However, pardon me, you are correct: It WAS the Riley case that actually put the nail in it solidly. I stand corrected on that point.
Camou was one of the Ninth Circuit case which caused a lot of the uproar that SCOTUS settled. But while it wasn't definitive, the idea that it wasn't about border searches makes absolutely no sense.
Damn autocorrect. It insists on putting in "probably" when I write probable.
But to clarify my point: if border searches of cell phones were exempt from probable cause, the agents could have searched it without it being "exigent to arrest". The entire thing was about whether the standard exceptions to probable cause applied. If probable cause didn't apply, logically he would have lost his case. You don't get to have that both ways.
The current legality of border searches of electronic property isn't fully settled (see e.g. wikipedia),
The Wikiepedia article was last edited before this appeal was decided.
but the case you're linking is completely unrelated to that issue. The decision doesn't discuss border exceptions...
Are off your nut? The entire case is about border searching and exceptions. It was the Border Patrol who had picked him up at a border checkpoint, and searched his gear. Did you even read it?
Have you read any of the independent analyses of this decision? It established solidly that a border search of electronic devices such as cell phones carry the same standards as a search under other non-border circumstances. The same standards apply, the same exceptions apply.
If different standards applied at the border, the appeal would not have succeeded. The decision was made based on the fact that none of the standard exceptions to probably cause were met.
Collision avoidance is easier in the air. There is much more room. (Compare to driving on a huge flat desert, as opposed to narrow roads.) And you can go above and below others, not merely to the left and right.
Only if you assume non-crowded airways. Get a crowd in there (which would be inevitable), and it gets very difficult indeed.
Having a flying car would be pointless if everybody had to go 10mph.
What you say is true of the current situation. But it all goes out the window if you extrapolate to a world in which most people who drive are flying instead.
Just the opposite. Consider that we developed drones long before we developed a self driving car.
Irrelevant. I agree with you: the navigation issue was solved long ago. But navigation isn't the problem. Collision avoidance is.
At the present time the probability of ANY drone collision is ridiculously low, and if it did happen, relatively little would be lost.
You can program specific lanes for flying, they're used all the time by commercial aircraft, but by the same token there's a lot less static clutter, margins are greater(no worrying about whether the kid on the side of the road will dart out), etc...
But if everybody -- or even 30% of everybody -- were flying at the same time, this would all change.
You would have to have low-altitude "commuter lanes" which would of necessity be crowded. Collision avoidance would have to be active and dynamic... not merely relying on "lanes" for safety. Not to mention that most vertical-lift small vehicles today have rather blatant single points of failure: until you get at least four independent rotors, if one fails, down you go, and you'd likely take several others with you.
Your first link is to the American Psychological Association, and only a 9very) brief abstract. I searched and did not find the paper anywhere that wasn't paywalled. So this doesn't really say anything. It said "evidence of impairment" at ridiculously low concentrations of 0.015% (15 mg/dl), but doesn't say anything about at what point they consider "significant", or how how impairment was measured. What was the methodology? Without that information this is meaningless. It says exactly nothing about the subject under discussion.
Your second link is just a straw-man. Quote:
[Of the five] States adopting 0.08% laws experienced 16% and 18% relative postlaw declines in the proportions of fatal crashes involving fatally injured drivers whose blood alcohol levels were 0.08% or higher and 0.15% or higher. CONCLUSIONS: It all states adopted 0.08% legal blood alcohol limits, at least 500 to 600 fewer fatal crashes would occur annually.
This says nothing about the effects of alcohol. I has to do with the effects of the law, and the behavior of people in states which passed those laws. While it might be reasonable to think there is some relationship between the two, that's not what the study shows. Further, the numbers given are of drivers who killed themselves, not of drivers who were endangering others. The whole point of the law was supposed to be about endangering others. I have zero respect for laws that try to protect me from myself.
Your third link:
There is no evidence of a threshold blood alcohol (BAC) below which impairment does not occur
Another straw-man. I don't dispute this, but it's irrelevant. The whole subject here was the point at which impairment is significant enough to endanger others. That is supposed to be the point of the law.
All of these are rather vague conclusions which skirt the real issue (which does not surprise me in the least... it is rather typical of "studies" that attempt to support a forgone conclusion).
My main point though is: even if these studies validly contradicted the ones I mentioned (they don't), that doesn't mean the ones I mentioned don't exist. Contradictory studies happen all the time. It doesn't prove me wrong, it just implies that there is controversy.
Why should death and serious injury be the deciding factor? If it reduces accidents at all - even non-fatal accidents, minor injury accidents, and no injury accidents - that's good in my book.
Because if you aren't in danger of causing death or serious injury, then you aren't significantly endangering anyone. So why make it against the law?
A world that is 100% safe for children would also be suitable for nobody but children. I, for one, don't want to live in that world.
I don't have the citations at hand, though I've posted them here on Slashdot at various times in the past.
The State of Idaho did its own study, in which it concluded that the driving of most people is NOT significantly impaired at 0.1% BAC. Of course, that didn't stop them, some years later, from changing the law to 0.08% anyway. Which just illustrates my point.
Over 40 years ago, the national government of Canada did a very comprehensive study involving hundreds of people, which among other things compared the effects of marijuana in various doses to the effects of alcohol in various doses. That study reached similar conclusions.
An ignorant blind troll who does little more than repeatedly spread the same misinformation again and again, without regard and with complete blindness to all facts that might solve your ignorance.
If you would care to make specific accusations about the things you think I said which were wrong, I would be happy to prove otherwise.
Unless or until you do, you are just blowing hot air. I cite sources for my information, demonstrating that I am neither ignorant or lying. You have provided no information at all, much less citations. All you're doing is calling names.
Calling me ignorant doesn't faze me at all, because I know otherwise and I regularly demonstrate otherwise. If you show that I was wrong or ignorant of some subject, I'll happily admit it and correct myself. But calling names doesn't cut it, and I doubt you can do the other.
Perhaps you could explain why you think that these scenarios are not likely to happen?
Because the language of the bill says nothing about requiring any kind of personal details, or anything else that the alarmists claim it is aimed at.
I think that the language of the Bill is pretty much designed to stop the application of the Precautionary Principle as a method of environmental protection.
If by that you mean: "Rulemaking should not have to be based on sound science," then I agree: it would appear to prevent that situation.
It was about climate science denial so some people would see that as a troll, but I agree that it's an abuse of mod points to vote for or against climate science by modding a post about climate science denial that is not offensive in any way.
No, it is NOT about climate science "denial". At all. It was a series of factual statements about actions by the EPA.
I did NOT say "EPA's science is bad". What I wrote was that EPA has refused to produce any actual science at all in support of its rulemaking. Good, bad, or otherwise. It wasn't a judgment about the state of climate science in any way.
In the US, for example, the constitutional requirement of probable cause and protecting against unreasonable search and seizure and such don't apply to their kind.
Sorry, you're out-of-date. Federal Appeals Court last year ruled that border guards DO need probable cause to search such things as computers and phones under most circumstances. The only exceptions are circumstances which would also be exceptions away from the border.
Let's be realistic. Self-driving cars are coming, but it is going to be a gradual transition. We've already seen the beginning of it with adaptive cruise control and self-parking. These features will continue to be refined while new ones are added, but we almost certainly face years (decades?) of gradual transition where our cars are some weird hodgepodge of self driving and user operated.
What's funny is this whole bit about "Where is my flying car?" when realistically it won't happen in any quantity until personal flying is almost completely automated. And I don't see that happening until we CAN, at least, make reliable automated cars.
The collision-avoidance problem, in some ways, is multiplied in the air. At least on the ground you have specific lanes with traffic control devices on them (lights, etc.).
We don't deal with malfunctioning PEOPLE right now. Drunks, old people, and visual impaired people routinely climb behind the wheel everyday.
We don't deal with these problems, because we have bad laws. We have bad laws because politicians want to please lobbyists, and don't want to seem "soft" on crime or negligence. As a result, they pass laws that are too strict (DUI laws being a classic example: studies show the majority of people are NOT significantly impaired at 0.08%).
When unreasonable laws are passed which victimize pretty much "innocent" people, people lose respect for the law. Not just DUI but also (former or at least getting there) marijuana laws are great examples.
A self-driving system doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be better than what we have now when we scale it up.
Nope. Based on past advances in automobiles (ABS, airbags, power steering, computer throttle control), what will happen is that they will get released, and they will have some major screwups (or public perception of screwups anyway), and there will be a flurry of very heavy-duty lawsuits, and it will go away for a while. Then they'll come back in new and improved form. Then there will be a couple of more lawsuits, and some recalls. Sales will go down a bit and improve again. And it will gradually smooth out. Probably.
It's a bit like the "ringing" effect in some kinds of oscillators.
A, B, and C are demonstrably true, in regard to this EPA rulemaking. I wasn't making a general statement about science.
EPA has consistently refused requests for the science and data behind this specific proposed rulemaking. That is a simple statement of fact. They claim there is some, but they won't show it.
Except that just today Scalia said that he doesn't have to consider congresses intent. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...
He's wrong. Well, maybe, maybe not. Before anybody jumps on me for saying that: this is a legal principle that has been around for hundreds of years, and it's big part of what our whole legal system is based on.
Having said that, there IS one way, and only one, he could get around that: if the language of the law is clear and unambiguous, but Congress' intent was really something else, he probably has to rule on the language, not intent. The whole thing about "intent" is really for when the language of the law is ambiguous. Otherwise, why would you need to decide at all?
I don't know what the real dispute is. If you look around here you will find where I (later) posted the actual language of the relevant part of the bill. It is really pretty benign.
So what is the real issue here? Hard to say for sure, but I suspect that in part it's political.
I think we both agree that laws should be interpreted by what's considered reasonable. One problem is that the term "reasonable" is highly subjective.
No, it isn't. That is, it isn't something that "should be", it's the actual rule U.S. courts are bound to follow.
And elsewhere in this topic I've posted the actual language of the bill. These alarmist scenarios I have seen under this topic today have pretty much nothing to do with what the bill actually says. It's pretty darned "reasonable".
So why have this bill at all if it apparently changes nothing?
Where do you get the idea it changes nothing?
The current proposed rulemaking by the EPA, regarding CO2 emissions, is based on claimed "science" which ISN'T:
(A) identified AT ALL, much less specifically,
(B) "publicly available"
(C) available AT ALL for independent analysis, much less attempts to reproduce.
There is an actual reason the bill is titled "secret science". Because that's what EPA has been doing. And which does, in reality, have to stop. This bill is a direct reaction to EPA's unilateral actions which it is not able or willing to show are based on ANY actual science.
I have a feeling I'm going to have to repeat this several times to different people:
Elsewhere in this topic I've posted the actual language of the bill. Given what it really says, these scenarios are completely unrealistic stretches of the imagination.
Following is the relevant text of the actual bill:
=======
The Administrator shall not propose, finalize,
or disseminate a covered action unless all scientific and
technical information relied on to support such covered ac-
tion is--
(A) specifically identified; and
(B) publicly available online in a manner that
is sufficient for independent analysis and substantial
reproduction of research results.
(2) Nothing in the subsection shall be construed as
requiring the public dissemination of information the dis-
closure of which is prohibited by law.
=======
It does not say personal or medical details. It says "sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction".
There is NOTHING sinister or unreasonable about this, except apparently in the imagination of alarmists.
If its a reaching non-issue Why would the backers of the bill suggest study participants can sign waivers or opt out? Why aren't they just fixing the bill to exclude that interpretation?
That isn't in the bill itself. That's what one person said in response to Morganstein's stated opinion about the bill.
The law is not subject either to Morganstein's interpretation, or what a single Representative said about it. That idea has been solidly settled by the Supreme Court.
400-year-old Common Law, still in effect in this country, says that the meaning of the law rests on one thing: what a reasonable person would conclude Congress intended when passing the law. That's why, for example, they have debates about bills in Congress.
I hardly think a reasonable person would conclude that study subjects could not be anonymous. That's an extreme interpretation, not a reasonable one.
And also as I stated up above: that's why the Court challenge to Obamacare is not about "4 words". It's about what Congress intended when passing the bill. There is A LOT more evidence of Congress' actual intent than just those 4 words.
Are you completely sure it's bullshit? Are you certain that no group impacted by a ruling will not use every possible way of undermining a negative result, valid or otherwise? Have you so little imagination?
Just look at the news today. Republicans are using four words in Obamacare to remove healthcare subsidies for 15 million people.
Yep. Bullshit, and bullshit.
The law must be enforced as read by reasonable people. That is a principle that goes back over 400 years in our legal history. No reasonable person would interpret the law that way. You can't read it any which bizarre way you see fit and say that's what the law means.
As for Obamacare, that's pure propaganda. It isn't "just 4 words". It's what Congress INTENDED in writing the law (just as I wrote above) which rules the day. And there are far, far more than 4 words about this in the Congressional record. It is very clear that the sponsors of the bill, and the debate surrounding the bill, intended any subsidies to be distributed ONLY via State exchanges.
If you read the debates and the emails, it's more like 4000 words, and they all say the same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
However, pardon me, you are correct: It WAS the Riley case that actually put the nail in it solidly. I stand corrected on that point.
Camou was one of the Ninth Circuit case which caused a lot of the uproar that SCOTUS settled. But while it wasn't definitive, the idea that it wasn't about border searches makes absolutely no sense.
Damn autocorrect. It insists on putting in "probably" when I write probable.
But to clarify my point: if border searches of cell phones were exempt from probable cause, the agents could have searched it without it being "exigent to arrest". The entire thing was about whether the standard exceptions to probable cause applied. If probable cause didn't apply, logically he would have lost his case. You don't get to have that both ways.
The current legality of border searches of electronic property isn't fully settled (see e.g. wikipedia),
The Wikiepedia article was last edited before this appeal was decided.
but the case you're linking is completely unrelated to that issue. The decision doesn't discuss border exceptions...
Are off your nut? The entire case is about border searching and exceptions. It was the Border Patrol who had picked him up at a border checkpoint, and searched his gear. Did you even read it?
Have you read any of the independent analyses of this decision? It established solidly that a border search of electronic devices such as cell phones carry the same standards as a search under other non-border circumstances. The same standards apply, the same exceptions apply.
If different standards applied at the border, the appeal would not have succeeded. The decision was made based on the fact that none of the standard exceptions to probably cause were met.
Collision avoidance is easier in the air. There is much more room. (Compare to driving on a huge flat desert, as opposed to narrow roads.) And you can go above and below others, not merely to the left and right.
Only if you assume non-crowded airways. Get a crowd in there (which would be inevitable), and it gets very difficult indeed.
Having a flying car would be pointless if everybody had to go 10mph.
What you say is true of the current situation. But it all goes out the window if you extrapolate to a world in which most people who drive are flying instead.
Just the opposite. Consider that we developed drones long before we developed a self driving car.
Irrelevant. I agree with you: the navigation issue was solved long ago. But navigation isn't the problem. Collision avoidance is.
At the present time the probability of ANY drone collision is ridiculously low, and if it did happen, relatively little would be lost.
You can program specific lanes for flying, they're used all the time by commercial aircraft, but by the same token there's a lot less static clutter, margins are greater(no worrying about whether the kid on the side of the road will dart out), etc...
But if everybody -- or even 30% of everybody -- were flying at the same time, this would all change.
You would have to have low-altitude "commuter lanes" which would of necessity be crowded. Collision avoidance would have to be active and dynamic... not merely relying on "lanes" for safety. Not to mention that most vertical-lift small vehicles today have rather blatant single points of failure: until you get at least four independent rotors, if one fails, down you go, and you'd likely take several others with you.
Nope.
Yep.
Your first link is to the American Psychological Association, and only a 9very) brief abstract. I searched and did not find the paper anywhere that wasn't paywalled. So this doesn't really say anything. It said "evidence of impairment" at ridiculously low concentrations of 0.015% (15 mg/dl), but doesn't say anything about at what point they consider "significant", or how how impairment was measured. What was the methodology? Without that information this is meaningless. It says exactly nothing about the subject under discussion.
Your second link is just a straw-man. Quote:
[Of the five] States adopting 0.08% laws experienced 16% and 18% relative postlaw declines in the proportions of fatal crashes involving fatally injured drivers whose blood alcohol levels were 0.08% or higher and 0.15% or higher. CONCLUSIONS: It all states adopted 0.08% legal blood alcohol limits, at least 500 to 600 fewer fatal crashes would occur annually.
This says nothing about the effects of alcohol. I has to do with the effects of the law, and the behavior of people in states which passed those laws. While it might be reasonable to think there is some relationship between the two, that's not what the study shows. Further, the numbers given are of drivers who killed themselves, not of drivers who were endangering others. The whole point of the law was supposed to be about endangering others. I have zero respect for laws that try to protect me from myself.
Your third link:
There is no evidence of a threshold blood alcohol (BAC) below which impairment does not occur
Another straw-man. I don't dispute this, but it's irrelevant. The whole subject here was the point at which impairment is significant enough to endanger others. That is supposed to be the point of the law.
All of these are rather vague conclusions which skirt the real issue (which does not surprise me in the least... it is rather typical of "studies" that attempt to support a forgone conclusion).
My main point though is: even if these studies validly contradicted the ones I mentioned (they don't), that doesn't mean the ones I mentioned don't exist. Contradictory studies happen all the time. It doesn't prove me wrong, it just implies that there is controversy.
Why should death and serious injury be the deciding factor? If it reduces accidents at all - even non-fatal accidents, minor injury accidents, and no injury accidents - that's good in my book.
Because if you aren't in danger of causing death or serious injury, then you aren't significantly endangering anyone. So why make it against the law?
A world that is 100% safe for children would also be suitable for nobody but children. I, for one, don't want to live in that world.
I would like to see your studies.
I don't have the citations at hand, though I've posted them here on Slashdot at various times in the past.
The State of Idaho did its own study, in which it concluded that the driving of most people is NOT significantly impaired at 0.1% BAC. Of course, that didn't stop them, some years later, from changing the law to 0.08% anyway. Which just illustrates my point.
Over 40 years ago, the national government of Canada did a very comprehensive study involving hundreds of people, which among other things compared the effects of marijuana in various doses to the effects of alcohol in various doses. That study reached similar conclusions.
You are a troll,
An ignorant blind troll who does little more than repeatedly spread the same misinformation again and again, without regard and with complete blindness to all facts that might solve your ignorance.
If you would care to make specific accusations about the things you think I said which were wrong, I would be happy to prove otherwise.
Unless or until you do, you are just blowing hot air. I cite sources for my information, demonstrating that I am neither ignorant or lying. You have provided no information at all, much less citations. All you're doing is calling names.
Calling me ignorant doesn't faze me at all, because I know otherwise and I regularly demonstrate otherwise. If you show that I was wrong or ignorant of some subject, I'll happily admit it and correct myself. But calling names doesn't cut it, and I doubt you can do the other.
Perhaps you could explain why you think that these scenarios are not likely to happen?
Because the language of the bill says nothing about requiring any kind of personal details, or anything else that the alarmists claim it is aimed at.
I think that the language of the Bill is pretty much designed to stop the application of the Precautionary Principle as a method of environmental protection.
If by that you mean: "Rulemaking should not have to be based on sound science," then I agree: it would appear to prevent that situation.
I, for one, think that's great.
It was about climate science denial so some people would see that as a troll, but I agree that it's an abuse of mod points to vote for or against climate science by modding a post about climate science denial that is not offensive in any way.
No, it is NOT about climate science "denial". At all. It was a series of factual statements about actions by the EPA.
I did NOT say "EPA's science is bad". What I wrote was that EPA has refused to produce any actual science at all in support of its rulemaking. Good, bad, or otherwise. It wasn't a judgment about the state of climate science in any way.
You are a fool to believe all judges have the same definition of reasonable. I say this as a cop who has been in many courts before many judges.
You are a fool to believe that's what I believe.
That isn't what I said, and it isn't what I meant.
In the US, for example, the constitutional requirement of probable cause and protecting against unreasonable search and seizure and such don't apply to their kind.
Sorry, you're out-of-date. Federal Appeals Court last year ruled that border guards DO need probable cause to search such things as computers and phones under most circumstances. The only exceptions are circumstances which would also be exceptions away from the border.
Let's be realistic. Self-driving cars are coming, but it is going to be a gradual transition. We've already seen the beginning of it with adaptive cruise control and self-parking. These features will continue to be refined while new ones are added, but we almost certainly face years (decades?) of gradual transition where our cars are some weird hodgepodge of self driving and user operated.
What's funny is this whole bit about "Where is my flying car?" when realistically it won't happen in any quantity until personal flying is almost completely automated. And I don't see that happening until we CAN, at least, make reliable automated cars.
The collision-avoidance problem, in some ways, is multiplied in the air. At least on the ground you have specific lanes with traffic control devices on them (lights, etc.).
We don't deal with malfunctioning PEOPLE right now. Drunks, old people, and visual impaired people routinely climb behind the wheel everyday.
We don't deal with these problems, because we have bad laws. We have bad laws because politicians want to please lobbyists, and don't want to seem "soft" on crime or negligence. As a result, they pass laws that are too strict (DUI laws being a classic example: studies show the majority of people are NOT significantly impaired at 0.08%).
When unreasonable laws are passed which victimize pretty much "innocent" people, people lose respect for the law. Not just DUI but also (former or at least getting there) marijuana laws are great examples.
A self-driving system doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be better than what we have now when we scale it up.
Nope. Based on past advances in automobiles (ABS, airbags, power steering, computer throttle control), what will happen is that they will get released, and they will have some major screwups (or public perception of screwups anyway), and there will be a flurry of very heavy-duty lawsuits, and it will go away for a while. Then they'll come back in new and improved form. Then there will be a couple of more lawsuits, and some recalls. Sales will go down a bit and improve again. And it will gradually smooth out. Probably.
It's a bit like the "ringing" effect in some kinds of oscillators.
To whoever marked my comment "troll":
A, B, and C are demonstrably true, in regard to this EPA rulemaking. I wasn't making a general statement about science.
EPA has consistently refused requests for the science and data behind this specific proposed rulemaking. That is a simple statement of fact. They claim there is some, but they won't show it.
And in just the last couple of days, EPA director Gina McCarthy, in testimony before Congress, demonstrated complete ignorance of even the most elementary knowledge of the science.
Except that just today Scalia said that he doesn't have to consider congresses intent. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...
He's wrong. Well, maybe, maybe not. Before anybody jumps on me for saying that: this is a legal principle that has been around for hundreds of years, and it's big part of what our whole legal system is based on.
Having said that, there IS one way, and only one, he could get around that: if the language of the law is clear and unambiguous, but Congress' intent was really something else, he probably has to rule on the language, not intent. The whole thing about "intent" is really for when the language of the law is ambiguous. Otherwise, why would you need to decide at all?
So then what is the REAL dispute?
I don't know what the real dispute is. If you look around here you will find where I (later) posted the actual language of the relevant part of the bill. It is really pretty benign.
So what is the real issue here? Hard to say for sure, but I suspect that in part it's political.
I think we both agree that laws should be interpreted by what's considered reasonable. One problem is that the term "reasonable" is highly subjective.
No, it isn't. That is, it isn't something that "should be", it's the actual rule U.S. courts are bound to follow.
And elsewhere in this topic I've posted the actual language of the bill. These alarmist scenarios I have seen under this topic today have pretty much nothing to do with what the bill actually says. It's pretty darned "reasonable".
So why have this bill at all if it apparently changes nothing?
Where do you get the idea it changes nothing?
The current proposed rulemaking by the EPA, regarding CO2 emissions, is based on claimed "science" which ISN'T:
(A) identified AT ALL, much less specifically,
(B) "publicly available"
(C) available AT ALL for independent analysis, much less attempts to reproduce.
There is an actual reason the bill is titled "secret science". Because that's what EPA has been doing. And which does, in reality, have to stop. This bill is a direct reaction to EPA's unilateral actions which it is not able or willing to show are based on ANY actual science.
Sez you.
I have a feeling I'm going to have to repeat this several times to different people:
Elsewhere in this topic I've posted the actual language of the bill. Given what it really says, these scenarios are completely unrealistic stretches of the imagination.
Following is the relevant text of the actual bill:
=======
The Administrator shall not propose, finalize,
or disseminate a covered action unless all scientific and
technical information relied on to support such covered ac-
tion is--
(A) specifically identified; and
(B) publicly available online in a manner that
is sufficient for independent analysis and substantial
reproduction of research results.
(2) Nothing in the subsection shall be construed as
requiring the public dissemination of information the dis-
closure of which is prohibited by law.
=======
It does not say personal or medical details. It says "sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction".
There is NOTHING sinister or unreasonable about this, except apparently in the imagination of alarmists.
If its a reaching non-issue Why would the backers of the bill suggest study participants can sign waivers or opt out? Why aren't they just fixing the bill to exclude that interpretation?
That isn't in the bill itself. That's what one person said in response to Morganstein's stated opinion about the bill.
The law is not subject either to Morganstein's interpretation, or what a single Representative said about it. That idea has been solidly settled by the Supreme Court.
400-year-old Common Law, still in effect in this country, says that the meaning of the law rests on one thing: what a reasonable person would conclude Congress intended when passing the law. That's why, for example, they have debates about bills in Congress.
I hardly think a reasonable person would conclude that study subjects could not be anonymous. That's an extreme interpretation, not a reasonable one.
And also as I stated up above: that's why the Court challenge to Obamacare is not about "4 words". It's about what Congress intended when passing the bill. There is A LOT more evidence of Congress' actual intent than just those 4 words.
A lot hangs on that word, "presumed."
Only if you completely missed my point.
Are you completely sure it's bullshit? Are you certain that no group impacted by a ruling will not use every possible way of undermining a negative result, valid or otherwise? Have you so little imagination?
Just look at the news today. Republicans are using four words in Obamacare to remove healthcare subsidies for 15 million people.
Yep. Bullshit, and bullshit.
The law must be enforced as read by reasonable people. That is a principle that goes back over 400 years in our legal history. No reasonable person would interpret the law that way. You can't read it any which bizarre way you see fit and say that's what the law means.
As for Obamacare, that's pure propaganda. It isn't "just 4 words". It's what Congress INTENDED in writing the law (just as I wrote above) which rules the day. And there are far, far more than 4 words about this in the Congressional record. It is very clear that the sponsors of the bill, and the debate surrounding the bill, intended any subsidies to be distributed ONLY via State exchanges.
If you read the debates and the emails, it's more like 4000 words, and they all say the same thing.