Absolutely
No way
Not sure
Vote for Supremes?
Well it's looking like SCOTUS is gonna prove that an unelected court is too poor a securer of justice to be trusted with its interpretation. Therefore the question arises, "would you like to vote to elect Supreme Court justices for a finite span of years?"
Tcaud, give up on the government. Politics is a well staged play. Every scrap of information you get is put there for a reason, and your reacting to it is precisely its purpose. Everything real occurs behind the scenes while you're being distracted by trivial issues, which are petty illusions covering the real processes at work. The government consists largely of satanic ritual cultists.
Actually I think OWS could rally around this premise quite easily. Libertarians and anarchists would be on board, and that would be more than half the country right there.
I don't know where you get your statistics, but that "more than half the country" figure is nonsense. And I'm sure most "anarchists" would balk at you voicing their support of an insignificant measure such as this. Democracy is not a "lesser" evil, it's still an evil. Rose Wilder Lane couldn't have said it better when, in a letter to Ludwig von Mises, she stated, "[. . .] as an American I am of course fundamentally opposed to democracy and to anyone advocating or defending democracy, which in theory and practice is the basis of socialism."Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
I highly recommend her book, The Discovery of Freedom: Man's Struggle Against Authority (1943). Albert Jay Nock's Anarchist's Progress (1927) and Our Enemy, the State (1935) are also very illuminating.
Last edited by Capitalist Pig; 03-28-2012 at 03:22 AM.
Those illuminate your thought, a bit, but I would never be persuaded by them.
And the "more than half" figure is a political calculation.
Your loss.
You mean like Washington Fuzzy Math? Because it sounds made up to me.
Well you also believe in anarcho-libertarianism. But who cares about you? You're not my friend. All that matters is what I and my friends do.Your loss.
OK, the media is saying the health care law is going to be overturned. Major questions have been raised already: for the first time in 80 years, judicial review is being seriously questioned. What is hype and bluster in these proceeding and what is real. I chanced to review court arguments a few weeks ago and was able to trace the personality dynamics quite accurately. I'll do a post later on the REAL direction the court is heading, and what could be the motives surrounding it.
Obama can save the bill in the same way FDR did: by using the bully pulpit to threaten its court's existence. Whether or not he intimidates the court successfully will be the ultimate judgment of his presidency. And he does need to go ahead and intimidate it, because I suspect that Anthony Kennedy behaves like Wikipedia: he goes with whomever screams the loudest unless his personal welfare is at stake. Typical for conservative leaning reformers.
There is a complicating factor of Roe v Wade, however Roe v Wade has been so diminished by now that Obama had might as well threaten the court over that, too. Obama had better be mindful of the fact that the conservatives think they know how to manipulate him.
OK I'm looking at this... I'm kinda emotional so it's hard to follow some of the arguments. Kennedy seems like he's trying to play some RPG protagonist role... the guy really should try a JRPG so he can see how ridiculous he looks.
Here's the PDF for today's arguments:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg....pdf?hpt=hp_t1
The right wing is actually not paying much attention to the commerce clause, which is fairly straightforward (one sentence!) and is not violated by the ACA. Instead, they are trying to judge whether congress can create a market in order to regulate it, because supposedly it represents the possibility of tyranny (OH THE HYPOCRISY!). It's not the role of the judiciary to determine what's harmful or not to the republic... that's the role of the president as its guardian. The law of the congress, except where it attempts to infringe on the rights of the people, should be observed.
The right-leaners are overreaching because it perceives that Republican corruption in the congress enables it to act without penalty, no matter how far it reaches.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 03-28-2012 at 07:38 PM.
I want to have a family someday, but I want my family to be safe, physically and emotionally. To that, I'm willing to hurt people, I'll be straight out. And I think you should, too, because the will to protect is a virtue, and as SLI-SLE will attest, force is an aspect of successful protection.
There is a good chance that if Kennedy votes against the bill, Elena Kagan will break tradition and speak out against her peers. A very good chance. She signaled incredulity as to the red state's lawyer's argument (A Bush figure), to the point that she probably believes him insane.
Why are you worred Tcaud?
Most of the bill will likely stay or still be implemented regardless of Supreme Court decisions. Individual mandate is a bone for the insurance companies anyways and is imo not that great a policy to begin with.
If individual mandate gets tosses, then it'll just be a battle to see if single payer gets implemented or not as that's the only option.
It clarifies the battleground and probably will in the end establish a single payer system. Also expanding Medicare to cover all individuals/workers is cheaper and not subject to the legal scrutiny that individual mandate has, it was a conservative bone to the insurance company to begin with, so they wouldn't be pushed into the margins by a single payer.
Long term without comprehensive healthcare reform and cost control applied to the health system, there will simply be no middle class stability and security with the specter of uninsurability and financial destruction always a possibility. By taking away's people incentives to work because any major health scare will cause financial insolvency, people will simply either leave this country for a number of other countries with a universal healthcare system.
What I really want to see is individual mandate thrown out, with insurance companies inability to deny pre-existing conditions kept. That lobby will be plowing for a single payer system then.
They won't leave America because it's hard to emigrate. They also don't want to leave their families.
Single payer is probably impossible to get through the congress. The unions won't support it and the Republicans are dead-set against it. The last congress offered the best chance in generations.
Some idiot on Huffington Post suggested that liberals bankroll all the healthcare themselves and leave everyone who "didn't want" health care out of it. Nice try... talk like that will make the wicked disappear... into the ground.
Congress will pass single payer when the people want it. And the vast majority of people will want it within 25-50 years at most, when they have to pay $500 dollar a person for premiums and Medicare is bankrupt. There are different ways to skin this cat, but ultimately price control and proper regulation needs to happen to skyrocketing health care costs. Most of the boomers will be dead, and most of the current and next generation will be totally unprotected unless comprehensive overhaul of the system occurs. They'll get to sit in the waiting room hell of the uninsured except nobody is coming to check on them. Hopefully that will get people to consider this issue without all the stupid political grandstanding.
In this kind of bust scenario, most people will likely lose all but basic and limited benefits, and maybe that's the way it needs to be for people to be rational about health. Which include taking care of it, eating well and the proper preventive cares necessary to stay healthy.
You have friends?
I ain't gonna be an old man when this shit goes through. If this bill gets "killed" by those pretentious old fogies, the shit will hit the fan and it will be in their face. FDR showed us how it's done: when the judges get tough with you, you have to get tough with the judges. They can put in single payer if they want -- I don't care. What I want is affordable health care NOW.
The following passage illustrates Scalia's craftiness:
Now what do you think the word "necessary" means?And I do think, Justice Kennedy, getting back to the question you asked before, what -- what matters here is whether Congress is choosing a tool that's reasonably adapted to the problem that Congress is confronting. And that may mean that the tool is different from a tool that Congress has chosen to use in the past. That's not something that counts against the provision in a Commerce Clause analysis.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Wait. That's -- it's both "Necessary and Proper." What you just said addresses what's necessary. Yes, has to be reasonably adapted. Necessary does not mean essential, just reasonably adapted. But in addition to being necessary, it has to be proper. And we've held in two cases that something that was reasonably adapted was not proper, because it violated the sovereignty of the States, which was implicit in the constitutional structure.
But what I really hate most about this situation, is the NIHILISM!
hkkmr based on the statement by Scalia, above, it looks like this court is prepared to radically reassert the power of the states in a way that hasn't been seen since Brown vs Education. To that end, they might not accept even single payer. I also read it as saying that Scalia seems to think he's firmly in control of Kennedy, in that he believes he can speak for the court.
Judging by a recent case (the one involving the guy who claimed to have military honors), this court feels very unsure about the notion of "irreparable harm", and is leaving it to Scalia (SEI) to judge the existence or not thereof with regard to any and all situations. So there may be a type dynamic unbalancing the court out of alpha Ti's hands (where it is supposed to be) and into the hands of alpha Si to an exclusionary, dismissive degree.
I wonder... is Si serving a specific master in the case of Scalia's arguments?
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 03-29-2012 at 02:10 AM.
You're ignoring the incredible power of Te in American society.
It occurred to me yesterday to look into what a "equitable" share of the American money supply would mean in today's terms. Given the broadest measure, M2, the money supply is 9.5 trillion. Divide that by the number of individuals living in America (300m) and you get about 32k per individual. Think about that, and what the great LIE society might want to do with that number.
At this point it's in the courts hands, and whatever happens, you go from there. Setbacks happen all the time in life, you just pick it up and move forward. I don't particularly like all parts of the reform, but I am supportive of general reform of the healthcare system as well as universal coverage achieved in a cost effective fashion. That means price control and a focus on preventive care, however this comes about, via private initiatives or public ones, I do not particularly care. The goal is to ensure that there is incentive for working adults to achieve some level of success which won't be taken away by a single sickness or accident.
American in my opinion is not very revolutionary, as it has British roots, and have largely adopted their manners. Britain has largely avoided the large scale revolutions that has occurred elsewhere in the world and US will likely be similar to Britain in the way it deals with civil unrest, by compromise, gradual reform and civil discourse. The British and Americans are not very progressive, and tend to do things in a slow and relatively gradual fashion despite often being the eventual home to many revolutionaries.
You forget the last time altruism was frustrated in America. it was 1848. If you know American history. Americans have always been willing to commit violence against each other in the name of altruism. Abe Lincoln did, in fact, goad the South to war with him, with the specific intention of defeating the South and forcing it to accept the end of slavery. That's why the South seceded following his election.
Violence represents failure, and the civil war was a failure.
What's needed is to get rid of judicial review. We need a constitutional amendment getting rid of that. We should also rework the executive branch to make the duties of domestic and state leadership separate.
The descent into war was indeed a failure; but the war was not. Nor could it have been avoided at that time in history.
But SCOTUS was the main cause.
The war was a failure and left a simmering ressentiment that still drives much of the issues which confounds America today, such as states rights and property rights. Did America really get past the war? The violence was a necessary reflection of its times but America is still dealing with the fallout.
And it is not that their argument lacks merit, but that the arguments are in service to extreme interpretations of those values against common decency and pragmatic policy.
You don't understand America worth shit.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote