Who paid off Judge Roberts?

[rsc2a]

That actually makes perfect sense. In fact, using the same reasoning, we should mandate that everyone buy a home, and those that don't, we tax fine tax them. A boost for the economy and eliminating homelessness all in one fell swoop.

Except that we don't have a national consensus - nor do we have a legal precedent - that everyone who wants a place to live gets one.

Yes. The national consensus and legal precedent is clear. What are we arguing about again? What had to go all the way to the Supreme Court (and was given contradictory judgements in lessor courts)?

[quote author=redgreen5]On the other hand:

1. we *DO* have a national consensus - as well as legal precedent - that people who present themselves for medical care will receive it; and[/quote]

Health care ≠ Health insurance

[quote author=redgreen5]2. we have the plain financial fact that taxpayer money as well as individual citizens will bear the costs, in case the sick person cannot pay the bill.

Neither of these two things is true with your attempted analogy about housing.[/quote]

Perhaps you've never heard of HUD? Section 8 housing? Low income housing?

[quote author=redgreen5]Hence, your attempt at satirical analogy falls flat on its face, because you didn't check your analogy closely enough, to see whether it was tangent on the critical points.[/quote]

Try again. Or if you'd like, I can make the argument for anything else that the government provides to individuals.

[quote author=redgreen5[quote]
LOL! Like Wickard v. Filburn?
[/quote]

That's 1942. Hate to be the one to break the news to you, but more recent decisions carry more weight and have reined in the scope of Wickard v. Filburn:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

United States v. Lopez (1995) was the first decision in six decades to invalidate a federal statute on the grounds that it exceeded the power of the Congress under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The opinion described Wickard v. Filburn as "perhaps the most far reaching example of Commerce Clause authority over intrastate commerce." Lopez held that while Congress had broad lawmaking authority under the Commerce Clause, the power was limited, and did not extend so far from "commerce" as to authorize the regulation of the carrying of handguns, especially when there was no evidence that carrying them affected the economy on a massive scale.[2]

[/quote]

I'm sorry...when did you say the case has to be less than six decades old? And why pick an arbitrary date like that? Shifty things, those goalposts are.

(Also your idea that older cases don't set precedent is flat wrong.)

 

[redgreen5]

That actually makes perfect sense. In fact, using the same reasoning, we should mandate that everyone buy a home, and those that don't, we tax fine tax them. A boost for the economy and eliminating homelessness all in one fell swoop.

Except that we don't have a national consensus - nor do we have a legal precedent - that everyone who wants a place to live gets one.

Yes. The national consensus and legal precedent is clear. What are we arguing about again? What had to go all the way to the Supreme Court (and was given contradictory judgements in lessor courts)?

Bait-and-switch so early in your response? 

The national consensus I mentioned was about (1)  the legal requirements for hospitals and clinics to provide care and treatment.  I did not claim any national consensus for (2) the Obama health care plan itself.  And of course, you knew that was what I saying --- so why did you misrepresent what I was saying, hmmm?

Apparently you think (1) is the same as (2). It is not.


[quote author=redgreen5]On the other hand:

1. we *DO* have a national consensus - as well as legal precedent - that people who present themselves for medical care will receive it; and

Health care ≠ Health insurance[/quote]

Gee, really?  Check my post: I never said it was the same.  I don't know why you're trying to rebut positions that nobody has asserted, but feel free to continue knocking down your own strawmen.

My statement was about health care.  That same health care imposes public costs in the form of hospitals writing off costs for services that they never get paid for. And costs, in terms of tax money being used to pay for care of people who are not paying into the system.

[quote author=redgreen5]

2. we have the plain financial fact that taxpayer money as well as individual citizens will bear the costs, in case the sick person cannot pay the bill.

Neither of these two things is true with your attempted analogy about housing.

Perhaps you've never heard of HUD? Section 8 housing? Low income housing?[/quote]

Of course I've heard of it. 
Feel free to cite the paragraph in HUD Section 8 that requires a landlord to provide you with housing, if you present yourself to his/her doorstep needing housing. 

HUD Section 8 is also:
(a) limited in scope (not everyone gets Section 8 housing even if they qualify);
(b) non-immediate (meaning there can long waiting lists of several years);
(c) with means testing involved, and
(d) operates on a voucher system. 

None of that applies when a person presents themselves for care at a hospital.

I'm sorry; did I bust your analogy again?

Try again. Or if you'd like, I can make the argument for anything else that the government provides to individuals.

1. No need to try again; your analogy is still busted.

2. Feel free to try and make the argument - but if you fail to make the argument using an analogy that is tangent on the critical points (i.e., no refusal allowed when presenting for the benefit) then your follow-up argument will also fail.

[quote author=redgreen5[quote]
I'm sorry...when did you say the case has to be less than six decades old?[/quote]

LOL nice try. But my comment wasn't about rejecting Wickard v. Filburn becaus it was *old*; it was because more recent cases that rely on Wickard v. Filburn have been overturned. So it's not me trying to set  some arbitrary date. It's merely how the courts operate. The two cases I mentioned, Lopez and Morrison, both were critically dependent upon Wickard v. Filburn. Yet Lopez and Morrison were both overturned.  Their underlying legal premise (i.e., the claimed powers derived from Wickard v. Filburn) was found to be faulty.

As a result, these two more recent rulings have upturned Wickard v. Filburn. So your attempt to wave Wickard v. Filburn around is wasted energy.  Wickard v. Filburn doesn't have the scope you think it does anymore -- not since Lopez and Morrison put new boundaries around the Commerce Clause.

In other words, you don't appear to have updated your knowledge of Wickard v. Filburn to include two major Supreme Court cases where the test cases that relied on Wickard v. Filburn were overturned.  Now I ask you:  whose fault is that?

And why pick an arbitrary date like that? Shifty things, those goalposts are.

No goalposts being shifted here. Just your ignorance of the fact that the more recent rulings have put boundaries around Wickard v. Filburn.

(Also your idea that older cases don't set precedent is flat wrong.)

I never said any such thing.
What I said is that when two court cases that critically depended on Wickard v. Filburn got overturned, then Wickard v. Filburn obviously doesn't have the scope anymore that you seem to think it does.

 

[The Real Bob]

He was the only one to argue that the mandate was in actuality a "tax". He's decision was opposed to the other 8 judges. The 4 left leaning judges saw the mandate as a exercise of the commerce clause.

How can we honestly believe that Roberts was intellectually honest to read a "tax" into the law?

Seems like someone was influenced by outsides sources to me.

I think you mean who in the Obama Administration threatened him and his family with their lives.

 

[redgreen5]

He was the only one to argue that the mandate was in actuality a "tax". He's decision was opposed to the other 8 judges. The 4 left leaning judges saw the mandate as a exercise of the commerce clause.

How can we honestly believe that Roberts was intellectually honest to read a "tax" into the law?

Seems like someone was influenced by outsides sources to me.

I think you mean who in the Obama Administration threatened him and his family with their lives.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Once in awhile I start to wonder if maybe I have judged you wingnutters too harshly.

But then one of you bone-heads drops a true gem of a conspiracy like the one above.  Almost makes me want to get my very own tinfoil hat, so I can tune into the same wavelengths you guys are listening to.

But back to business:
Feel free, Bob L, to post *whatever* reputable evidence you have to support such a wild, outlandish claim.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=redgreen5]Bait-and-switch so early in your response?  [/quote]

You're the one who seems to be confusing a discussion about health insurance maintenance plans with health care. What is primary stated aim of Obamacare? ("45 million..." what?)

[quote author=redgreen5]My statement was about health care.  That same health care imposes public costs in the form of hospitals writing off costs for services that they never get paid for. And costs, in terms of tax money being used to pay for care of people who are not paying into the system.[/quote]

So you are hijacking the thread? If you want to continue the hijack, should we discuss everything else that " tax money [is] being used to pay for care of people who are not paying into the system" and ask if you think all of that should be covered?

[quote author=redgreen5]2. we have the plain financial fact that taxpayer money as well as individual citizens will bear the costs, in case the sick person cannot pay the bill.

Neither of these two things is true with your attempted analogy about housing.[/quote]

That's right. Those section 8 vouchers and low income housing projects magically appear.

[quote author=redgreen5]

HUD Section 8 is also:
(a) limited in scope (not everyone gets Section 8 housing even if they qualify);
(b) non-immediate (meaning there can long waiting lists of several years);
(c) with means testing involved, and
(d) operates on a voucher system. 

None of that applies when a person presents themselves for care at a hospital.[/quote]

Really? Do you want to retract your statement or would you rather me just break it now?


[quote author=redgreen5]LOL nice try. But my comment wasn't about rejecting Wickard v. Filburn becaus it was *old*; it was because more recent cases that rely on Wickard v. Filburn have been overturned. So it's not me trying to set  some arbitrary date. It's merely how the courts operate. The two cases I mentioned, Lopez and Morrison, both were critically dependent upon Wickard v. Filburn. Yet Lopez and Morrison were both overturned.  Their underlying legal premise (i.e., the claimed powers derived from Wickard v. Filburn) was found to be faulty.

As a result, these two more recent rulings have upturned Wickard v. Filburn. So your attempt to wave Wickard v. Filburn around is wasted energy.  Wickard v. Filburn doesn't have the scope you think it does anymore -- not since Lopez and Morrison put new boundaries around the Commerce Clause.[/quote]

Because a case that relies on a prior case has been overturned does not mean the prior case was found faulty. That's just bad logic. Furthermore, it ignores all of the other case law that was established and is maintained that is based upon the original case.

If anything, it just proves the arbitrariness of the Court. Both sides of the political aisle pick and choose which prior precedent they want to follow to support their rulings.

[quote author=redgreen5]In other words, you don't appear to have updated your knowledge of Wickard v. Filburn to include two major Supreme Court cases where the test cases that relied on Wickard v. Filburn were overturned.  Now I ask you:  whose fault is that?[/quote]

The exercise in bad logic? Yours.

 

[redgreen5]

[quote author=rsc2a]
You're the one who seems to be confusing [/quote]

I'm not confusing anything. I was talking about a national consensus on medical treatment for the sick and/or injured. You screwed up by assuming that I meant the Obama health care law, when I clearly did not. Admit your mistake and move on. Sheesh.

So you are hijacking the thread?

LOL You're flailing about now. I did not hijack the thread. Everything I brought up is tangent to this discussion.  I even started my initial post by listing the stupid claims and faulty assumptions of the rightwingers that I had read in the thread. That alone should have clued you in to the fact that I was not hijacking the thread:  I was responding to statements ALREADY MADE in the thread.

This isn't hard; it just requires that you slow down and read my posts before rushing off your response. You failed to do that several times already.

Again: admit your mistake and move on.

Neither of these two things is true with your attempted analogy about housing.

That's right. Those section 8 vouchers and low income housing projects magically appear.

Another dishonest bait-and-switch on your part.

Your original comment was:

we should mandate that everyone buy a home, and those that don't, we tax fine tax them. A boost for the economy and eliminating homelessness all in one fell swoop.

The situation NOW with healthcare is that you can present yourself for treatment and not pay, and you cannot be refused.  Taxpayers, hospitals, and insured people bear the burden of that.

My comment about the "plain financial fact" was to show how your childish comment "we should mandate that everyone buy a home" is not tangent to the healthcare situation NOW (described above in red).  You cannot present yourself for housing NOW with the expectation that you won't be turned away. You cannot walk up to a landlord and tell him/her that you're homeless, and expect him/her to provide you shelter.  But you can walk up to a hospital admitting desk with a broken arm or whatever, and they do have to treat you.

The situations are not the same, no matter how much sleaze you apply in trying to twist what I write.


[quote author=redgreen5]

HUD Section 8 is also:
(a) limited in scope (not everyone gets Section 8 housing even if they qualify);
(b) non-immediate (meaning there can long waiting lists of several years);
(c) with means testing involved, and
(d) operates on a voucher system. 

None of that applies when a person presents themselves for care at a hospital.

Really? Do you want to retract your statement or would you rather me just break it now?[/quote]

My statement stands.  Feel free to "break" it if you think you can.

Because a case that relies on a prior case has been overturned does not mean the prior case was found faulty. That's just bad logic.

LOL if Case B relies on a legal principle established by Case A, and the Court says that the legal principle in A is faulty and has been faulty all along, then it most certainly *does* mean that.  It also calls into question any *other* laws which are rooted in the (now invalidated/restricted) principle that used to exist in Case A. 

Furthermore, it ignores all of the other case law that was established and is maintained that is based upon the original case.

That it what it means to overturn or restrict a previous legal principle. Duh.  It means that other laws which are rooted in that invalidated/restricted principle are ripe for being challenged.  We are seeing that now as a result of the Citizens United case.  That was the basis of the Supreme Court's rejection last month of a totally different Montana state law restricting campaign donations.  That, in fact, is what conservatives are hoping now: that the new restrictions on the Commerce Clause will provide the legal basis for overturning other laws they believe have overreached.

Not only does your comment ignore the process of how such challenges are brought generally, but in the specific case of the health care ruling, you don't seem to realize that this is exactly what conservatives were hoping for: a launching pad to dismantle other laws based on the Commerce Clause. 

If anything, it just proves the arbitrariness of the Court.

LOL you just can't admit your mistake.

Both sides of the political aisle pick and choose which prior precedent they want to follow to support their rulings.

Based on what evidence? The composition of the Court in Lopez was with a 5 conservative majority. So was Morrison.


[quote author=redgreen5]

In other words, you don't appear to have updated your knowledge of Wickard v. Filburn to include two major Supreme Court cases where the test cases that relied on Wickard v. Filburn were overturned.  Now I ask you:  whose fault is that?

The exercise in bad logic? Yours.
[/quote]

No bad logic here. Just your childish inability to act maturely and admit your mistakes.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=rsc2a]
You're the one who seems to be confusing

I'm not confusing anything. I was talking about a national consensus on medical treatment for the sick and/or injured. You screwed up by assuming that I meant the Obama health care law, when I clearly did not. Admit your mistake and move on. Sheesh.[/quote]

Seeing as how your "consensus" statement was a reply to my post, a post about Obamacare...

[quote author=redgreen5]

That's right. Those section 8 vouchers and low income housing projects magically appear.

Another dishonest bait-and-switch on your part...[/quote]

You are forgetting your argument. You said that the government has an interest because taxpayer money and individuals will bear the costs. Based on your own argument, the government should pass an "Obamacare" for housing.

[quote author=redgreen5]Your original comment was:

we should mandate that everyone buy a home, and those that don't, we tax fine tax them. A boost for the economy and eliminating homelessness all in one fell swoop.

The situation NOW with healthcare is that you can present yourself for treatment and not pay, and you cannot be refused.  Taxpayers, hospitals, and insured people bear the burden of that.[/quote]

Yes...in case you forgot, Obamacare mandates that everyone buy health insurance, not health care.

[quote author=redgreen5]My comment about the "plain financial fact" was to show how your childish comment "we should mandate that everyone buy a home" is not tangent to the healthcare situation NOW (described above in red).  You cannot present yourself for housing NOW with the expectation that you won't be turned away. You cannot walk up to a landlord and tell him/her that you're homeless, and expect him/her to provide you shelter.  But you can walk up to a hospital admitting desk with a broken arm or whatever, and they do have to treat you.[/quote]

They have to stabilize you, basically give you minimal care. They don't have to treat everyone that walks in...

[quote author=redgreen5]The situations are not the same, no matter how much sleaze you apply in trying to twist what I write.[/quote]

LOL! Oh yeah...I forgot how unbiased you are.

[quote author=redgreen5]

[quote author=redgreen5]

HUD Section 8 is also:
(a) limited in scope (not everyone gets Section 8 housing even if they qualify);
(b) non-immediate (meaning there can long waiting lists of several years);
(c) with means testing involved, and
(d) operates on a voucher system. 

None of that applies when a person presents themselves for care at a hospital.

Really? Do you want to retract your statement or would you rather me just break it now?[/quote]

My statement stands.  Feel free to "break" it if you think you can.[/quote]

1 - All medical care is limited in scope, whether it is economic or whatever. Any argument otherwise is ludicrous.

2 - Should I mention the waiting periods for various services?

3 - There are very real means tests for medical care. Breast implants are covered, just not for everyone.

4 - What do you think happens when you put people on waiting lists? It's a de facto voucher system.

[quote author=redgreen5]

Because a case that relies on a prior case has been overturned does not mean the prior case was found faulty. That's just bad logic.

LOL if Case B relies on a legal principle established by Case A, and the Court says that the legal principle in A is faulty and has been faulty all along, then it most certainly *does* mean that.  It also calls into question any *other* laws which are rooted in the (now invalidated/restricted) principle that used to exist in Case A.  [/quote]

You see that underlined part. It does not mean "overturn".

[quote author=redgreen5]That it what it means to overturn or restrict a previous legal principle. Duh.[/quote]

But you didn't say that. You said they overturned a current case due to its reliance on the previous case. That doesn't mean the other case is bad law, just that the argument isn't valid for the current law...this really isn't complicated stuff.

[quote author=redgreen5]No bad logic here. Just your childish inability to act maturely and admit your mistakes.[/quote]

I actually enjoy debating with people who have at least some ability to practice logic and/or a grasp of the facts. While I do question both for you (not because I think you are inherently illogical, but mostly because I consider you to be more of an ideologue that I originally believed), if you continue to insult and name-call, I'll just start ignoring you.

 

[redgreen5]

[quote author=rsc2a]
Seeing as how your "consensus" statement was a reply to my post, a post about Obamacare...[/quote]

But then I stated clearly what that consensus *was*.  And I did not mention Obamacare in my statement, nor connect it with the word "consensus".

You rushed off your response without carefully reading what I wrote.
I caught you on that mistake, and pointed it out to you.
Everything we've seen since that time is just you dancing around, trying avoid checkmate.  It's perverse stubbornness with no purpose but to shelter your ego.

This is a test case. If you cannot admit your mistake at this point, then I have lost interest in discussing with you. If you lack the integrity to admit a mistake, even when it's obvious and I'm not even implying any malicious intent, then as far as I'm concerned you're no better than the garden variety ideologues and rightwing liars that populate the rest of this board. And quite frankly, you're not worth my time as long as you lack the basic requirement for discussion: intellectual maturity and integrity.

Your move.

 

[T-Bone]

[quote author=rsc2a]
Seeing as how your "consensus" statement was a reply to my post, a post about Obamacare...

This is a test case. If you cannot admit your mistake at this point, then I have lost interest in discussing with you. If you lack the integrity to admit a mistake, even when it's obvious and I'm not even implying any malicious intent, then as far as I'm concerned you're no better than the garden variety ideologues and rightwing liars that populate the rest of this board. And quite frankly, you're not worth my time as long as you lack the basic requirement for discussion: integrity.

[/quote]

You tell em Redgreen...punish them by not speaking to them any more..

.

 

[redgreen5]

[quote author=T-Bone]
You tell em Redgreen...punish them by not speaking to them any more..[/quote]

It's not punishment. It's just a recognition that we have different standards for engaging in discussion.

I'm not willing to invest time and energy with someone who fails to honor those investments with emotional maturity and integrity.  Nor am I willing to put forth considerable time fine-tuning my points and looking up sources, for someone who is just going to twist my words and manufacture strawmen.  My time is important, and I don't throw pearls before swine. 

Besides, as long as there are barely literate idiots like you to smack around T-Bonehead, I can keep myself entertained for hours.....

 

[T-Bone]

[quote author=T-Bone]
You tell em Redgreen...punish them by not speaking to them any more..

It's not punishment. It's just a recognition that we have different standards for engaging in discussion.

Besides, as long as there are barely literate idiots like you to smack around T-Bonehead, I can keep myself entertained for hours.....

[/quote]

Too bad you have no such standards for truth...and I love the entertainment that a completely illiterate lying liberal affords...thanks Noid boy!

 

[christundivided]

[quote author=T-Bone]
You tell em Redgreen...punish them by not speaking to them any more..

It's not punishment. It's just a recognition that we have different standards for engaging in discussion.

I'm not willing to invest time and energy with someone who fails to honor those investments with emotional maturity and integrity.  Nor am I willing to put forth considerable time fine-tuning my points and looking up sources, for someone who is just going to twist my words and manufacture strawmen.  My time is important, and I don't throw pearls before swine. 

Besides, as long as there are barely literate idiots like you to smack around T-Bonehead, I can keep myself entertained for hours.....

[/quote]

There you go.... This moron has been winging it from the beginning. He has to really put the effort into "refining his points" and "looking up sources".

What a child.

 

[redgreen5]

[quote author=T-Bone]
You tell em Redgreen...punish them by not speaking to them any more..

It's not punishment. It's just a recognition that we have different standards for engaging in discussion.

Besides, as long as there are barely literate idiots like you to smack around T-Bonehead, I can keep myself entertained for hours.....

Too bad you have no such standards for truth...[/quote]

The truth is that you're a barely literate bonehead.

And I love the entertainment that a completely illiterate lying liberal affords...thanks Noid boy!

You should learn to keep quiet while adults are talking.

 

[redgreen5]

[quote author=christundivided]There you go.... This moron has been winging it from the beginning. [/quote]

On the contrary.  I've been kicking your butt since Day 1.
That's why you're so pissed off.

He has to really put the effort into "refining his points" and "looking up sources".

LOL you think that refining points and looking up sources proves that someone is "winging it"?
That explains a lot about the low quality of your posts.  Perhaps if you actually bothered to refine your claims and find any sources in the first place, you wouldn't suck worse than T-Bonehead.

What a child.

And yet, still far, far better than you'll ever be, in your entire wasted, useless life. How sad for you!

 

[T-Bone]

[quote author=T-Bone]
You tell em Redgreen...punish them by not speaking to them any more..

It's not punishment. It's just a recognition that we have different standards for engaging in discussion.

Besides, as long as there are barely literate idiots like you to smack around T-Bonehead, I can keep myself entertained for hours.....

Too bad you have no such standards for truth...

The truth is that you're a barely literate bonehead.

And I love the entertainment that a completely illiterate lying liberal affords...thanks Noid boy!

You should learn to keep quiet while adults are talking.
[/quote]

I guess you told me...now are you going to take you ball and go home crying?

 

[redgreen5]

[quote author=T-Bonehead]
I guess you told me...[/quote]

It doesn't do any good. You have too many farm animals in your family tree to really understand anything.

now are you going to take you ball and go home crying?

LOL nobody crying around here. As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[T-Bone]

[quote author=T-Bonehead]
I guess you told me...

It doesn't do any good. You have too many farm animals in your family tree to really understand anything.

now are you going to take you ball and go home crying?

LOL nobody crying around here. As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.
[/quote]Says the one whose Uncle is his dad!

 

[redgreen5]

[quote author=T-Bonehead]
blah blah
[/quote]
Your situation is worse. Your mother is ugly enough to be your father.

What's more, like all the other drooling conservotards here, you have double standards.  When I state that I'm not going to waste time on rsc2a because he cannot admit his obvious mistakes, you start babbling something about taking a ball and going home.

But how is my statement any different from what rsc2a said to me, in this very same thread?

if you continue to insult and name-call, I'll just start ignoring you.

LOL 
See what I mean about double standards?

You are so easily manipulated. It's like training a barnyard animal to come running whenever a bell is rung.
Sometimes I almost feel guilty for taking advantage of conservotards like you...almost.

 

[T-Bone]

[quote author=T-Bonehead]
blah blah

Your situation is worse. Your mother is ugly enough to be your father.
[/quote]

Should have known from your responses I was dealing with a third grader on the short bus...sorry kid...I will wait for the one about my mom wearing combat boots!

 

[redgreen5]

[quote author=T-Bonehead]
Should have known from your responses blah blah...[/quote]

I was doing you a favor; my response was pitched at your level of understanding.  Hopefully it didn't fly over your head, although sometimes reducing important points down to the "Dick and Jane" level for you can be challenging.