supreme Court determines how to reasonably interpret what the law is required to do. That's not judicial overreach. This is how the real world works.
2) The Supreme Court can't do crap once the Republican House proposes revisions to "correct" the intent of the adjudicated provision, and the Republican Senate votes to pass it on to the POTUS for signing. The Congress still has the power to correct its fuckup.
Learn how the Constitution of the US and the real world works!
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
The lesson is it's all politics, not at all some balls-and-strikes impartially-reasoned judicial decision.
A lesson you would do well to ignore. Those in power can afford to be hypocrites when it comes to the law.
Why oh why don't you people get that YOU PAY FOR IT ANYWAY. In the magical world you want to live in, all parties work and contribute and are paid and benefited.
In reality, some people can't work, some people don't work, and some people barely work enough to get the minimum.
You're not going to change these behaviors, and these people are going to get medical treatments. If you don't support universal health insurance, you'll end up subsidizing these people at the hospital instead.
If my house gets set on fire, the fire department comes for free. The police track the arsonist for free. Why, then, do I pay for the ambulance to come? Do you advocate privatizing police for better policework? Privatizing fire departments for better response time? Why don't you pay for your awesome doctors, while I'll happily wait a few weeks to see my primary care doc. I'm not worried, but I am paying $600 month because people like you are trying to stick it to people that aren't affected by your contempt in the slightest. Just pay the taxes and accept that some people are lazy douchebags, knowing you're actually saving money in b the long run.
If it's that obvious, why did Delaware decide to set up no-state-level exchange and use the Federal one? Why did Oregon decide to give up on their Exchange, and use the Federal one? It beggars belief that these two states which voted for Obama actually wanted to lock their people out from the subsidies.
Federal laws all have confusing language. The IRS, for example, had to set up a page specifically devoted to explaining the many related and subtly different meanings of the phrase "qualifying child." If you actually read the definitions section, it's pretty clear that the Federal Exchange is supposed to substitute for the State Exchange where neccesary, and thewrefore it fullfills the role of "Exchange established by the State" perfectly well.
The regulatory agency rules and implementation conflicted with the legislation as passed. The words Democrsts passed were clear, subsidies only for customers on the state exchanges.
The IRS decided to give all customers, those on the state exchanges and those on the federal exchanges both subsidies.
SCOTUS argued that yes, as written it should go onecway, but darn it, we know what they would have wanted the law to be, so we'll just declare plain language 'ambiguous' and then invert the meaning of the words to suit our desired outcome.
Wait until the next head of the EPA decides to ratchet down legislated limits on pollutants because they know what the politicians really wanted, or when the IRS starts rolling back tax rates because they think the higher tax rates are detrimental to the economy...
Ken
That's only a redefinition of eminent domain if you hadn't been paying attention for the past 30 years. In the 80s Coleman Young bulldozed an entire neighborhood, gave it to GM, and the Courts barely even granted the neighbors a hearing.
The Constitution says you get paid fair market price when they take your stuff, it does not say they can;t give that stuff to some random dude with a business plan.
The bill, as written, was designed to force states to do the federal government's bidding - namely expand Medicare and establish state-run exchanges... Failure to do either would result in the loss of ALL federal Medicare funding or the state's citizens would lose access to federal subsidies (respectively).
This was not a case of poor word choices or an in artful choice of words, this was discussed and debated before the bill passed.
Once passed, both measures were challenged in court, all the way up to the Supreme Court. After fighting to keep the all or nothing position on Medicare, the federal government lost and had to fund Medicare in states that did not expand Medicare. And in today's decision, the government argued their much-discussed threat to the state's was really a typo.
These were calculated risks to force the state's to act in certain ways, both failed in their mission.
Ken
because of cronyism in state legislatures and a period of time where people thought they could amend their way out of corrupt practices? They could have just passed laws in each state that gave harsh fines and better oversight of the process that the state governments were involved in.
Sometimes I'm amazed at how little people who claim to support a historic mode of government can know about how it worked.
The thing is that in real life, giving the State House control over two Senate seats has never given the State Government any influence in DC. What happens is state-hous-level campaigns become proxies for the next Senate Campaign.
So the Department of State is now unconstitutional because you aren't smart enough to tell when a word has two definitions in the dictionary?
And who was Jonathan Grubber? The Congressional Sponsor of the law? A Cabinet Secretary? Seriously, did the guy have any official title? I was actually Board Secretary of a Universal health Care Group in Michigan while we were campaigning for the law, I probably heard a talk from the guy, but if you'd told me "Jonathan Gruber said" I would have had to ask you who the fuck you were talking about.
Appeals to Authority can be perfectly good arguments, but the Authority Appealed to better actually be an Authority.
It's not a computer program. It's a human document. Plenty of terms with well-established legal meanings on one context can mean something subtly different in another context. As a tax pro, for example, a big part of my job is to tell people which credits their kid counts as a "qualifying child" for. Same kid, same legal vocabulary, but if he lives with his mom and she's signed over the exemption for Dad the kid's a qualifying child for an extra personal exemption on his return but is a qualifying child on her return for daycare costs.
In this case it's pretty clear that Congress meant for the Federal Exchange to be a back-up to the State Exchanges, and that if treating it as a distinct entity from the state exchanges would totally fuck up the law then it follows that Congress's imprecisions should be worked around.
Here's the webpage the IRS has on qualifying children. It includes quitation marks, so apparently it can;t be used as a link on Slashdot:
http://www.irs.gov/uac/A-“Qualifying-Child”
And even that didn't work. Quotation marks in links are apparently very difficult to use. To get to work you'll have to type in the first bit (ie: http://www.irs.gov/uac/A- ), then copy the “Qualifying-Child” and paste it into your browser. Or just google "qualifying child" irs.gov.
Oh please.
The original designer of the battle flag, William Miles, wrote that slavery was a "divine institution", and the designer of the Confederacy's flag (the battle flag on a white background) wrote that he specifically chose the white background to symbolize the supremacy of the white race.
I suppose you think that the resurgence of the battle flag during the 1950s and 1960s had nothing to do with the reactions to the gains of the Civil Rights movement. That symbol of Southern treason had almost faded into obscurity until Southern whites started to feel threatened, but sure... it's just an innocent symbol, just like the Civil War was all about "states rights" and not slavery, right?
Procrastination Man strikes again!
A lesson you would do well to ignore. Those in power can afford to be hypocrites when it comes to the law.
So what is your solution to correct a conservatively loaded court? Load the court with libruls? Or maybe we should abandon our form of government for something more in line with your ideological predilections? Eliminate checks and balances altogether is your preference, eh?
Thus, the supreme court ruled incorrectly.
Not possible, by definition.
Learn to love Alaska
When a word is ambiguous, its meaning may be determined by reference to the rest of the statute. That's exactly what the Court did here, [begin smug] and is exactly what most reasonable humans do in establishing the meaning of any word or words[end smug].
Except that looking at the statute as a whole to understand what is meant is exactly the opposite of what they have done.
Instead they willfully ignore the obvious (and common) design of the law to withhold federal subsidy ("O lawdy, we aint gonsta get ours") to states which do not get in line and set up a fuckin exchange. You got what you wanted. Don't pretend it was anything but cowards afraid to let the consequences of poorly written law unfurl. The majority opinion holders said as much.
Republicans are supposed to be against unnecessary laws, right? Let's repeal the 3rd. It doesn't really get used ever.
I grew up under that Goddamn Swastika equivalent flying atop the State House and seeing the changes is like watching the Allies making the Germans take down their fucking Swastikas and Eagles after world war two.
Except in this case, its over a hundred years later...
As someone that went to a highschool named after a goddamn slave owning civil war general that should have been executed for his twice treason... I cannot comprehend your level of ignorance as you cannot have known the South.
You have no clue, and if saddens me to see someone defending this, worse still without reason, which could at least be respected if disagreed with, but worse you commit the logical fallacy of an appeal to tradition.
Tradition was anti-semitism in Germany going back before Luther and the Reformation.
It is just as much bullshit then as now in the racist South. Just move there, secede again and spare the rest of us the cost of having to support debtor red-states. I left for the number one reason of not having my children grow up under the same bullshit I did and luckly it has worked and they are mostly colorblind.
If you don't want that, fine, but spare the rest of us your lack of intelligence of being able to make a rational justifiable argument. The lack of reason and Enlightenment principles in your thinking is worse to me than any respect to traditionalist thinking you have.
And I went to Wade Hampton High.
Your credentials don't mater.
Come up with reason and rationale that is not a logical fallacy or please shut the fuck up.
The courts cannot and normally do not arbitrarily reinterpret law. The best they can do is declare something unconstitutional or that a law is ambiguous enough that it cannot be reasonably enforced. If any court decided that your insistence that the cannabis be called by it's street name therefore not covered by the law being enforced was correct, they would promptly be overturned by a higher court and possibly removed from the bench. It just doesn't work that way in the U.S.
Why do so many articles here have such obvious careless misspellings? Misspelling the first word of the first sentence is pretty shoddy.
It's clear that no one who wrote the bill wanted the subsidies only applied to state exchanges. It's clear from the context of the bill that the State in the passage in question refers to the State and the Federal Government. The authors of the bill have made this clear.
Republicans want to use some silly grammar-school enforcement of consistent usage as an excuse to gut a bill they don't like but couldn't vote down.
Language allows for the reader to correct obvious mistakes, unlike a compiler with a computer language. Natural language is more flexible, less brittle. SCOTUS simply acted as a reader, automatically correcting the obvious mistakes in the text.
If Congress makes another obvious mistake and refuses to fix it, then the EPA would be justified in the original interpretation. If not, SCOTUS would rule against them.
Your slippery-slope paranoia is unwarranted. FUD.
This rebel flag being a symbol of oppression, racism or hate is a very recent thing ...
True only if you define 'very recent' as 1962
I don't believe your story. You keep saying Medicare, I think you mean Medicaid. If you have that basic fact wrong how many mistakes did you make in the rest of your account?
You are an idiot, an idiot of an idiot, an idiot's idiot and a clever idiot.
obviously , I am saying that you are clever.
It's not so weird.
In the ACA case, the court simply used a test that applied logic to the whole of the law, instead of a single sentence. This is not unusual. It's not that words lack meaning, it's that few legal codes are perfect and it's a judge's job to figure them out. SCOTUS did that, in line with the role set out for the court in the Constitution.
With regards to the Rebel flag, it's more accurately called the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia. It was never adopted by the Confederacy or any Confederate member state as an official symbol.
The fact a bunch of people want to treat it as a cultural symbol has always come with the understanding that it's also been understood as a symbol of oppression by many, many others.
It's ironic to hear judicial literalists claim an ambiguous sentence should be used to strike down a major piece of legislation, then turn around to defend the "Rebel Flag" as something worthy of cultural status. It never was a cultural symbol, it was the standard of an army that has little relevance to any actual antiquarian interested in the identity of southern states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
As far as changing the name of a park goes, monuments are retired all the time. Consider the case of Fort Haggerty:
http://fortwiki.com/Fort_Hagge...
The history described there is actually inaccurate, the fort was actively used through WWI for ammunition storage. But regardless - it was named after a predecessor of mine for his gallantry in battle against that same Army of Northern Virginia. I am not sure how fair it would be for people in Virginia to have to live with that Fort there today, considering what happened during the madness of war.
The point here is that there's often a difference between the literal truth of a matter and way it is interpreted by the many. It's useful to consider other points of view before declaring the world's gone mad.
You sound just like a 1946 Nazi. They were really upset that their glorious history was being taken away from them, that their traditions were being rolled over, and so on. This has happened to every single group which societies around the world grew up and left behind. The confederate flag was designed by a racist, used by states who prospered from deeply racist practices, and was used by people fighting against the civil rights movement.
You're on the wrong side of history. It is for the better, but not your better.
I disagree with your reasoning about the flag not being racist entirely, though I have to admit I do feel the whole thing is a "false flag operation" (if you'll excuse the pun) to an extent, it's main objective being of course to move public opinion away from thoughts of the much needed gun control that they should be considering. I expect from your general demeanour that if you look on it this way it will probably make you happy.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
Don't know why they don't want to keep the poor and middle class from getting health insurance...
It is class warfare, plain and simple. In their view, if you are poor or middle class, then you are a worthless piece of shit that doesn't deserve to live.
Not only that, Scalia argued the opposite in the previous case on the ACA. In 2012, Scalia argued the opposite with regard to subsidies and Roberts used part of that argument against Scalia in the current case:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
This rebel flag being a symbol of oppression, racism or hate is a VERY RECENT thing....if you think otherwise, you are not a very old person and have not grown up with the experience of it and knowing it of the past 50+ years.
The denial is powerful in this one. Okay, I will bite, if it was not a symbol of racial hatred, why was it chosen as a symbol by the KKK? Why was it chosen by Segregationists as a symbol of their cause? This was not an accident, both groups chose it knowing full well the black population would get the message. It should not be a source of pride, it should be a source of shame. The Civil War was not a romantic adventure of a rebel alliance, it was the last gasp of a dying culture steeped in hatred, greed and evil.
"I just reply to you when I see you spamming Slashdot with your nonsense"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
Why'd you agree w/ my points on hosts then? Quoting you:
"I'm not denying all those things" - by dave420 (699308) on Wednesday September 17, 2014 @11:39AM (#47927435) FROM -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
Of course not: It's impossible to dispute HOSTS FILES superiority to other methods!
Since my points in favor of hosts SINGLE FILE native kernelmode faster part show hosts doing more w/ less vs. so-called 'competitors' many part messagepassing + cpu/ram use overheads laden slower usermode FAR MORE COMPLEX 'solutions' doing less than hosts do for more security, speed, reliability, + anonymity!
I make creating a superior more efficient solution EASIER!
(That's more than a mere trolling stalking harassing "ne'er-do-well" like yourself could *EVER* manage).
---
"I'm simply pointing out that it takes an AdBlocker to block your spamming"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
I bother you? Then WHY DON'T YOU DO IT & use 'em? Answer that!
(You stalk/harass me instead!)
OBVIOUSLY you don't & you're a "ne'er-do-well" troll & you have "other motivations" (next):
---
* QUESTION:
DO YOU WORK FOR AN ADVERTISING FIRM, or ARE YOU A WEBMASTER/WEBCODER http://slashdot.org/comments.p... , or a MALWARE MAKER, or ARE YOU AFFILIATED WITH 1 OF MY COMPETITORS?
Answer it!
As per your usual you'll avoid every question, or lie & You've been EXPOSED in your "motives" in the last link just above, lol!
APK
P.S.=> See Dave420 the "pot puffing clown" SQUIRM - evasions galore will ensue (as well as effete downmods via sockpuppets to *try* vainly "hide it" -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )... apk
The Bush/Gore case was, I think, the most legally flawed SCOTUS decision of the past 25 years.
Why? All they did was stop Gore from employing cherry-picking and capricious unequal-protection-under-the-law methods to spin a manual count his way, something a politicized Florida court was trying to help him do. Putting a stop to that is exactly the sort of thing the SC is supposed to do, because that sort of behavior at the state court level is counter-constitutional.
This current ruling is, you're right, deeply flawed. Because it's very clear that the language in question was deliberate, and that the one-party legislative action that rammed the law through didn't contemplate the prospect of a number of states standing up to them and refusing to play ball. As Gruber pointed out, the wording of the law was intentionally meant to strong-arm the states, to essentially extort their participation in the absurd manifestation of that legislative train wreck. This was an opportunity to trash it and start over with a law that wasn't based on lies, sold with lies, and which resulted in essentially the opposite of everything its con-artist cheerleaders promised.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
'm just shocked at the way folks here are laying down and how fast this is rolling over tradition and history, especially things that have NEVER before been thought to be racist or troubling for anyone.
For anyone? Are you sure? Or do just mean "for anyone white enough to count"?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
There is no documentation to support a legislative intent to expressly deny subsidies in the event of a federal exchange.
Should Congress have wished to do so, they should have spelled it out directly, rather than rely on inference. Should Congress wish to overturn this Supreme Court ruling, they need only pass a law doing so.
They won't. But they could.
The Supreme Court should not, because they have testimony from the legislators who passed the law saying that was not their intent.
"I just reply to you when I see you spamming Slashdot with your nonsense"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
Why'd you agree w/ my points on hosts then? Quoting you:
"I'm not denying all those things" - by dave420 (699308) on Wednesday September 17, 2014 @11:39AM (#47927435) FROM -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
Of course not: It's impossible to dispute HOSTS FILES superiority to other methods!
Since my points in favor of hosts SINGLE FILE native kernelmode faster part show hosts doing more w/ less vs. so-called 'competitors' many part messagepassing + cpu/ram use overheads laden slower usermode FAR MORE COMPLEX 'solutions' doing less than hosts do for more security, speed, reliability, + anonymity!
I make creating a superior more efficient solution EASIER!
(That's more than a mere trolling stalking harassing "ne'er-do-well" like yourself could *EVER* manage).
---
"I'm simply pointing out that it takes an AdBlocker to block your spamming"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
I bother you? Then WHY DON'T YOU DO IT & use 'em? Answer that!
(You stalk/harass me instead!)
OBVIOUSLY you don't & you're a "ne'er-do-well" troll & you have "other motivations" (next):
---
* QUESTION:
DO YOU WORK FOR AN ADVERTISING FIRM, or ARE YOU A WEBMASTER/WEBCODER http://slashdot.org/comments.p... , or a MALWARE MAKER, or ARE YOU AFFILIATED WITH 1 OF MY COMPETITORS?
Answer it!
As per your usual you'll avoid every question, or lie & You've been EXPOSED in your "motives" in the last link just above, lol!
APK
P.S.=> See Dave420 the "pot puffing clown" SQUIRM - evasions galore will ensue (as well as effete downmods via sockpuppets to *try* vainly "hide it" -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )... apk
"I just reply to you when I see you spamming Slashdot with your nonsense"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
Why'd you agree w/ my points on hosts then? Quoting you:
"I'm not denying all those things" - by dave420 (699308) on Wednesday September 17, 2014 @11:39AM (#47927435) FROM -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
Of course not: It's impossible to dispute HOSTS FILES superiority to other methods!
Since my points in favor of hosts SINGLE FILE native kernelmode faster part show hosts doing more w/ less vs. so-called 'competitors' many part messagepassing + cpu/ram use overheads laden slower usermode FAR MORE COMPLEX 'solutions' doing less than hosts do for more security, speed, reliability, + anonymity!
I make creating a superior more efficient solution EASIER!
(That's more than a mere trolling stalking harassing "ne'er-do-well" like yourself could *EVER* manage).
---
"I'm simply pointing out that it takes an AdBlocker to block your spamming"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
I bother you? Then WHY DON'T YOU DO IT & use 'em? Answer that!
(You stalk/harass me instead!)
OBVIOUSLY you don't & you're a "ne'er-do-well" troll & you have "other motivations" (next):
---
* QUESTION:
DO YOU WORK FOR AN ADVERTISING FIRM, or ARE YOU A WEBMASTER/WEBCODER http://slashdot.org/comments.p... , or a MALWARE MAKER, or ARE YOU AFFILIATED WITH 1 OF MY COMPETITORS?
Answer it!
As per your usual you'll avoid every question, or lie & You've been EXPOSED in your "motives" in the last link just above, lol!
APK
P.S.=> See Dave420 the "pot puffing clown" SQUIRM - evasions galore will ensue (as well as effete downmods via sockpuppets to *try* vainly "hide it" -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )... apk
"I just reply to you when I see you spamming Slashdot with your nonsense"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
Why'd you agree w/ my points on hosts then? Quoting you:
"I'm not denying all those things" - by dave420 (699308) on Wednesday September 17, 2014 @11:39AM (#47927435) FROM -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
Of course not: It's impossible to dispute HOSTS FILES superiority to other methods!
Since my points in favor of hosts SINGLE FILE native kernelmode faster part show hosts doing more w/ less vs. so-called 'competitors' many part messagepassing + cpu/ram use overheads laden slower usermode FAR MORE COMPLEX 'solutions' doing less than hosts do for more security, speed, reliability, + anonymity!
I make creating a superior more efficient solution EASIER!
(That's more than a mere trolling stalking harassing "ne'er-do-well" like yourself could *EVER* manage).
---
"I'm simply pointing out that it takes an AdBlocker to block your spamming"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
I bother you? Then WHY DON'T YOU DO IT & use 'em? Answer that!
(You stalk/harass me instead!)
OBVIOUSLY you don't & you're a "ne'er-do-well" troll & you have "other motivations" (next):
---
* QUESTION:
DO YOU WORK FOR AN ADVERTISING FIRM, or ARE YOU A WEBMASTER/WEBCODER http://slashdot.org/comments.p... , or a MALWARE MAKER, or ARE YOU AFFILIATED WITH 1 OF MY COMPETITORS?
Answer it!
As per your usual you'll avoid every question, or lie & You've been EXPOSED in your "motives" in the last link just above, lol!
APK
P.S.=> See Dave420 the "pot puffing clown" SQUIRM - evasions galore will ensue (as well as effete downmods via sockpuppets to *try* vainly "hide it" -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )... apk via sockpuppets to *try* vainly "hide it" -
"I just reply to you when I see you spamming Slashdot with your nonsense"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
Why'd you agree w/ my points on hosts then? Quoting you:
"I'm not denying all those things" - by dave420 (699308) on Wednesday September 17, 2014 @11:39AM (#47927435) FROM -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
Of course not: It's impossible to dispute HOSTS FILES superiority to other methods!
Since my points in favor of hosts SINGLE FILE native kernelmode faster part show hosts doing more w/ less vs. so-called 'competitors' many part messagepassing + cpu/ram use overheads laden slower usermode FAR MORE COMPLEX 'solutions' doing less than hosts do for more security, speed, reliability, + anonymity!
I make creating a superior more efficient solution EASIER!
(That's more than a mere trolling stalking harassing "ne'er-do-well" like yourself could *EVER* manage).
---
"I'm simply pointing out that it takes an AdBlocker to block your spamming"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
I bother you? Then WHY DON'T YOU DO IT & use 'em? Answer that!
(You stalk/harass me instead!)
OBVIOUSLY you don't & you're a "ne'er-do-well" troll & you have "other motivations" (next):
---
* QUESTION:
DO YOU WORK FOR AN ADVERTISING FIRM, or ARE YOU A WEBMASTER/WEBCODER http://slashdot.org/comments.p... , or a MALWARE MAKER, or ARE YOU AFFILIATED WITH 1 OF MY COMPETITORS?
Answer it!
As per your usual you'll avoid every question, or lie & You've been EXPOSED in your "motives" in the last link just above, lol!
APK
P.S.=> See Dave420 the "pot puffing clown" SQUIRM - evasions galore will ensue (as well as effete downmods via sockpuppets to *try* vainly "hide it" -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )... apk
Repeal the 17th amendment. At least you would have one house that isn't campaigning all the type.
IMO, the 17th broke a fundamental safeguard of our republic.
No, it didn't. You need to spend more time understanding why this amendment got passed rather than let idiots like Hannity and Rick Perry and others lie to you about it. The reason that the amendment got passed is that the process of picking senators was completely corrupt. Back room favors and under the cover payments and all sorts of illegal things got done to get people appointed as senators. The situation couldn't be salvaged so the only way to fix it was to make people run for office. And you do realize that you are actually arguing for less democracy and more corruption by begging to return to those "good old days", right? No of course you don't because you just repeat what the right wing talking heads told you to think.
See subject & LMAO @ U, boy -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
* Gonna go "cry in your cereal" now, boy?
(You ought to for being STUPID enough to use OR SUGGEST a blatantly INFERIOR solution! See below... it's fact & truth!)
APK
P.S.=> FACT: "AlmostALLAdsBlocked+" is INFERIOR vs. hosts - hugely so!
AB+ doesn't even DO what it's supposed to fully anymore being BRIBED http://finance.yahoo.com/news/... not to!
AB+ doesn't do a FRACTION of what hosts do for more speed, security, reliability, + anonymity online!
AB+ EATS 128mb of RAM (vs. hosts @ 11 *maybe* tops via my program with CURRENT data, the important kind vs. current threats + ads) http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
AB+ adds messagepassing overheads!
AB+ operates in SLOWER usermode (vs. hosts in PnP kernelmode)
AB+ creates huge CPU consumption!
AFTER ALL THAT?
AB+ = "better", Coren22?? LMAO - NO f'ing way!
If you say it is, you are *TRULY* stupid & I'd reply saying "argue with the numbers" & facts above, from reputable sources & analysis proving my points for me... apk
The writers of the law clearly wanted to establish state exchanges for any state that wanted them, and a federal exchange for any state that didn't want to roll its own, and that all of these exchanges do the same thing.
Never mind the fact that Gruber said explicitly that the point of not offering subsidy money to residents of states w/o an exchange was to coerce the states into created the exchanges.
A slippery slope indeed when the judicial branch interprets laws intent rather than the words written. But did we really expect they would force the federal government to stop providing bread and circuses to the plebs?
See subject & LMAO @ U, boy -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
* Gonna go "cry in your cereal" now, boy?
(You ought to for being STUPID enough to use OR SUGGEST a blatantly INFERIOR solution! See below... it's fact & truth!)
APK
P.S.=> FACT: "AlmostALLAdsBlocked+" is INFERIOR vs. hosts - hugely so!
AB+ doesn't even DO what it's supposed to fully anymore being BRIBED http://finance.yahoo.com/news/... not to!
AB+ doesn't do a FRACTION of what hosts do for more speed, security, reliability, + anonymity online!
AB+ EATS 128mb of RAM (vs. hosts @ 11 *maybe* tops via my program with CURRENT data, the important kind vs. current threats + ads) http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
AB+ adds messagepassing overheads!
AB+ operates in SLOWER usermode (vs. hosts in PnP kernelmode)
AB+ creates huge CPU consumption!
AFTER ALL THAT?
AB+ = "better", Coren22?? LMAO - NO f'ing way!
If you say it is, you are *TRULY* stupid & I'd reply saying "argue with the numbers" & facts above, from reputable sources & analysis proving my points for me... apk
See subject & LMAO @ U, boy -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
* Gonna go "cry in your cereal" now, boy?
(You ought to for being STUPID enough to use OR SUGGEST a blatantly INFERIOR solution! See below... it's fact & truth!)
APK
P.S.=> FACT: "AlmostALLAdsBlocked+" is INFERIOR vs. hosts - hugely so!
AB+ doesn't even DO what it's supposed to fully anymore being BRIBED http://finance.yahoo.com/news/... not to!
AB+ doesn't do a FRACTION of what hosts do for more speed, security, reliability, + anonymity online!
AB+ EATS 128mb of RAM (vs. hosts @ 11 *maybe* tops via my program with CURRENT data, the important kind vs. current threats + ads) http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
AB+ adds messagepassing overheads!
AB+ operates in SLOWER usermode (vs. hosts in PnP kernelmode)
AB+ creates huge CPU consumption!
AFTER ALL THAT?
AB+ = "better", Coren22?? LMAO - NO f'ing way!
If you say it is, you are *TRULY* stupid & I'd reply saying "argue with the numbers" & facts above, from reputable sources & analysis proving my points for me... apk
Congress is free to amend or write a new law - but if they weren't spoiled, selfish children, they would have done that already. They could have easily clarified this, but didn't because Republicans would have used the opportunity to destroy the ACA rather than helping to make it even a little better -- especially important in light of the *fact* that the Republicans have no alternative to the ACA, except to get rid of it. Don't know why they don't want to keep the poor and middle class from getting health insurance...
As someone who lives in a red state and has a lot of Republican friends, I can tell you exactly why Republicans (including supporters and not just elected officials) want to take away health insurance from the poor. I think in Clinton's first term he signed a law that changed welfare and basically stopped most able bodied people from staying on it forever. Amongst the people I know, many of them believe that perhaps as high as 20% of the US population is permanently on welfare and has no desire at all to get off of it because they are lazy. The idea persists that those who are poor are that way simply because they want to be poor since they are willfully lazy. And there's an undercurrent of subtle racism at play as it's always "blacks" or "Mexicans" who they always blame for being on welfare forever. So since these people believe that everybody in the USA could have a good job if they only wanted to, they see the poor as being unwilling to better themselves and helping them get anything like health insurance is basically enabling behavior encouraging them to stay the same. All of the people I know who hate the ACA have jobs that give them insurance, so again, they view even middle class people who need help as being lazy or stupid because if they weren't lazy or stupid, they would get themselves jobs that had health insurance. They view all people without health insurance as having deliberately made the choice to be that way. The worst thing Ronald Reagan ever said was "Government is the problem" which 30+ years later has become a mantra for the Republican Party. So people think that the government can't do anything right, ever, and thus the ACA can't ever be good because an evil, incompetent government with a lifetime 100% failure rate is in charge of it.
See subject & LMAO @ U, boy -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
* Gonna go "cry in your cereal" now, boy?
(You ought to for being STUPID enough to use OR SUGGEST a blatantly INFERIOR solution! See below... it's fact & truth!)
APK
P.S.=> FACT: "AlmostALLAdsBlocked+" is INFERIOR vs. hosts - hugely so!
AB+ doesn't even DO what it's supposed to fully anymore being BRIBED http://finance.yahoo.com/news/... not to!
AB+ doesn't do a FRACTION of what hosts do for more speed, security, reliability, + anonymity online!
AB+ EATS 128mb of RAM (vs. hosts @ 11 *maybe* tops via my program with CURRENT data, the important kind vs. current threats + ads) http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
AB+ adds messagepassing overheads!
AB+ operates in SLOWER usermode (vs. hosts in PnP kernelmode)
AB+ creates huge CPU consumption!
I use what you already have that works & does more with LESS, no less - you by way of comparison? Pile on "MoAr" that doesn't do as nearly as much & what it's supposed to do? It NO LONGER DOES!
AFTER ALL THAT?
AB+ = "better", Coren22?? LMAO - NO f'ing way!
If you say it is, you are *TRULY* stupid & I'd reply saying "argue with the numbers" & facts above, from reputable sources & analysis proving my points for me... ap
You are right.... wish I had mod points today!
You should have gotten better advice then, perhaps go to an insurance agent, and check your options.
Though not seeing your plans, I cannot say anything as to the actual coverage.
The intent of the law is not to provide healthcare to Americans, it's intent is to ensure the healthcare insurers get more customers and get them locked in by law.
Why is it no one sees that intent?
If it were really about healthcare the title wouldn't be Affordable Care Act, everyone knows when you put something in the title you do away with the difficulties of having to actually talk about what the law is really about.
Do explain how a $10,000 deductible is affordable? That's more than I put down on my house.
Wheee, sharecropping! Next, tell people that not only do they only have health insurance through their employer, but now they're paid in company scrip, usable only at company stores, where products the company decides you want or need is priced at what the company feels is fair.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
So what is your solution to correct a conservatively loaded court?
It's not conservatively loaded. I just want this court to do their job. And their job is not to slap band aids on every piece of shit idea that comes out of Congress.
Page 10 of Roberts' opinion.
"After telling each State to establish an Exchange, Sec- tion 18031 provides that all Exchanges âoeshall make avail- able qualified health plans to qualified individuals.â 42 U. S. C. Â18031(d)(2)(A). Section 18032 then defines the term âoequalified individualâ in part as an individual who âoeresides in the State that established the Exchange.â Â18032(f)(1)(A). And thatâ(TM)s a problem: If we give the phrase âoethe State that established the Exchangeâ its most natural meaning, there would be no âoequalified individualsâ on Federal Exchanges."
Sorry about the formatting. Copy and pasted on an iPad.
How can you have grown up in the south and be so ignorant of what that flag means? What's next, Swastikas and KKK hoods are misunderstood?
My insurance has gone up 60% since the ACA passed. It is not affordable.
sorry moron, doesn't work. ideological fever dreams incompatible with reality and basic economics
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
it isn't affordable, you are correct. so we will go single payer and then have real ability to enforce pricing discipline. like every other fucking modern country, and even some of the not so modern countries
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
scalia is a blowhard ideologue. he has no business being a supreme
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
If presented with a question, the lower courts must address it (even the Supreme Court must as well -- but they can simply, without additional comment, deny a cert petition so, in effect, they only have to address it in the most pedantic meaning of the word).
Sometimes addressing the question may consist of granting a summary judgement which precludes a trial, but the summary judgement includes a rational (sometimes little more than a rubber stamped copy of the movants' petition) for the decision and that decision will almost always involve interpreting the law (including case law). Obviously some of these interpretations are no-brainers (as in the example I gave), but they are interpretations nonetheless.
No (we hope) courts don't "arbitrarily" (re)interpret the law, but many cases do require subtle interpretations of the law and how it should apply even to facts that are not disputed by either party.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
The 70 million target that was touted as the "uninsured" in the USA during the bill's marketing still largely exists, they don't have insurance and are not paying the fines either...
If Congress is worried about that they can, and they should, fix it.
That's nothing, mine went from under $200 a month for a Major Medical Policy to over $950 for the same policy. I then got a new policy on the exchange, the cheapest one possible was about $350 a month, more than double my previous premium, and it doesn't cover my kids, and the deductibles are higher.
Good thing your new healthcare is affordable...All hail Obama!!
It is now going so far that there seems to be a rush to destroy history, and take down all statues or anything of confederate soldiers.
Really? What percentage of confederate civil war memorials have been removed? Not vandalized. Actually removed. 100%? 50%? 5%? 2%? 0%? Because I can't find a single news story about anyone actually successfully getting a confederate civil war memorial torn down.
A few outspoken people making national news for asking that x be done != x is now happening all over the country.
This was not a case of poor word choices
You know how sometimes people are completely wrong? This is one of those times.
No, actually, it's you who seems confused. The basis of this ruling is is hardly something new. Scalia, in another case, made the exact argument that you need to consider the context of the actual text. Of course, now that that argument doesn't give him the outcome he wants, he completely flip-flopped for this case, but that's Scalia for you.
It has been well documented that it was not a 'typo.'
It's been well documented that you're wrong. Sorry.
My thoughts exactly, but you stated them much better. I wish I had mod points for you.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
The symbolism of Southern honor and courage known as the Confederate flag was stolen years ago by a domestic terrorist organization known as the KKK. Because the South did not prevent the theft, they have now lost their flag. It's your own fault this happened.
You apparently have the same interpretation problems as the judges do. They also apparently use the same logic as you to reach the same conclusion. Thus you are the source of the problem.
Cayenne... are you black? Because, to put it bluntly, horrible oppression is often a sweet deal for the oppressor. It's how it gets their willing participation in horrendous crimes, especially if it can outsource the direct application of violence to sadistic thugs and let Joe Average pretend he's not doing anything wrong, despite it being Joe who supplies the truly vital ingredient: legitimacy.
No, it's not. The flag has always stood for racism and slavery. The uproar is new, simply because the concept of civil rights for the blacks in America is.
The Nazi flag was a backdrop to the Olympics, once. The people who watched them were unlikely to be any worse than the average person anywhere. They went home with golden memories of a wonderful day. But the culture that flag stood for was still monstrous.
And southern pride was about keeping oppression going even after military defeat. It's not harmless. It is, in fact, murderous.
The Allies forcefully de-nazified Germany after the war and forced the people to confront the truth. Unfortunately, the North couldn't force the South to repent, since it was just barely better itself. This terrorist attack is simply yet another surfacing of that lingering taint, a spring that keeps pushing poisoned water from endless aquifers, a weed that can keep growing back forever since the roots remain in the ground.
Southern culture contains structural violence embedded to it by its history. Everyone who takes it in - as everyone must, growing up - also takes in the poison. Some manage to avoid the worst of it and are relatively fine, while some turn into Ku Klux Klan fodder. And if a particular mind happens to be particularly vulnerable, either inherently or because of the specific conditions they're in, their own personal identity can take a backseat to one of the archetypes of their culture. In the US, especially in the south, one very prominent archetype is the racist lyncher who kills any blacks who get "uppity". That's the archetype the entire Confederacy was founded on. It's all there ever was to it.
Roof may be a "jackass", but he's also the embodiment of Confederacy as it truly was and is. Nations come and go, their spirits tend to live on, sometimes with their own name and sometimes as seemingly random aspects of culture. And the Confederacy's spirit is still alive and inspiring the only thing it ever stood for: tyrany.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
We've seen the Rebel flag suddenly become a horrible symbol of oppression, and hate and vilified all of a sudden and yanked even from online stores and private individual sales on ebay.
It is now going so far that there seems to be a rush to destroy history, and take down all statues or anything of confederate soldiers...things no one had ever previously thought were any type of hate symbol, but merely marks of history.
Suddenly? No one had ever previously? Boy howdy, that's some fine head-in-sand you got going there.
The IRS is the one organization that you don't want to fuck with. Remember, these are the guys who took down Al Capone.
It's amazing how people who seem to care so much about the constitution clearly don't know anything about it.
I don't recall the repeal of amendment 17 being a right wing talking point, but then I don't pay attention to talking points. One answer is to fix congressional salaries to some measure of the overall health of the country. Or perhaps we dial it back to a paltry $80k per year, then require pay raises to be voted on not by them but directly by us. Finally, make them work in government for a reasonably long period of time before they are eligible for a pension that gives them health care and a salary above the median income for the rest of their lives.
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
I believe the "old saying" you want is:
None of us is as dumb as all of us. (http://despair.com/collections/demotivators/products/meetings)
Or one of my favorite movie quotes (Men in Black):
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
There are a variety of reasons why the ACA is a bad law. Primarily, it is because it leaves intact the insurance companies and the outrageous costs of medical procedures, and does not put an upper bound on medical malpractice awards. Basically, it just guarantees the insurance companies a few million additional subscribers, and puts the onus on employers to suck up the cost difference (either through their company contribution or the penalty they pay to have employees shop the exchanges on their own). And don't get me started on all the fees. And how about the fact that we're still getting final regulations from the executive branch? Congress enacted a law over which they gave up control to the executive? Well, they maintain the ability to stop funding, sort of; but that isn't going to happen.
tl;dr: I'm mostly just against the individual mandate -- which is little more than an admission by the government that they couldn't find another way to fund the law. But don't underestimate the impact of all the fees on companies. And the unintended fees in the form of the costs of implementing the various reporting requirements (e.g., 30 hour; 6055/6056).
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
That - i can agree with. The example you gave or that was given didn't follow though. Perhaps semantics got in the way of the point.
BTW, lack of action - refusing to grant certiorari is not addressing the question outside of saying it is either not important enough for their time of more pressing issues occupied their time. Sometimes issues of standings block it but that is still not addressing the question.
"The reason that the amendment got passed is that the process of picking senators was completely corrupt."
But you also said the following BEFORE that statement:
"You need to spend more time understanding why this amendment got passed"
Apparently you don't fully understand why it got passed. One of the issues was corruption, but it wasn't the only one.
Also, the "solution" had an impact which damaged and continues to damage the republic. I would argue that the solution created a much larger problem than it fixed, should be undone and another "solution" pursued.
"And you do realize that you are actually arguing for less democracy and more corruption by begging to return to those "good old days", right?"
Yes, I do realize I'm arguing for less democracy. No, I'm not arguing for more corruption. That's just ridicules.
First some background -- I'm an amateur historian with a strong focus the early federal period of the United States. I have assisted/directed more than a few scholars to reference letters/documents supporting their respective thesis'. Anyone who's read Madison's notes and letters, letters of Hamilton, Jay (beyond just the Federalist Papers), and Morris for example can clearly see that there was nearly as much fear of too much democracy as there was of monarchy. Madison took copious notes during the convention (which is amazing considering how often he also spoke during the convention). He wasn't even the official secretary -- that was Jackson. His citations are well documented.
With regards to the legislature, they kept wanting to "cool" the "passions" of the people and their influence on the House while making sure the people had a voice. It is impossible to balance democracy and reason when both the House and the Senate can be swayed by popular passions.
I can continue the history lesson but I would suggest seeing if you can find an old book by St. John -- "The Constitutional Journal" or "A Constitutional Journal" (it's been a few decades since I read it) but it provides an excellent overview of the CC and presents it in an entertaining format (as if it were being reported daily by an embedded journalist).
Again, the "solution" to whatever the perceived problems were pre 17 had a profound and unintended negative impact on our republic. I find it astonishing that just because you heard people you don't like saying it that you reflexively dismiss it. Ok -- maybe not astonished. But I certainly find it amusing that you accuse me of parroting 'talking heads'.
"No of course you don't because you just repeat what the right wing talking heads told you to think."
That is a silly comment. I've held this belief for well over 30 years. I acquired it myself reading the letters of our framers. Not "snips" of text -- but their actual full letters (some original, most copies).
Yes. That's how this works. Part of the function of the Supreme Court is to do what *they* interpret as correct WRT to the law and Constitution, not the most popular or the wishes of the masses or majority.
No, that's not quite how this works. Like everybody else in high office, they swear oaths to uphold the Bill of Rights. James Madison made that document open-ended in response to objections of the Anti-Federalists. It provides for unspecified rights retained by the people (9th Amendment) and for unspecified rights reserved to the people (10th Amendment). These rights, like everything else in the Bill of Rights, override the original Constitution, when asserted.
By definition, rights retained by the people can not be taken away by any entity of government, including the Supreme Court. They do not get to simply ignore the will of the people.
In the case of Obama health care, the complexity of the document is enough to torpedo it, as a consequence of the 9th Amendment right to ethical practice of law.
Unnecessary complexity in the law, or even just law that is hard to understand, violates the 9th Amendment right to ethical practice of law, probably the single most important right. At over 2000 pages, this law is far beyond any reasonable threshold we might come up with for complexity (perhaps 20 pages would have been appropriate, certainly no more than 50). Unfortunately, this kind of violation is common: the legal profession (one of the most powerful lobbies in the country, and one that has considerable influence over the selection of judges) is in a position of ethical conflict of interest with respect to creating business for itself, and this ethics issue results in problems in every major area of law.
In failing to shoot down Obama Health Care the first time it came before them, the Supreme Court judges violated their oaths and demonstrated their lack of ethical integrity. It's a pity, because there are national health care laws in some countries that seem to work well, and forcing Congress to do their jobs right might have given us one of those systems. All it would have taken would have been some integrity on the part of the Supreme Court, but that's too much to expect from the US legal profession. Nobody gets to high office that is willing to rock the boat on ethics issues.
The oppression and racism thing ended down here back in the 60's. You just don't see that here anymore and no..the Stars and Bars for my lifetime has not been use or seen as something for oppression. It was a backdrop for a Lynyrd Skynyrd concert, nothing more than that level of southern pride thing.
You speak as an outsider that knows nothing of life down here in the SE USA.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Drinking and driving was a huge problem for 18 year old kids when they did that, so...yeah it does.
Considering that Members of Congress and their staff are already required to get their health care insurance through the exchanges I doubt it would really make any impression on SCOTUS at all.
At least you said pricing and not cost.
"This wasn't a 5-4 split, it was 6-3."
"In the 5-4 ruling, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority with the four liberal justices. Each of the four conservative justices wrote their own dissent"
I guess CNN is wrong.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/...
Or Fox.
"But in a 5-4 ruling, the court held that the 14th Amendment requires states to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples and to recognize such marriages performed in other states. "
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...
"We have these splits because..."
That's never happened before. Please, elucidate. Partisan? I read the dissenting opinions, and the joinings. Have you? Have you thought about what you read?
See subject & "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" - Can ab+ do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:
1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (beyond ads)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stops C&C communique
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stops C&C communique
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stops C&C communique
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phish
10.) Protect vs. caps
11.) Get you past a dnsbl
12.) Keep you off dns request logs
13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
15.) Give you easily controlled data
16.) Do all that & block ads more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage vs. addons
* ANSWER ="NO" to each on ab+ doing it + hosts = already on every device natively.
APK
P.S.=> Ab+ does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):
Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).
+
ClarityRay defeats it dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods to do so!
+
Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
Ab+ adds complexity + slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).
What's best?
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
&
It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
... apk
See subject & LMAO @ U, boy -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
FACT: "AlmostALLAdsBlocked+" is INFERIOR vs. hosts - hugely so!
AB+ doesn't even DO what it's supposed to fully anymore being BRIBED http://finance.yahoo.com/news/... not to!
AB+ doesn't do a FRACTION of what hosts do for more speed, security, reliability, + anonymity online!
AB+ EATS 128mb of RAM (vs. hosts @ 11 *maybe* tops via my program with CURRENT data, the important kind vs. current threats + ads) http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
AB+ adds messagepassing overheads!
AB+ operates in SLOWER usermode (vs. hosts in PnP kernelmode)
AB+ creates huge CPU consumption!
AB+ is also detectable by clarityray (via native browser methods) nullifying it (not hosts).
---
I use what you already have that works & does more with LESS, no less - you by way of comparison? Pile on "MoAr" that doesn't do as nearly as much & what it's supposed to do, massively inefficiently no less (see above)?
Ab+ NO LONGER DOES!
* AFTER ALL THAT?
AB+ = "better", Coren22?? LMAO - NO f'ing way!
If you say it is, you are *TRULY* stupid & I'd reply saying "argue with the numbers" & facts above, from reputable sources & analysis proving my points for me!
APK
P.S.=> Gonna go "cry in your cereal" now, boy?
(You ought to for being STUPID enough to use OR SUGGEST a blatantly INFERIOR solution! See above - it's fact & truth via reputable sources)... apk
Roof is from there, grew up there, and lives there. I think he's made his view on what the Confederacy flag stands for quite clear. Nor does your testimony contradict his.
Yet here we have an incident of just that: someone who identifies with the Confederacy and southern pride murdering blacks for living like humans (that is, not knowing their place). How do you reconcile the fact that such things happen with your claim that they don't?
For you it was. For a black church, the Confederacy flag is a backdrop for a racially motivated terrorist strike. That, too, is a southern pride thing.
That said, simply banning the flag won't do anything to help the situation. It can't cast Confederacy's dispersed essence the rest of the way into oblivion because, as you keep demonstrating, it's part of a lot of people's identities; such cultural excorcism would be extremely painful, just like de-nazification was painful for post-war Germany. Nor does redeeming it seem possible, since there's no entity left which could represent it - after all, the Confederacy is no longer embodied by a political system, but lingering cultural influences. So that leaves it free to continue its war from the shadows, claiming a victim here and another there and then using those possessed meat-puppets to murder other people, incapable of coordinated action but also almost invulnerable to a counter-attack due to its intangible and distributed nature.
Issues like this are why I believe we desperately need to put resources into developing social "sciences" into real science and corresponding technology. Because then the question becomes: how do you precisely identify the memetic organism - or "spirit" - the Confederacy flag represents, remove unwanted elements - such as racism - and put the rest back together so the result is able to outcompete the original in the cultural ecosystem? No, not outcompete, "upgrade" or "reinterpretation" would be better terms.
Because, as a certain other terrorist demonstrated, lingering darkness coming out of hiding, possessing people and causing havok is hardly an issue limited to America. And it's just a matter of time before one happens to get access to nukes rather than a mere rifle.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
> "Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them,"
It did no such thing. Emails and documents associated with Jonathan Gruber show clearly and unmistakably that this was NOT the case. The law was crafted with "lack of transparency" and the clear intent to try to force states to set up their own exchanges by threatening to withhold subsidies from buyers in states that failed to do so. That it failed to force most states to comply with this heavy-duty arm-twisting does not imply SCOTUS needs to charge in and "save" the law by imputing motives to Congress that were clearly never present. This is judicial activism, pure and simple, and impeachment proceedings to remove the guilty judges should be undertaken in response.
http://www.tpnn.com/2014/11/14...
http://dailycaller.com/2014/11...
You know, just a LITTLE honesty now and then from this administration would be very refreshing, do let's try to encourage them to be so, shall we?
Nothing. Public means private in Kelo v. City of New London and interstate means intrastate in Wickard v. Filburn and many others. The Necessary and Proper Clause can justify any result.
A majority of the States were already electing their United States senators via popular vote before the 17th Amendment so its effect was minor.
And the writers also clearly wanted to punish states which did not establish exchanges by withholding subsidies:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
And the legislative intent was to deny subsidies to individuals where a State did not establish an exchange as a way to force the States to establish exchanges and the statute as passed was written to do that. It was not a bug; it was a feature however misguided.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Not exactly. The process varied from state to state, but yes -- a bit more than half the states didn't select senators via legislative or gubernatorial appointment. But that was fairly close to the ratification of the 17th anyway -- as you go back even a few years (say 1906), that wasn't the case. The momentum was already building.
They did spell it out directly. Jonathan Gruber verified it. The supreme court ignored it.