OT: Obamacare to Fall

[BillB]

I had a chance to listen to most of the government's Day 2 oral
submissions in support of the PPACA. Oh...my...God. That was painful.
Seriously uncomfortable to listen to. I have heard better advocacy from
pro se litigants on Judge Judy. With all the great litigators in the US
government, why did Solicitor General Verrilli make the ego play and
take it himself? Terrible move. I knew the material better than he
did...maybe not the details of the legislation, but the answers the
justices wanted to hear. The so-called "liberal Justices" were trying to
help him out by asking him questions with the right answers built right
in, and he *still* couldn't take a hint! When he answered the right
question at all, he just rambled on and on and to and fro, to the point
where what he was saying was almost indecipherable.

Rule #1: Answer the question asked, not the question you hoped would be
asked

Rule #2: Be clear and succinct.

Rule #3: When they give you the answer to the question, take it!


So, they can't sever this individual mandate, because the rest of the
legislation necessarily stands or falls with it (for many reasons I
won't get into). I'm pretty sure the whole thing is going down. I guess
it's back to 40,000 Americans dying needlessly every year for want of
coverage. Expect that number to rise as costs escalate. The Republicans
should be proud. They have denied the black man his singular
achievement. Next time it has to be "Medicare for all" to avoid this
constitutional mess, but I'm sure another 400,000 will die, at least,
before that ever comes to pass. That's almost like nuking a city. The
Republicans are actually more dangerous than al-Qaeda!

I'm just wondering if there's going to be any blow-back on the
Republicans for this. Back to the status quo. Policy denied. Policy
cancelled. Pre-existing conditions. Lifetime limits. No insurance for
your college kids. Rising policy prices. Higher deficits. Doesn't even
the most mindless right-wing ideologue clue in that he just got screwed
at some point?

That's the Republican's for you though: they just love to blow shit up.

[VegasJerry]

Post by BillB
I had a chance to listen to most of the government's Day 2 oral
submissions in support of the PPACA. Oh...my...God. That was painful.
Seriously uncomfortable to listen to. I have heard better advocacy from
pro se litigants on Judge Judy. With all the great litigators in the US
government, why did Solicitor General Verrilli make the ego play and
take it himself? Terrible move. I knew the material better than he
did...maybe not the details of the legislation, but the answers the
justices wanted to hear. The so-called "liberal Justices" were trying to
help him out by asking him questions with the right answers built right
in, and he *still* couldn't take a hint! When he answered the right
question at all, he just rambled on and on and to and fro, to the point
where what he was saying was almost indecipherable.
Rule #1: Answer the question asked, not the question you hoped would be
asked
Rule #2: Be clear and succinct.
Rule #3: When they give you the answer to the question, take it!
So, they can't sever this individual mandate, because the rest of the
legislation necessarily stands or falls with it (for many reasons I
won't get into). I'm pretty sure the whole thing is going down. I guess
it's back to 40,000 Americans dying needlessly every year for want of
coverage. Expect that number to rise as costs escalate. The Republicans
should be proud. They have denied the black man his singular
achievement. Next time it has to be "Medicare for all" to avoid this
constitutional mess, but I'm sure another 400,000 will die, at least,
before that ever comes to pass. That's almost like nuking a city. The
Republicans are actually more dangerous than al-Qaeda!
I'm just wondering if there's going to be any blow-back on the
Republicans for this. Back to the status quo. Policy denied. Policy
cancelled. Pre-existing conditions. Lifetime limits. No insurance for
your college kids. Rising policy prices. Higher deficits. Doesn't even
the most mindless right-wing ideologue clue in that he just got screwed
at some point?
That's the Republican's for you though: they just love to blow shit up.

No matter the outcome; people will go to Emergency Rooms for medical care.
Either they pay for their own care by purchasing insurance, or we pay for
them; like we're doing now.


Jerry (paying) 'n Vegas

_____________________________________________________________________ 

[Mossingen]

I had a chance to listen to most of the government's Day 2 oral submissions
in support of the PPACA. Oh...my...God. That was painful. Seriously
uncomfortable to listen to. I have heard better advocacy from pro se
litigants on Judge Judy. With all the great litigators in the US
government, why did Solicitor General Verrilli make the ego play and take
it himself? Terrible move. I knew the material better than he did...maybe
not the details of the legislation, but the answers the justices wanted to
hear. The so-called "liberal Justices" were trying to help him out by
asking him questions with the right answers built right in, and he *still*
couldn't take a hint! When he answered the right question at all, he just
rambled on and on and to and fro, to the point where what he was saying was
almost indecipherable.
Rule #1: Answer the question asked, not the question you hoped would be
asked
Rule #2: Be clear and succinct.
Rule #3: When they give you the answer to the question, take it!
So, they can't sever this individual mandate, because the rest of the
legislation necessarily stands or falls with it (for many reasons I won't
get into). I'm pretty sure the whole thing is going down. I guess it's
back to 40,000 Americans dying needlessly every year for want of coverage.
Expect that number to rise as costs escalate. The Republicans should be
proud. They have denied the black man his singular achievement. Next time
it has to be "Medicare for all" to avoid this constitutional mess, but I'm
sure another 400,000 will die, at least, before that ever comes to pass.
That's almost like nuking a city. The Republicans are actually more
dangerous than al-Qaeda!
I'm just wondering if there's going to be any blow-back on the Republicans
for this. Back to the status quo. Policy denied. Policy cancelled.
Pre-existing conditions. Lifetime limits. No insurance for your college
kids. Rising policy prices. Higher deficits. Doesn't even the most
mindless right-wing ideologue clue in that he just got screwed at some
point?
That's the Republican's for you though: they just love to blow shit up.

I've argued lots of cases in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and in the
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. On the whole, I'd say oral arguments
typically do not matter that much. The cases are cited on the briefs, by
and large. In a close case, oral argument might sway an equivocating judge,
but my sense is that it doesn't work that way.

Also, the tone of the arguments are often counterintuitive. Many times, I
have seen the judges pound my opponent (usually the attorney general in
capital cases), and an observer might get the sense that they are going to
rule in my favor. In reality, it usually turns out that they are ruling
against me and are just testing the state's case at the argument to verify
their decision.

Bottom line is that, in my experience, we just can't tell much of anything
from oral arguments (unless it is the rare case where one side concedes some
major point or has overlooked a critical fact issue).

Getting trapped at the arguments is a painful thing. I remember one time I
was in Denver arguing a case in the Tenth Circuit. I was last, so there
were several arguments before mine, so I had to sit in and watch them. One
was a typical search and seizure issue stemming from a traffic stop. The
appellant's lawyer got about 3 minutes into it and appeared to have a super
strong case. One of the judges piped up, "But, counsel, how does your
client have standing to object to the search?" Oh shit. The car was a
rental car and the appellant was just a passenger or some such. It was
obvious that the lawyer arguing the case had not considered the standing
issue and we had to watch that poor guy tapdance under a barrage of
questions about standing for the rest of his time. It was horrible.

[Clave]

"Mossingen" <***@cox.net> wrote in message news:jl23am$gen$***@dont-email.me...

<...>

Post by Mossingen
Bottom line is that, in my experience, we just can't tell much of anything
from oral arguments (unless it is the rare case where one side concedes
some major point or has overlooked a critical fact issue).

I saw a rather persuasive article yesterday arguing that if the court
strikes down the individual mandate as not being appropriate re the commerce
clause, it calls a lot of prior commerce clause decisions into question.

I couldn't find that article, but this one gets close to the same thing:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/03/a_nation_of_laws_or_of_men.php?ref=fpblg

Jim

[Truthseeker]

Post by Clave
I saw a rather persuasive article yesterday arguing that if the court
strikes down the individual mandate as not being appropriate re the commerce
clause, it calls a lot of prior commerce clause decisions into question.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/03/a_nation_of_laws_or_of_men.php?ref=fpblg

The article is just blowing smoke. "Everyone" thought it was
Constitutional? Hardly. And this is a unique situation, finding it
unconstitutional will not be at odds with stare decisis at all. It will
have no effect on past decisions.

Intrade has a good record of predicting such things, and following the
hearings their odds that the law would be found unconstitutional jumped
from 35% to 65%.

http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventId=89280

No one can be sure at this point how SCOTUS will rule. But I wouldn't
be surprised if it went beyond 5-4 to 6-3 or more finding it
unconstitutional.

[Dutch]

A two-fer, opposition to Obamacare and support for Zimmerman's
constitutional right to shoot other Americans.

An Argument Against Healthcare From the National Alliance of Funeral
Directors

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) - The following message was released today
by the National Alliance of Funeral Directors:

This week, several Republican Supreme Court Justices have argued that the
Affordable Care Act supported by the Obama Administration is
unconstitutional. At the National Alliance of Funeral Directors, we couldn't
agree more.

It was Revolutionary War hero Patrick Henry who said, in 1775, "Give me
liberty or give me death." From that moment on, legal scholars have agreed
that the Constitution guarantees every American the liberty to be dead.
Here at the Alliance, we will fight for your right to be dead to the death.

Let's take a look, if you will, at the Second Amendment of the Constitution,
which protects every American's right to shoot another American. It says
nothing about giving the person who is shot health insurance to prevent him
from dying. This cherished constitutional right to shoot people and make
them dead is currently recognized in all fifty states, most recently
Florida.

In commenting on the Affordable Care Act this week, Justice Samuel Alito
compared the Obama healthcare plan to burial insurance. Coincidentally,
burial insurance is the Republican healthcare plan, and one that we
enthusiastically support. Under this plan, every American would be mandated
to buy a coffin from one of our member-owned and operated funeral homes.
May we recommend the Peaceful Valley Royale,T a luxury mahogany casket with
sienna satin interior and the finest imitation antique nickel handles
($2899).

As the organization representing America's funeral directors, gravediggers,
embalmers and cremators, we are confident that the Supreme Court will
ultimately do the right thing and decide that healthcare flies in the face
of every American's constitutional right to the pursuit of deadness. And
when they do, we'll be waiting for you.

Sincerely,

The National Alliance of Funeral Directors

[VegasJerry]

Post by Truthseeker

Post by Clave
I saw a rather persuasive article yesterday arguing that if the court
strikes down the individual mandate as not being appropriate re the commerce
clause, it calls a lot of prior commerce clause decisions into question.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/03/a_nation_of_laws_or_of_men.php?ref=fpblg

Post by Truthseeker
The article is just blowing smoke. "Everyone" thought it was
Constitutional? Hardly. And this is a unique situation, finding it
unconstitutional will not be at odds with stare decisis at all. It will
have no effect on past decisions.
Intrade has a good record of predicting such things, and following the
hearings their odds that the law would be found unconstitutional jumped
from 35% to 65%.
http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventId=89280
No one can be sure at this point how SCOTUS will rule. But I wouldn't
be surprised if it went beyond 5-4 to 6-3 or more finding it
unconstitutional.

Wasn't that the same statement made when everybody was going to be
'forced' to pay Social Security Insurance and Medicare Insurance? Turned
out to be Constitutional and we're all paying for those insurances. How is
this medical insurance different?


Jerry 'n Vegas

Post by Truthseeker
--
Truthseeker

_____________________________________________________________________ 

[brewmaster]

Post by Clave

Post by Truthseeker

Post by Clave
I saw a rather persuasive article yesterday arguing that if the court
strikes down the individual mandate as not being appropriate re the

commerce

Post by Truthseeker

Post by Clave
clause, it calls a lot of prior commerce clause decisions into question.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/03/a_nation_of_laws_or_of_men.php?ref=fpblg

Post by Clave

Post by Truthseeker
The article is just blowing smoke. "Everyone" thought it was
Constitutional? Hardly. And this is a unique situation, finding it
unconstitutional will not be at odds with stare decisis at all. It will
have no effect on past decisions.
Intrade has a good record of predicting such things, and following the
hearings their odds that the law would be found unconstitutional jumped
from 35% to 65%.
http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventId=89280
No one can be sure at this point how SCOTUS will rule. But I wouldn't
be surprised if it went beyond 5-4 to 6-3 or more finding it
unconstitutional.

Wasn't that the same statement made when everybody was going to be
'forced' to pay Social Security Insurance and Medicare Insurance? Turned
out to be Constitutional and we're all paying for those insurances.

Only people who are working, you don't pay it if you don't work.

Post by Clave
How is
this medical insurance different?

Because everybody has to pay, whether they are working or not.

Post by Clave
Jerry 'n Vegas

Post by Truthseeker
--
Truthseeker

_____________________________________________________________________ 

[Clave]

"brewmaster" <***@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message news:***@app-01.ezprovider.com...

<...>

Post by brewmaster

Post by VegasJerry
How is
this medical insurance different?

Because everybody has to pay, whether they are working or not.

Not true. People whose income is less than 133% of the federal poverty
level will be covered by Medicaid, and there's a scale of subsidies for
other income levels.

Jim

[VegasJerry]

Post by brewmaster

Post by Clave

Post by Truthseeker

Post by Clave
I saw a rather persuasive article yesterday arguing that if the court
strikes down the individual mandate as not being appropriate re the

commerce

Post by Truthseeker

Post by Clave
clause, it calls a lot of prior commerce clause decisions into question.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/03/a_nation_of_laws_or_of_men.php?ref=fpblg

Post by brewmaster

Post by Clave

Post by Truthseeker
The article is just blowing smoke. "Everyone" thought it was
Constitutional? Hardly. And this is a unique situation, finding it
unconstitutional will not be at odds with stare decisis at all. It will
have no effect on past decisions.
Intrade has a good record of predicting such things, and following the
hearings their odds that the law would be found unconstitutional jumped
from 35% to 65%.
http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventId=89280
No one can be sure at this point how SCOTUS will rule. But I wouldn't
be surprised if it went beyond 5-4 to 6-3 or more finding it
unconstitutional.

Wasn't that the same statement made when everybody was going to be
'forced' to pay Social Security Insurance and Medicare Insurance? Turned
out to be Constitutional and we're all paying for those insurances.

Only people who are working, you don't pay it if you don't work.

But the point remains.

Post by brewmaster

Post by Clave
How is
this medical insurance different?

Because everybody has to pay, whether they are working or not.

But the point remains.

People are in the 'medical' economy. "Can you force people to buy
broccoli?" No. But if a person takes broccoli and eats it; then yes, you
can force them to pay.


Jerry 'n Vegas

_______________________________________________________________________ 

[Dutch]

Post by brewmaster
Because everybody has to pay, whether they are working or not.

You don't pay if you have no income. People on income assistance (welfare)
in Canada don't pay. Part of their monthly allowance is allocated towards
medical insurance, but *they* don't pay anything.

[TruthSeeker]

Post by VegasJerry

Post by Truthseeker
Intrade has a good record of predicting such things, and following the
hearings their odds that the law would be found unconstitutional jumped
from 35% to 65%.
http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventId=89280
No one can be sure at this point how SCOTUS will rule. But I wouldn't
be surprised if it went beyond 5-4 to 6-3 or more finding it
unconstitutional.

Wasn't that the same statement made when everybody was going to be
'forced' to pay Social Security Insurance and Medicare Insurance?

No. And not everyone is forced to pay. There are numerous exceptions
and exemptions, including for the Amish (who do not even have to pay the
employer portion for non-Amish employees).

Post by VegasJerry
Turned
out to be Constitutional and we're all paying for those insurances. How is
this medical insurance different?

Social Security (and Medicare) does not force anyone to buy a product.
They are government programs financed by taxes.

[VegasJerry]

Post by TruthSeeker

Post by VegasJerry

Post by Truthseeker
Intrade has a good record of predicting such things, and following the
hearings their odds that the law would be found unconstitutional jumped
from 35% to 65%.
http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventId=89280
No one can be sure at this point how SCOTUS will rule. But I wouldn't
be surprised if it went beyond 5-4 to 6-3 or more finding it
unconstitutional.

Wasn't that the same statement made when everybody was going to be
'forced' to pay Social Security Insurance and Medicare Insurance?

No.

Yea, actually it was. In fact, one of the Justices even brought it up.


Jerry 'n Vegas







And not everyone is forced to pay. There are numerous exceptions

Post by TruthSeeker
and exemptions, including for the Amish (who do not even have to pay the
employer portion for non-Amish employees).

Post by VegasJerry
Turned
out to be Constitutional and we're all paying for those insurances. How is
this medical insurance different?

Social Security (and Medicare) does not force anyone to buy a product.
They are government programs financed by taxes.
--
TruthSeeker

________________________________________________________________________ 

[Pepe Papon]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 21:49:11 -0600, TruthSeeker

Post by TruthSeeker
Social Security (and Medicare) does not force anyone to buy a product.

Neither does the ACA. You have a choice of paying a tax or buying
insurance.

[da pickle]

Post by Pepe Papon
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 21:49:11 -0600, TruthSeeker

Post by TruthSeeker
Social Security (and Medicare) does not force anyone to buy a product.

Neither does the ACA. You have a choice of paying a tax or buying
insurance.

It is not a "tax", Pepe.

[Pepe Papon]

On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 09:11:06 -0500, da pickle

Post by da pickle

Post by Pepe Papon
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 21:49:11 -0600, TruthSeeker

Post by TruthSeeker
Social Security (and Medicare) does not force anyone to buy a product.

Neither does the ACA. You have a choice of paying a tax or buying
insurance.

It is not a "tax", Pepe.

Of course it is.

[TruthSeeker]

Post by Pepe Papon
On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 09:11:06 -0500, da pickle

Post by da pickle

Post by Pepe Papon
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 21:49:11 -0600, TruthSeeker

Post by TruthSeeker
Social Security (and Medicare) does not force anyone to buy a product.

Neither does the ACA. You have a choice of paying a tax or buying
insurance.

It is not a "tax", Pepe.

Of course it is.

Are you in Jerry mode now? Just say "of course it is" as if that
settles it? The law does not call it a tax, tax lawyers say it is not a
tax, and even the attempts after-the-fact by some in the Administration
to call it a tax were pretty feeble and didn't seem to cut any ice with
the Supremes. But you keep clinging to that thin reed ... it isn't
going to do any good.

[VegasJerry]

Post by TruthSeeker

Post by Pepe Papon
On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 09:11:06 -0500, da pickle

Post by da pickle

Post by Pepe Papon
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 21:49:11 -0600, TruthSeeker

Post by TruthSeeker
Social Security (and Medicare) does not force anyone to buy a product.

Neither does the ACA. You have a choice of paying a tax or buying
insurance.

It is not a "tax", Pepe.

Of course it is.

Are you in Jerry mode now? Just say "of course it is" as if that
settles it?

Sure it does. Why do you require a lengthy explanation of the obvious?

Post by TruthSeeker
The law does not call it a tax, tax lawyers say it is not a
tax, and even the attempts after-the-fact by some in the Administration
to call it a tax were pretty feeble and didn't seem to cut any ice with
the Supremes.

Yet it's a tax....

Jerry 'n Vegas









But you keep clinging to that thin reed ... it isn't

Post by TruthSeeker
going to do any good.
--
TruthSeeker

_____________________________________________________________________ 

[TruthSeeker]

Post by VegasJerry

Post by TruthSeeker

Post by Pepe Papon
On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 09:11:06 -0500, da pickle

Post by da pickle

Post by Pepe Papon
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 21:49:11 -0600, TruthSeeker

Post by TruthSeeker
Social Security (and Medicare) does not force anyone to buy a product.

Neither does the ACA. You have a choice of paying a tax or buying
insurance.

It is not a "tax", Pepe.

Of course it is.

Are you in Jerry mode now? Just say "of course it is" as if that
settles it?

Sure it does. Why do you require a lengthy explanation of the obvious?

Thanks for demonstrating my point. Your believing something is obvious
does not make it so. If you want to claim it is so and have anyone
believe you, you need to show why it is so ... show some actual logic or
evidence.

Post by VegasJerry

Post by TruthSeeker
The law does not call it a tax, tax lawyers say it is not a
tax, and even the attempts after-the-fact by some in the Administration
to call it a tax were pretty feeble and didn't seem to cut any ice with
the Supremes.

Yet it's a tax....

And there you go again.

[VegasJerry]

Post by TruthSeeker

Post by VegasJerry

Post by TruthSeeker

Post by Pepe Papon
On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 09:11:06 -0500, da pickle

Post by da pickle

Post by Pepe Papon
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 21:49:11 -0600, TruthSeeker

Post by TruthSeeker
Social Security (and Medicare) does not force anyone to buy a product.

Neither does the ACA. You have a choice of paying a tax or buying
insurance.

It is not a "tax", Pepe.

Of course it is.

Are you in Jerry mode now? Just say "of course it is" as if that
settles it?

Sure it does. Why do you require a lengthy explanation of the obvious?

Thanks for demonstrating my point.

Failure to answer the simple question (dodge), noted.

Jerry 'n Vegas






Your believing something is obvious

Post by TruthSeeker
does not make it so. If you want to claim it is so and have anyone
believe you, you need to show why it is so ... show some actual logic or
evidence.

Post by VegasJerry

Post by TruthSeeker
The law does not call it a tax, tax lawyers say it is not a
tax, and even the attempts after-the-fact by some in the Administration
to call it a tax were pretty feeble and didn't seem to cut any ice with
the Supremes.

Yet it's a tax....

And there you go again.
--
TruthSeeker

---- 

[Truthseeker]

Post by VegasJerry

Post by TruthSeeker

Post by VegasJerry

Post by TruthSeeker
Are you in Jerry mode now? Just say "of course it is" as if that
settles it?

Sure it does. Why do you require a lengthy explanation of the obvious?

Thanks for demonstrating my point.

Failure to answer the simple question (dodge), noted.

And you continue to demonstrate it. I don't need to answer your bogus
"Why don't you stop beating your wife" question, because your position
is not only not obvious, and not supported, but false. But like a
buffalo pushing through a barbed-wire fence you just keep bulling on, no
matter how little sense you make.

[VegasJerry]

Post by Truthseeker

Post by VegasJerry

Post by TruthSeeker

Post by VegasJerry

Post by TruthSeeker
Are you in Jerry mode now? Just say "of course it is" as if that
settles it?

Sure it does. Why do you require a lengthy explanation of the obvious?

Thanks for demonstrating my point.

Failure to answer the simple question (dodge), noted.

And you continue to demonstrate it.

And will continue to demonstrate your failure to answer the simple
question.


Jerry 'n Vegas

















I don't need to answer your bogus

Post by Truthseeker
"Why don't you stop beating your wife" question, because your position
is not only not obvious, and not supported, but false. But like a
buffalo pushing through a barbed-wire fence you just keep bulling on, no
matter how little sense you make.
--
Truthseeker

----- 

[Pepe Papon]

Post by TruthSeeker

Post by Pepe Papon
On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 09:11:06 -0500, da pickle

Post by da pickle

Post by Pepe Papon
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 21:49:11 -0600, TruthSeeker

Post by TruthSeeker
Social Security (and Medicare) does not force anyone to buy a product.

Neither does the ACA. You have a choice of paying a tax or buying
insurance.

It is not a "tax", Pepe.

Of course it is.

Are you in Jerry mode now? Just say "of course it is" as if that
settles it?

No more than you are. You said it's not a tax as if that settles it.

Post by TruthSeeker
The law does not call it a tax, tax lawyers say it is not a
tax, and even the attempts after-the-fact by some in the Administration
to call it a tax were pretty feeble and didn't seem to cut any ice with
the Supremes.

It doesn't matter what the law calls it. If it functions like a tax,
then it's a tax.

[Truthseeker]

Post by Pepe Papon

Post by TruthSeeker
Are you in Jerry mode now? Just say "of course it is" as if that
settles it?

No more than you are. You said it's not a tax as if that settles it.

Post by TruthSeeker
The law does not call it a tax, tax lawyers say it is not a
tax, and even the attempts after-the-fact by some in the Administration
to call it a tax were pretty feeble and didn't seem to cut any ice with
the Supremes.

It doesn't matter what the law calls it. If it functions like a tax,
then it's a tax.

I suspect that the Supreme Court has a little more respect for the law
than you do here.

[Pepe Papon]

On Mon, 02 Apr 2012 10:00:00 -0600, Truthseeker

Post by Truthseeker

Post by Pepe Papon

Post by TruthSeeker
Are you in Jerry mode now? Just say "of course it is" as if that
settles it?

No more than you are. You said it's not a tax as if that settles it.

Post by TruthSeeker
The law does not call it a tax, tax lawyers say it is not a
tax, and even the attempts after-the-fact by some in the Administration
to call it a tax were pretty feeble and didn't seem to cut any ice with
the Supremes.

It doesn't matter what the law calls it. If it functions like a tax,
then it's a tax.

I suspect that the Supreme Court has a little more respect for the law
than you do here.

And they haven't ruled on it. What's your point?

[~M~]

Post by Pepe Papon

Post by Truthseeker

Post by Pepe Papon
It doesn't matter what the law calls it. If it functions like a tax,
then it's a tax.

I suspect that the Supreme Court has a little more respect for the law
than you do here.

And they haven't ruled on it. What's your point?

His point is that to the USSC, it does matter what the law calls it.

[TruthSeeker]

Post by Pepe Papon
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 21:49:11 -0600, TruthSeeker

Post by TruthSeeker
Social Security (and Medicare) does not force anyone to buy a product.

Neither does the ACA. You have a choice of paying a tax or buying
insurance.

You have a "choice" of buying a product or paying a penalty -- the
argument that it's really a tax has already been rejected, even in the
oral arguments. If you want to split hairs, we can choose to rob a bank
or murder someone, but there is a penalty for doing that.

So no matter how you try to dance around the semantics, the mandate is
the government requiring you to buy a product from a private enterprise.

We won't know for sure how the Justices ruled (they ruled yesterday)
until it's announced, but if I had to bet I'd bet that it's going down.
Intrade has it at 64%.

[VegasJerry]

Post by TruthSeeker

Post by Pepe Papon
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 21:49:11 -0600, TruthSeeker

Post by TruthSeeker
Social Security (and Medicare) does not force anyone to buy a product.

Neither does the ACA. You have a choice of paying a tax or buying
insurance.

You have a "choice" of buying a product or paying a penalty -- the
argument that it's really a tax has already been rejected, even in the
oral arguments. If you want to split hairs, we can choose to rob a bank
or murder someone, but there is a penalty for doing that.
So no matter how you try to dance around the semantics, the mandate is
the government requiring you to buy a product from a private enterprise.

Gee, now you're going to have to explain, "product," rather than tax.

Post by TruthSeeker
We won't know for sure how the Justices ruled (they ruled yesterday)
until it's announced, but if I had to bet I'd bet that it's going down.
Intrade has it at 64%.
--
TruthSeeker

________________________________________________________________________ 

[Dave the Clueless]

Post by VegasJerry
Wasn't that the same statement made when everybody was going to be
'forced' to pay Social Security Insurance and Medicare Insurance? Turned
out to be Constitutional and we're all paying for those insurances. How is
this medical insurance different?
Jerry 'n Vegas

If you can't figure that simple thing out there is no help for you.

Here's a hint: Nobody has to go buy Social Security benefits from a
private company. And they aren't "insurance". And they are paid for by a
tax.

It is OK to be ignorant, but not of simple facts like that.

-------
Canada, keeping the brown people to a minimum for 80 years!

----- 

[VegasJerry]

Post by Dave the Clueless

Post by VegasJerry
Wasn't that the same statement made when everybody was going to be
'forced' to pay Social Security Insurance and Medicare Insurance? Turned
out to be Constitutional and we're all paying for those insurances. How is
this medical insurance different?
Jerry 'n Vegas

If you can't figure that simple thing out there is no help for you.

Dodge (and ignorance of the facts) noted.


Jerry

Post by Dave the Clueless
Here's a hint: Nobody has to go buy Social Security benefits from a
private company. And they aren't "insurance". And they are paid for by a
tax.
It is OK to be ignorant, but not of simple facts like that.
-------
Canada, keeping the brown people to a minimum for 80 years!
----- 

_______________________________________________________________________ 

[Dave the Clueless]

Post by VegasJerry

Post by Dave the Clueless

Post by VegasJerry
Wasn't that the same statement made when everybody was going to be
'forced' to pay Social Security Insurance and Medicare Insurance? Turned
out to be Constitutional and we're all paying for those insurances. How is
this medical insurance different?
Jerry 'n Vegas

If you can't figure that simple thing out there is no help for you.

Dodge (and ignorance of the facts) noted.

I explained it for you very carefully, retard. You can't claim I didn't
answer you just because you can't wrap your empty little brain around a
set of simple facts.

Post by VegasJerry
Jerry

Post by Dave the Clueless
Here's a hint: Nobody has to go buy Social Security benefits from a
private company. And they aren't "insurance". And they are paid for by a
tax.
It is OK to be ignorant, but not of simple facts like that.
-------
Canada, keeping the brown people to a minimum for 80 years!
----- 

_______________________________________________________________________ 

-------
Canada, keeping the brown people to a minimum for 80 years!

______________________________________________________________________ 

[VegasJerry]

Post by Dave the Clueless

Post by VegasJerry

Post by Dave the Clueless

Post by VegasJerry
Wasn't that the same statement made when everybody was going to be
'forced' to pay Social Security Insurance and Medicare Insurance? Turned
out to be Constitutional and we're all paying for those insurances. How

is

Post by VegasJerry

Post by Dave the Clueless

Post by VegasJerry
this medical insurance different?
Jerry 'n Vegas

If you can't figure that simple thing out there is no help for you.

Dodge (and ignorance of the facts) noted.

I explained it for you very carefully, retard.

STILL dodging and STILL not answering the questions.

Stop digging.






You can't claim I didn't

Post by Dave the Clueless
answer you just because you can't wrap your empty little brain around a
set of simple facts.

Post by VegasJerry
Jerry

Post by Dave the Clueless
Here's a hint: Nobody has to go buy Social Security benefits from a
private company. And they aren't "insurance". And they are paid for by a
tax.
It is OK to be ignorant, but not of simple facts like that.
-------
Canada, keeping the brown people to a minimum for 80 years!
----- 

_______________________________________________________________________ 

-------
Canada, keeping the brown people to a minimum for 80 years!
______________________________________________________________________ 

----- 

[johnny_t]

Post by Dave the Clueless
If you can't figure that simple thing out there is no help for you.
Here's a hint: Nobody has to go buy Social Security benefits from a
private company. And they aren't "insurance". And they are paid for by a
tax.
It is OK to be ignorant, but not of simple facts like that.

The question is how many "degrees" of separation are required. Lets say
your state uses tax money to pay for privately run prisons. Your
government hires mercenaries. Your municipality uses privately run red
light cameras, you pay them directly, and your municipality gets a
check. Or privately run Tolling systems, where you pay them, and then
the state gets a check? Privately run tolling systems, and the money
goes entirely to private companies that build you a bridge?

From the "insured" standpoint here, it is government enforced
participation in a process that happens to be run partially by
non-government entities. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Just because it is mechanically different, from the insured's standpoint
it is not all that much different than "single payor".

[VegasJerry]

Post by Dave the Clueless

Post by VegasJerry
Wasn't that the same statement made when everybody was going to be
'forced' to pay Social Security Insurance and Medicare Insurance? Turned
out to be Constitutional and we're all paying for those insurances. How is
this medical insurance different?
Jerry 'n Vegas

If you can't figure that simple thing out there is no help for you.
Here's a hint: Nobody has to go buy Social Security benefits from a
private company. And they aren't "insurance". And they are paid for by a
tax.
It is OK to be ignorant, but not of simple facts like that.

Listen up, Dumbo; you're in Medical Commerce whether you like it or not.
If you drop over sick, the ambulance will take you to ER and they'll work
on you. Then there's Medicare and Medicaid. The SCOTUS has to decide if
we're in medical commerce. We shall see.


Jerry 'n Vegas

-------- 

[Truthseeker]

Post by VegasJerry
Listen up, Dumbo; you're in Medical Commerce whether you like it or not.
If you drop over sick, the ambulance will take you to ER and they'll work
on you. Then there's Medicare and Medicaid. The SCOTUS has to decide if
we're in medical commerce. We shall see.

It doesn't matter if we're all in "medical commerce" or not. That isn't
the salient point, as there are many kinds of commerce in which all
citizens are involved. Scalia gave one example, food. There is also
the funeral industry ... everyone dies at some point and if they or
their kin don't pay their expenses, the government does. The salient
point is whether the Congress has the authority to make such a
fundamental expansion of government power. I have no doubt that you
will say that it does; I expect a majority of the Justices to say that
it does not.

[VegasJerry]

Post by Truthseeker

Post by VegasJerry
Listen up, Dumbo; you're in Medical Commerce whether you like it or not.
If you drop over sick, the ambulance will take you to ER and they'll work
on you. Then there's Medicare and Medicaid. The SCOTUS has to decide if
we're in medical commerce. We shall see.

It doesn't matter if we're all in "medical commerce" or not.

Yea, actually it does. That's the whole point.

Post by Truthseeker
That isn't
the salient point, as there are many kinds of commerce in which all
citizens are involved. Scalia gave one example, food. There is also
the funeral industry ... everyone dies at some point and if they or
their kin don't pay their expenses, the government does. The salient
point is whether the Congress has the authority to make such a
fundamental expansion of government power.

You mean like Social Security and Medicare?

Heh.


Jerry 'n Vegas







I have no doubt that you

Post by Truthseeker
will say that it does; I expect a majority of the Justices to say that
it does not.
--
Truthseeker

--- 

[Truthseeker]

Post by VegasJerry

Post by Truthseeker

Post by VegasJerry
Listen up, Dumbo; you're in Medical Commerce whether you like it or not.
If you drop over sick, the ambulance will take you to ER and they'll work
on you. Then there's Medicare and Medicaid. The SCOTUS has to decide if
we're in medical commerce. We shall see.

It doesn't matter if we're all in "medical commerce" or not.

Yea, actually it does. That's the whole point.

And the buffalo stomps through another fence. I just finished
explaining why it is not the point, below.

Post by VegasJerry

Post by Truthseeker
That isn't
the salient point, as there are many kinds of commerce in which all
citizens are involved. Scalia gave one example, food. There is also
the funeral industry ... everyone dies at some point and if they or
their kin don't pay their expenses, the government does. The salient
point is whether the Congress has the authority to make such a
fundamental expansion of government power.

You mean like Social Security and Medicare?

You've already been informed that neither of those involves forcing
anyone to buy a product. Make that buffalo concrete -- a live one is
less obtuse than you.

[VegasJerry]

Post by Truthseeker

Post by VegasJerry

Post by Truthseeker

Post by VegasJerry
Listen up, Dumbo; you're in Medical Commerce whether you like it or not.
If you drop over sick, the ambulance will take you to ER and they'll work
on you. Then there's Medicare and Medicaid. The SCOTUS has to decide if
we're in medical commerce. We shall see.

It doesn't matter if we're all in "medical commerce" or not.

Yea, actually it does. That's the whole point.

And the buffalo stomps through another fence.

Whatever that means.

The point is, you are in medical commerce.

Jerry 'n Vegas












I just finished

Post by Truthseeker
explaining why it is not the point, below.

Post by VegasJerry

Post by Truthseeker
That isn't
the salient point, as there are many kinds of commerce in which all
citizens are involved. Scalia gave one example, food. There is also
the funeral industry ... everyone dies at some point and if they or
their kin don't pay their expenses, the government does. The salient
point is whether the Congress has the authority to make such a
fundamental expansion of government power.

You mean like Social Security and Medicare?

You've already been informed that neither of those involves forcing
anyone to buy a product. Make that buffalo concrete -- a live one is
less obtuse than you.
--
Truthseeker

____________________________________________________________________ 

[TruthSeeker]

Post by VegasJerry

Post by Truthseeker
And the buffalo stomps through another fence.

Whatever that means.

That's OK, the buffalo doesn't understand it either.

Post by VegasJerry
The point is, you are in medical commerce.

That is not the point.

(Watch the buffalo stomp out "yes it is ...")

[Clave]

Post by Truthseeker

Post by Clave
I saw a rather persuasive article yesterday arguing that if the court
strikes down the individual mandate as not being appropriate re the commerce
clause, it calls a lot of prior commerce clause decisions into question.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/03/a_nation_of_laws_or_of_men.php?ref=fpblg

The article is just blowing smoke. "Everyone" thought it was
Constitutional? Hardly. And this is a unique situation, finding it
unconstitutional will not be at odds with stare decisis at all. It will
have no effect on past decisions...

Pardon me if I find your opinion on the subject less than credible.

Jim

[Frisbieinstein]

Post by Clave
<...>

Post by Mossingen
Bottom line is that, in my experience, we just can't tell much of anything
from oral arguments (unless it is the rare case where one side concedes
some major point or has overlooked a critical fact issue).

I saw a rather persuasive article yesterday arguing that if the court
strikes down the individual mandate as not being appropriate re the commerce
clause, it calls a lot of prior commerce clause decisions into question.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/03/a_nation_of_laws_or_of_...
Jim

I have been told by a lawyer that "everything the government does is
unconstitutional. Everyone knows that and no one cares. All that
matters is precedent." I got penalized in a moderated group for
reporting this. Some people can't handle the truth!

Except when you've got a court with a record of not caring about
precedent (Citizens United vs. FEC). Then you've got a crooked slot
machine. Wonderful.

[Clave]

"Frisbieinstein" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:c21364cc-d30f-435e-9237-***@wb9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

<...>

Post by Frisbieinstein
Except when you've got a court with a record of not caring about
precedent (Citizens United vs. FEC). Then you've got a crooked slot
machine. Wonderful.

I was thinking Bush v Gore, but that one works too.

Jim

[BillB]

Post by Mossingen
I've argued lots of cases in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and in the
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. On the whole, I'd say oral arguments
typically do not matter that much. The cases are cited on the briefs, by
and large. In a close case, oral argument might sway an equivocating judge,
but my sense is that it doesn't work that way.

I was going to mention that, but in this case he did have an avuncular
swing judge saying, essentially, "I'm skeptical. Convince me." It was an
uphill battle for sure, but if Verrilli convinced anyone of anything, it
was that even the Obama administration wasn't terribly confident of the
legislation's constitutionality.

Post by Mossingen
Also, the tone of the arguments are often counterintuitive. Many times, I
have seen the judges pound my opponent (usually the attorney general in
capital cases), and an observer might get the sense that they are going to
rule in my favor. In reality, it usually turns out that they are ruling
against me and are just testing the state's case at the argument to verify
their decision.
Bottom line is that, in my experience, we just can't tell much of anything
from oral arguments (unless it is the rare case where one side concedes some
major point or has overlooked a critical fact issue).

That's what Harry Reid said. I was going to mention that too, but I
really don't think it applies in this particular case. Verrilli got
raped. The individual mandate, at least, is gone. I'd bet pretty heavily
on that.

Post by Mossingen
Getting trapped at the arguments is a painful thing. I remember one time I
was in Denver arguing a case in the Tenth Circuit. I was last, so there
were several arguments before mine, so I had to sit in and watch them. One
was a typical search and seizure issue stemming from a traffic stop. The
appellant's lawyer got about 3 minutes into it and appeared to have a super
strong case. One of the judges piped up, "But, counsel, how does your
client have standing to object to the search?" Oh shit. The car was a
rental car and the appellant was just a passenger or some such. It was
obvious that the lawyer arguing the case had not considered the standing
issue and we had to watch that poor guy tapdance under a barrage of
questions about standing for the rest of his time. It was horrible.

I think every lawyer that spends any time in court has experienced those
uncomfortable, I-want-to-crawl-under-the-table moments, but this was a
case of a lawyer not having his sh*t together right from the first
sentence of his opening remarks. All I can say is listen for yourself. I
was like.."wtf? is Obama *trying* to throw this hearing?"

James, the broccoli question. He couldn't even answer the fucking
broccoli question. They've been talking about that one of Fox News for
two years. How could he not be ready for the broccoli question?

[Mossingen]

Post by BillB
James, the broccoli question. He couldn't even answer the fucking
broccoli question. They've been talking about that one of Fox News for two
years. How could he not be ready for the broccoli question?

I hear ya. It was an awful piece of advocacy. I just don't think it
matters that much. The decision will be 5-4 along ideological lines and
will come down to how Justice Kennedy is feeling that day.

[BillB]

Post by Mossingen

Post by BillB
James, the broccoli question. He couldn't even answer the fucking
broccoli question. They've been talking about that one of Fox News for two
years. How could he not be ready for the broccoli question?

I hear ya. It was an awful piece of advocacy. I just don't think it
matters that much. The decision will be 5-4 along ideological lines and
will come down to how Justice Kennedy is feeling that day.

I heard Michele Bachmann say something interesting on the Mark Levin
show yesterday. She was at the hearing, and she said she thought
everything was a lock, until the very end. She said the very last thing
Justice Kennedy said before they wrapped up was something to the effect

"Hmmm...unless health care really is different than everything else..."

She said it scared her. So maybe I'm wrong, but my take was that
Kennedy's couldn't wrap his head around the individual mandate. IIRC
his exact words were "It fundamentally alters the relationship between
the people and government." That's not a good sign if you're Barack Obama.

[Omaha8_Beach]

Post by BillB

James, the  broccoli question. He couldn't even answer the fucking
broccoli question. They've been talking about that one of Fox News for two
years. How could he not be ready for the broccoli question?

I hear ya.  It was an awful piece of advocacy.  I just don't think it
matters that much.  The decision will be 5-4 along ideological lines and
will come down to how Justice Kennedy is feeling that day.

I heard Michele Bachmann say something interesting on the Mark Levin
show yesterday. She was at the hearing, and she said she thought
everything was a lock, until the very end. She said the very last thing
Justice Kennedy said before they wrapped up was something to the effect
"Hmmm...unless health care really is different than everything else..."
She said it scared her. So maybe I'm wrong, but my take was that
Kennedy's couldn't wrap his head around the individual mandate. IIRC
his exact words were "It fundamentally alters the relationship between
the people and government." That's not a good sign if you're Barack Obama.

I'm jumping in the middle of the thread, so I don't know if this has
been mentioned, but an article I read said that one of the things
Kennedy was looking for was some type of limiting principle to the
government's ability to impose individual mandates. It said that near
the end the Solicitor General may have just given him a good limit and
that health care would clearly meet this criteria. I guess will have
to wait until Summer to find out. Here is the article:
http://www.npr.org/2012/03/29/149602460/the-nation-obamacare-is-not-dead-yet

Omaha8

[BillB]

Post by Omaha8_Beach
I'm jumping in the middle of the thread, so I don't know if this has
been mentioned, but an article I read said that one of the things
Kennedy was looking for was some type of limiting principle to the
government's ability to impose individual mandates. It said that near
the end the Solicitor General may have just given him a good limit and
that health care would clearly meet this criteria. I guess will have
http://www.npr.org/2012/03/29/149602460/the-nation-obamacare-is-not-dead-yet

I didn't hear the end, but what you're saying about the first part is spot on. Several of the justices kept asking him, "if you are in the health care market just by virtue of being alive, what wouldn't the federal government be able to declare a market and force you to participate in?"

Three or four times he was asked that question in one form or another, and he had nothing ready for them.

[Pepe Papon]

Post by BillB

Post by Omaha8_Beach
I'm jumping in the middle of the thread, so I don't know if this has
been mentioned, but an article I read said that one of the things
Kennedy was looking for was some type of limiting principle to the
government's ability to impose individual mandates. It said that near
the end the Solicitor General may have just given him a good limit and
that health care would clearly meet this criteria. I guess will have
http://www.npr.org/2012/03/29/149602460/the-nation-obamacare-is-not-dead-yet

I didn't hear the end, but what you're saying about the first part is spot on. Several of the justices kept asking him, "if you are in the health care market just by virtue of being alive, what wouldn't the federal government be able to declare a market and force you to participate in?"
Three or four times he was asked that question in one form or another, and he had nothing ready for them.

On the flip side, he's an amicus brief submitted to the Court by
legislators from the fifty states:

http://tinyurl.com/7683uvl

[TruthSeeker]

Obama said one of the strangest things I've heard a President say in a
long time. He said that the Supreme Court should not take the
"unprecedented" step of voiding a law that had been duly passed by a
democratically elected legislature.

Does he define "unprecedented" as "only a hundred times before?"

The whole reason that this case is before the court is to rule on
whether the "democratically elected legislature" had the authority under
the Constitution to do what they did. I'm not going to look them up and
count but the Court has overturned acts of Congress many times in our
history. That's one of the things they do. If you don't like that,
overturn Marbury vs. Madison.

I find it amusing that so many folks on the Left who for decades have
used and praised the court to achieve what they could not achieve in a
"democratically elected legislature" are now howling that the Court
should not be activist and should defer to the Congress.

[bratt]

Post by TruthSeeker
Obama said one of the strangest things I've heard a President say in a
long time. He said that the Supreme Court should not take the
"unprecedented" step of voiding a law that had been duly passed by a
democratically elected legislature.
Does he define "unprecedented" as "only a hundred times before?"
The whole reason that this case is before the court is to rule on
whether the "democratically elected legislature" had the authority under
the Constitution to do what they did. I'm not going to look them up and
count but the Court has overturned acts of Congress many times in our
history. That's one of the things they do. If you don't like that,
overturn Marbury vs. Madison.
I find it amusing that so many folks on the Left who for decades have
used and praised the court to achieve what they could not achieve in a
"democratically elected legislature" are now howling that the Court
should not be activist and should defer to the Congress.

He also said something to the effect for them to "remember they were not
elected". I don't understand what he meant by that. I asked B-BillB and
he said they can't be fired. If it wasn't a threat, what was it?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
BillB wrote: I think more can be read from your post. You are one of the
most bitter women I have ever encountered (and that's coming from a former
divorce lawyer).

..............................................................

BillB implied: I never said I was a divorce attorney

----- 

[d***@hotmail.com]

Post by TruthSeeker
I find it amusing that so many folks on the Left who for decades have
used and praised the court to achieve what they could not achieve in a
"democratically elected legislature" are now howling that the Court
should not be activist and should defer to the Congress.

If they strike it down on a 5-4 vote with all 5 being Republican
appointees, they'll once and for all show the country that the current
conservatives are nothing but Republican party hacks. This will also
light a fire under the Democratic base and all libs, progressives, &
Socialists like me to make sure Obama is re-elected along with a Dem
Senate & House.

[mo_ntresor]

Post by d***@hotmail.com

Post by TruthSeeker
I find it amusing that so many folks on the Left who for decades

have

Post by TruthSeeker
used and praised the court to achieve what they could not achieve in a
"democratically elected legislature" are now howling that the Court
should not be activist and should defer to the Congress.

If they strike it down on a 5-4 vote with all 5 being Republican
appointees, they'll once and for all show the country that the current
conservatives are nothing but Republican party hacks. This will also
light a fire under the Democratic base and all libs, progressives, &
Socialists like me to make sure Obama is re-elected along with a Dem
Senate & House.

i'm voting for free goodies from others too. you know this gravy train
runs dry sooner rather than later, and we may as well get our's!

mo_ntresor

____________________________________________________________________ 

[bratt]

Post by d***@hotmail.com

Post by TruthSeeker
I find it amusing that so many folks on the Left who for decades

have

Post by TruthSeeker
used and praised the court to achieve what they could not achieve in a
"democratically elected legislature" are now howling that the Court
should not be activist and should defer to the Congress.

If they strike it down on a 5-4 vote with all 5 being Republican
appointees, they'll once and for all show the country that the current
conservatives are nothing but Republican party hacks. This will also
light a fire under the Democratic base and all libs, progressives, &
Socialists like me to make sure Obama is re-elected along with a Dem
Senate & House.

and if the liberals vote straight party lines, does that mean they are
nothing but Democratic party hacks?


------------------------------------------------------------------------
BillB wrote: I think more can be read from your post. You are one of the
most bitter women I have ever encountered (and that's coming from a former
divorce lawyer).

..............................................................

BillB implied: I never said I was a divorce attorney

------ 

[d***@hotmail.com]

Post by bratt
and if the liberals vote straight party lines, does that mean they are
nothing but Democratic party hacks?

After Bush v Gore, the onus is on the Repubs to show they're not hacks

[Clave]

Post by d***@hotmail.com

Post by bratt
and if the liberals vote straight party lines, does that mean they are
nothing but Democratic party hacks?

After Bush v Gore, the onus is on the Repubs to show they're not hacks

And Citizens United...

[mo_ntresor]

Post by Mossingen

I had a chance to listen to most of the government's Day 2 oral submissions
in support of the PPACA. Oh...my...God. That was painful. Seriously
uncomfortable to listen to. I have heard better advocacy from pro se
litigants on Judge Judy. With all the great litigators in the US
government, why did Solicitor General Verrilli make the ego play and take
it himself? Terrible move. I knew the material better than he did...maybe
not the details of the legislation, but the answers the justices wanted to
hear. The so-called "liberal Justices" were trying to help him out by
asking him questions with the right answers built right in, and he *still*
couldn't take a hint! When he answered the right question at all, he just
rambled on and on and to and fro, to the point where what he was saying was
almost indecipherable.
Rule #1: Answer the question asked, not the question you hoped would be
asked
Rule #2: Be clear and succinct.
Rule #3: When they give you the answer to the question, take it!
So, they can't sever this individual mandate, because the rest of the
legislation necessarily stands or falls with it (for many reasons I won't
get into). I'm pretty sure the whole thing is going down. I guess it's
back to 40,000 Americans dying needlessly every year for want of coverage.
Expect that number to rise as costs escalate. The Republicans should be
proud. They have denied the black man his singular achievement. Next time
it has to be "Medicare for all" to avoid this constitutional mess, but I'm
sure another 400,000 will die, at least, before that ever comes to pass.
That's almost like nuking a city. The Republicans are actually more
dangerous than al-Qaeda!
I'm just wondering if there's going to be any blow-back on the Republicans
for this. Back to the status quo. Policy denied. Policy cancelled.
Pre-existing conditions. Lifetime limits. No insurance for your college
kids. Rising policy prices. Higher deficits. Doesn't even the most
mindless right-wing ideologue clue in that he just got screwed at some
point?
That's the Republican's for you though: they just love to blow shit up.

I've argued lots of cases in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and in the
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. On the whole, I'd say oral arguments
typically do not matter that much. The cases are cited on the briefs, by
and large. In a close case, oral argument might sway an equivocating judge,
but my sense is that it doesn't work that way.
Also, the tone of the arguments are often counterintuitive. Many times, I
have seen the judges pound my opponent (usually the attorney general in
capital cases), and an observer might get the sense that they are going to
rule in my favor. In reality, it usually turns out that they are ruling
against me and are just testing the state's case at the argument to verify
their decision.
Bottom line is that, in my experience, we just can't tell much of anything
from oral arguments (unless it is the rare case where one side concedes some
major point or has overlooked a critical fact issue).
Getting trapped at the arguments is a painful thing. I remember one time I
was in Denver arguing a case in the Tenth Circuit. I was last, so there
were several arguments before mine, so I had to sit in and watch them. One
was a typical search and seizure issue stemming from a traffic stop. The
appellant's lawyer got about 3 minutes into it and appeared to have a super
strong case. One of the judges piped up, "But, counsel, how does your
client have standing to object to the search?" Oh shit. The car was a
rental car and the appellant was just a passenger or some such. It was
obvious that the lawyer arguing the case had not considered the standing
issue and we had to watch that poor guy tapdance under a barrage of
questions about standing for the rest of his time. It was horrible.

he should have bullshitted better!

mo_ntresor

----- 

[ChrisRobin]

Post by mo_ntresor
he should have bullshitted better!

Heh. Credit where credit's due – sometimes you manage to boil it down to
its very essence, mo.

____________________________________________________________________ 

[arseniccollection]

Post by mo_ntresor
he should have bullshitted better!

Heh. Credit where credit's due – sometimes you manage to boil it down to
its very essence, mo.

I believe within a few months, probably before the summer solstice, Mr.
Verrilli will resign to spend more time with his family or to pursue
opportunities in the private sphere.

His performance was cringe-worthy. It's like watching a smart, competent
colleague make a big presentation and stutters, brain-farts, and
otherwise fails. How did someone so obviously unsuited to the public
glare get to be Solicitor General?

[ChrisRobin]

Post by arseniccollection
I believe within a few months, probably before the summer solstice, Mr.
Verrilli will resign to spend more time with his family or to pursue
opportunities in the private sphere.
His performance was cringe-worthy. It's like watching a smart, competent
colleague make a big presentation and stutters, brain-farts, and
otherwise fails. How did someone so obviously unsuited to the public
glare get to be Solicitor General?

Sorry, I did not watch it. Not enough bandwidth to take this half-assed
health care kabuki theater seriously.

_____________________________________________________________________ 

[BillB]

Post by arseniccollection

Heh. Credit where credit's due – sometimes you manage to boil it down to
its very essence, mo.

I believe within a few months, probably before the summer solstice, Mr.
Verrilli will resign to spend more time with his family or to pursue
opportunities in the private sphere.
His performance was cringe-worthy. It's like watching a smart, competent
colleague make a big presentation and stutters, brain-farts, and
otherwise fails. How did someone so obviously unsuited to the public
glare get to be Solicitor General?

Don't worry about Chrissy. Let him vent. I've kicked his ass so many
times that he likes get in his little drive-by digs wherever he can
(even if it means kissing the ass of of a mo_ron). The least I can do is
give him that. He probably didn't even listen to the hearing. He
wouldn't have understood much of it if he did.

[ChrisRobin]

Post by BillB
Don't worry about Chrissy. Let him vent. I've kicked his ass so many
times that he likes get in his little drive-by digs wherever he can
(even if it means kissing the ass of of a mo_ron). The least I can do is
give him that. He probably didn't even listen to the hearing. He
wouldn't have understood much of it if he did.

Uh, I admitted I did not watch the hearing well in advance of your post.
Same keen powers of comprehension that you use to dish out your regular
"ass kickings," I see. ROTFLMAO!

------ 

[BillB]

Uh, I admitted I did not watch the hearing...

lol..I don't deserve much credit on that one. You aren't exactly a hard
read.

Hasn't Glenn Greenwald told you what to think yet?

[ChrisRobin]

Post by BillB

Uh, I admitted I did not watch the hearing...

lol..I don't deserve much credit on that one. You aren't exactly a hard
read.

No kidding. Fortunately, pointing out your regular outbreaks of
foot-in-mouth disease doesn't require any special literary talent. And
boy, have you made quite the spectacle of yourself this week, lol!

Post by BillB
Hasn't Glenn Greenwald told you what to think yet?

Not yet, but I'll be sure to check first thing tomorrow. Maybe you can
recommend a few reputable gossip blogs in the meantime?

______________________________________________________________________ 

[bub]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 18:40:59 -0700, "ChrisRobin"

Post by ChrisRobin
Uh, I admitted I did not watch the hearing well in advance of your post.

i mean, when it came out that barry needed a brilliant legal mind to
argue for barrycare in front of the united states supreme court, well,
we all expected them to have a ex divorce lawyer presenting their
side.
dem guys know that kinda stuff

so no need for you to watch the hearings chris. it will all be
explained to you.

[mo_ntresor]

Post by arseniccollection

Post by ChrisRobin
Heh. Credit where credit's due – sometimes you manage to boil it down to
its very essence, mo.

I believe within a few months, probably before the summer solstice, Mr.
Verrilli will resign to spend more time with his family or to pursue
opportunities in the private sphere.
His performance was cringe-worthy. It's like watching a smart, competent
colleague make a big presentation and stutters, brain-farts, and
otherwise fails. How did someone so obviously unsuited to the public
glare get to be Solicitor General?

i can't put an exact price on it, but i'd be willing to pay a large sum to
see you and billb together making obama's case before the supreme court.

L O FUCKING L

thought you had a hard time getting a date before?

mo_ntresor

--- 

[BillB]

Post by mo_ntresor
i can't put an exact price on it

I could, and there's no chance in hell you could afford me.

[mo_ntresor]

Post by BillB

Post by mo_ntresor
i can't put an exact price on it

I could, and there's no chance in hell you could afford me.

we could sell the pay-per-view sub to comedy central. 50/50, bill.

mo_ntresor

____________________________________________________________________ 

[BillB]

Post by mo_ntresor

Post by BillB

Post by mo_ntresor
i can't put an exact price on it

I could, and there's no chance in hell you could afford me.

we could sell the pay-per-view sub to comedy central. 50/50, bill.

Uh, no. Cash up front. As I said, there's not a chance in hell you could
afford me. But you go ahead and dare to dream, k?

[mo_ntresor]

Post by BillB

Post by mo_ntresor
we could sell the pay-per-view sub to comedy central. 50/50, bill.

Uh, no. Cash up front. As I said, there's not a chance in hell you could
afford me. But you go ahead and dare to dream, k?

okay, here's the wager. come up with your fee to argue the case for three
days in front of the supreme court. if i can demonstrate that i can pay
it, you owe me double. how's that sound?

mo_ntresor

-------- 

[BillB]

Post by mo_ntresor

Post by BillB

Post by mo_ntresor
we could sell the pay-per-view sub to comedy central. 50/50, bill.

Uh, no. Cash up front. As I said, there's not a chance in hell you could
afford me. But you go ahead and dare to dream, k?

okay, here's the wager. come up with your fee to argue the case for three
days in front of the supreme court. if i can demonstrate that i can pay
it, you owe me double. how's that sound?

Yes, because I'm just going to get up there and start arguing. LOL! Are
you REALLY this fucking stupid?

Just keep dreaming, k? It's funny.

[mo_ntresor]

Post by BillB

Post by mo_ntresor
okay, here's the wager. come up with your fee to argue the case for three
days in front of the supreme court. if i can demonstrate that i can pay
it, you owe me double. how's that sound?

Yes, because I'm just going to get up there and start arguing. LOL! Are
you REALLY this fucking stupid?
Just keep dreaming, k? It's funny.

i keep trying to get a wager going, big talker, and you keep backing down.
you can't be this grapeless, can you?

mo_ntresor

------ 

[BillB]

Post by mo_ntresor
i keep trying to get a wager going, big talker, and you keep backing down.
you can't be this grapeless, can you?

Never mind the fact that you are anonymous internet coward, I said you
couldn't begin to afford me to argue a case for you. You couldn't.

You shot back with:

"But I could afford you for three days!!" LOL!

You crack me up, mo. I have never encountered anyone so wholly out of
touch with reality. You really should talk to someone about that.

[mo_ntresor]

Post by BillB

Post by mo_ntresor
i keep trying to get a wager going, big talker, and you keep backing down.
you can't be this grapeless, can you?

Never mind the fact that you are anonymous internet coward, I said you
couldn't begin to afford me to argue a case for you. You couldn't.
"But I could afford you for three days!!" LOL!
You crack me up, mo. I have never encountered anyone so wholly out of
touch with reality. You really should talk to someone about that.

name your price. offer up some past billings to defend it, and we're on.
i'll present proof i can pay the entire amount in cash; you owe me double.

what's with all the excuses?

mo_ntresor

-------- 

[BillB]

Post by mo_ntresor
name your price. offer up some past billings to defend it, and we're on.
i'll present proof i can pay the entire amount in cash; you owe me double.
what's with all the excuses?

lol...stop, please.

Is there ANYONE more ridiculous on RGP than mo_ron charles, the
anonymous internet coward?

[bratt]

Post by BillB

Post by mo_ntresor
name your price. offer up some past billings to defend it, and we're on.
i'll present proof i can pay the entire amount in cash; you owe me double.
what's with all the excuses?

lol...stop, please.
Is there ANYONE more ridiculous on RGP than mo_ron charles, the
anonymous internet coward?

The coward is the one offerring the deal? Or the one running from it?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jerry - "This content is currently unavailavle" Feb 28, 5:53 pm

Steam - "Opened up right away for me" Feb 28, 6:50 pm

Susan - "no you didn't. don't lie. Jerry says its unavailable. Feb 28,
7:28 pm

Jerry - No "I" didn't say that. But then, this is just another in a long
list of you dodging by posting links, rather than addressins posts. Feb
29, 5:28 pm

----- 

[Wilhelm Kuhlmann]

Post by bratt

Post by BillB
Is there ANYONE more ridiculous on RGP than mo_ron charles, the
anonymous internet coward?

The coward is the one offerring the deal?

Anonymous screen names can't offer deals, Susan. Especially a bet on
how much cash the anonymous screen name could come up with. Assume
such a bet were made, then someone came forward, established their
identity, and somehow established credibly that they had access to X
amount of cash. Please explain how that person could possibly prove
that they were the person who had been posting as Mo Ron Charles all
these years.

Anonymous internet cowards are non-persons. As such, they do not
deserve to be treated like persons.


William Coleman (ramashiva)

[mo_ntresor]

Post by Wilhelm Kuhlmann

Post by bratt
The coward is the one offerring the deal?

Anonymous screen names can't offer deals, Susan. Especially a bet on
how much cash the anonymous screen name could come up with. Assume
such a bet were made, then someone came forward, established their
identity, and somehow established credibly that they had access to X
amount of cash. Please explain how that person could possibly prove
that they were the person who had been posting as Mo Ron Charles all
these years.
Anonymous internet cowards are non-persons. As such, they do not
deserve to be treated like persons.

do i have to explain the assumptions you're making here?

mo_ntresor

-------- 

[Wilhelm Kuhlmann]

Post by mo_ntresor

Anonymous internet cowards are non-persons.  As such, they do not
deserve to be treated like persons.

do i have to explain the assumptions you're making here?

I am not interested in explanations from non-persons.


William Coleman (ramashiva)

[fffurken]

Post by BillB

name your price.  offer up some past billings to defend it, and we're on.
i'll present proof i can pay the entire amount in cash;  you owe me double.
what's with all the excuses?

lol...stop, please.
Is there ANYONE more ridiculous on RGP than mo_ron charles, the
anonymous internet coward?

You're just a person on Usenet posting as "BillB", AKA William Bradley
to me.

What's your address?

[Pepe Papon]

Post by BillB

Post by mo_ntresor
i keep trying to get a wager going, big talker, and you keep backing down.
you can't be this grapeless, can you?

Never mind the fact that you are anonymous internet coward, I said you
couldn't begin to afford me to argue a case for you. You couldn't.
"But I could afford you for three days!!" LOL!
You crack me up, mo. I have never encountered anyone so wholly out of
touch with reality. You really should talk to someone about that.

That's false. You've encountered Travel and Beldin.

[mo_ntresor]

Post by BillB
Yes, because I'm just going to get up there and start arguing. LOL! Are
you REALLY this fucking stupid?
Just keep dreaming, k? It's funny.

btw, nobody ever suggested you'd get up and humiliate yourself in front of
the us supreme court. you have to have real law credentials for that,
"doctor". all i said was name your imaginary fee. it doesn't even have
to be real, moron.

mo_ntresor

----- 

[~M~]

Post by mo_ntresor
okay, here's the wager. come up with your fee to argue the case for three
days in front of the supreme court. if i can demonstrate that i can pay
it, you owe me double. how's that sound?

$2 to Beldin is too steep for him.

[Dave the Clueless]

Post by mo_ntresor

Post by BillB

Post by mo_ntresor
i can't put an exact price on it

I could, and there's no chance in hell you could afford me.

we could sell the pay-per-view sub to comedy central. 50/50, bill.
mo_ntresor
____________________________________________________________________ 

No you couldn't. There is a big difference between pathetic and funny.

-------
Canada, keeping the brown people to a minimum for 80 years!

_______________________________________________________________________ 

[arseniccollection]

Post by mo_ntresor

Post by arseniccollection

Heh. Credit where credit's due – sometimes you manage to boil it down to
its very essence, mo.

I believe within a few months, probably before the summer solstice, Mr.
Verrilli will resign to spend more time with his family or to pursue
opportunities in the private sphere.
His performance was cringe-worthy. It's like watching a smart, competent
colleague make a big presentation and stutters, brain-farts, and
otherwise fails. How did someone so obviously unsuited to the public
glare get to be Solicitor General?

i can't put an exact price on it, but i'd be willing to pay a large sum to
see you and billb together making obama's case before the supreme court.
L O FUCKING L
thought you had a hard time getting a date before?

I didn't say *I* could do it, esp. since I am not a lawyer. But it is
the job of the Solicitor General to argue the Government's case in front
of the SC. Verrilli completely failed, both on substantive grounds (the
Broccoli argument has been around for ages, and refutable) and
presentation (the stuttering, the obvious panic attacks).

As I and others have posted, it is very strange that a top-notch,
seasoned pro just falls apart like this.

[Mossingen]

Post by arseniccollection

Post by ChrisRobin

Post by mo_ntresor
he should have bullshitted better!

Heh. Credit where credit's due – sometimes you manage to boil it down to
its very essence, mo.

I believe within a few months, probably before the summer solstice, Mr.
Verrilli will resign to spend more time with his family or to pursue
opportunities in the private sphere.
His performance was cringe-worthy. It's like watching a smart, competent
colleague make a big presentation and stutters, brain-farts, and otherwise
fails. How did someone so obviously unsuited to the public glare get to be
Solicitor General?

That's a good question. I think SG is a prestigious position that is not
usually filled by the President with a political flunky. It's almost always
someone well qualified for the job.

[Schmedley]

Post by Mossingen

I had a chance to listen to most of the government's Day 2 oral submissions
in support of the PPACA. Oh...my...God. That was painful. Seriously
uncomfortable to listen to. I have heard better advocacy from pro se
litigants on Judge Judy. With all the great litigators in the US
government, why did Solicitor General Verrilli make the ego play and take
it himself? Terrible move. I knew the material better than he did...maybe
not the details of the legislation, but the answers the justices wanted to
hear. The so-called "liberal Justices" were trying to help him out by
asking him questions with the right answers built right in, and he *still*
couldn't take a hint! When he answered the right question at all, he just
rambled on and on and to and fro, to the point where what he was saying was
almost indecipherable.
Rule #1: Answer the question asked, not the question you hoped would be
asked
Rule #2: Be clear and succinct.
Rule #3: When they give you the answer to the question, take it!
So, they can't sever this individual mandate, because the rest of the
legislation necessarily stands or falls with it (for many reasons I won't
get into). I'm pretty sure the whole thing is going down. I guess it's
back to 40,000 Americans dying needlessly every year for want of coverage.
Expect that number to rise as costs escalate. The Republicans should be
proud. They have denied the black man his singular achievement. Next time
it has to be "Medicare for all" to avoid this constitutional mess, but I'm
sure another 400,000 will die, at least, before that ever comes to pass.
That's almost like nuking a city. The Republicans are actually more
dangerous than al-Qaeda!
I'm just wondering if there's going to be any blow-back on the Republicans
for this. Back to the status quo. Policy denied. Policy cancelled.
Pre-existing conditions. Lifetime limits. No insurance for your college
kids. Rising policy prices. Higher deficits. Doesn't even the most
mindless right-wing ideologue clue in that he just got screwed at some
point?
That's the Republican's for you though: they just love to blow shit up.

I've argued lots of cases in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and in the
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. On the whole, I'd say oral arguments
typically do not matter that much. The cases are cited on the briefs, by
and large. In a close case, oral argument might sway an equivocating judge,
but my sense is that it doesn't work that way.
Also, the tone of the arguments are often counterintuitive. Many times, I
have seen the judges pound my opponent (usually the attorney general in
capital cases), and an observer might get the sense that they are going to
rule in my favor. In reality, it usually turns out that they are ruling
against me and are just testing the state's case at the argument to verify
their decision.
Bottom line is that, in my experience, we just can't tell much of anything
from oral arguments (unless it is the rare case where one side concedes some
major point or has overlooked a critical fact issue).
Getting trapped at the arguments is a painful thing. I remember one time I
was in Denver arguing a case in the Tenth Circuit. I was last, so there
were several arguments before mine, so I had to sit in and watch them. One
was a typical search and seizure issue stemming from a traffic stop. The
appellant's lawyer got about 3 minutes into it and appeared to have a super
strong case. One of the judges piped up, "But, counsel, how does your
client have standing to object to the search?" Oh shit. The car was a
rental car and the appellant was just a passenger or some such. It was
obvious that the lawyer arguing the case had not considered the standing
issue and we had to watch that poor guy tapdance under a barrage of
questions about standing for the rest of his time. It was horrible.

Agreed. More than once you will see a judge batter somebody, the rule in
his favor. At this level, the main action is behind the scenes. If
anyone (Kennedy or Roberts) is prepared to justify the statute based on
the Tax Clause, it is 6-3 at least and they do not even reach the Commerce
Clause argument. I can see a bastard plurality decision with 4 - 3
upholding based on the Commerce argument, the other two sympathizing with
the dissenters, but ultimately recognizing Congress's power one way or the
other.

Personally, I am looking forward to seeing how Scalia can distinguish
Raich from this. Maybe it's the pot smoking hippie exception.

Oh, and the answer to the broccoli question: Of course Congress has the
power to enact that legislation. Your remedy is the ballot box, not the
court.

____________________________________________________________________ 

[Mossingen]

Post by Schmedley
Agreed. More than once you will see a judge batter somebody, the rule in
his favor. At this level, the main action is behind the scenes. If
anyone (Kennedy or Roberts) is prepared to justify the statute based on
the Tax Clause, it is 6-3 at least and they do not even reach the Commerce
Clause argument. I can see a bastard plurality decision with 4 - 3
upholding based on the Commerce argument, the other two sympathizing with
the dissenters, but ultimately recognizing Congress's power one way or the
other.
Personally, I am looking forward to seeing how Scalia can distinguish
Raich from this. Maybe it's the pot smoking hippie exception.

Yes, indeed. Scalia's opinions are often the more enjoyable to read.

Post by Schmedley
Oh, and the answer to the broccoli question: Of course Congress has the
power to enact that legislation. Your remedy is the ballot box, not the
court.

[gtech1]

LMAO.

Post by BillB
I had a chance to listen to most of the government's Day 2 oral
submissions in support of the PPACA. Oh...my...God. That was painful.
Seriously uncomfortable to listen to. I have heard better advocacy from
pro se litigants on Judge Judy. With all the great litigators in the US
government, why did Solicitor General Verrilli make the ego play and
take it himself? Terrible move. I knew the material better than he
did...maybe not the details of the legislation, but the answers the
justices wanted to hear. The so-called "liberal Justices" were trying to
help him out by asking him questions with the right answers built right
in, and he *still* couldn't take a hint! When he answered the right
question at all, he just rambled on and on and to and fro, to the point
where what he was saying was almost indecipherable.
Rule #1: Answer the question asked, not the question you hoped would be
asked
Rule #2: Be clear and succinct.
Rule #3: When they give you the answer to the question, take it!
So, they can't sever this individual mandate, because the rest of the
legislation necessarily stands or falls with it (for many reasons I
won't get into). I'm pretty sure the whole thing is going down. I guess
it's back to 40,000 Americans dying needlessly every year for want of
coverage. Expect that number to rise as costs escalate. The Republicans
should be proud. They have denied the black man his singular
achievement. Next time it has to be "Medicare for all" to avoid this
constitutional mess, but I'm sure another 400,000 will die, at least,
before that ever comes to pass. That's almost like nuking a city. The
Republicans are actually more dangerous than al-Qaeda!
I'm just wondering if there's going to be any blow-back on the
Republicans for this. Back to the status quo. Policy denied. Policy
cancelled. Pre-existing conditions. Lifetime limits. No insurance for
your college kids. Rising policy prices. Higher deficits. Doesn't even
the most mindless right-wing ideologue clue in that he just got screwed
at some point?
That's the Republican's for you though: they just love to blow shit up.

------- 

[BillB]

LMAO.

mo_ron echo chamber.

[gtech1]

LMAO at: "I knew the material better than he did"

Post by BillB

LMAO.

mo_ron echo chamber.

------ 

[BillB]

Post by gtech1
LMAO at: "I knew the material better than he did"

It appeared as though I did? Is that better? I knew the answers...he
didn't. What would you call it?

[da pickle]

Post by BillB

LMAO at: "I knew the material better than he did"

It appeared as though I did? Is that better? I knew the answers...he
didn't. What would you call it?

A giant sucking sound?

[mo_ntresor]

Post by BillB
With all the great litigators in the US
government, why did Solicitor General Verrilli make the ego play and
take it himself? Terrible move. I knew the material better than he
did...

bill, sotomayor's a hispanic. how would the justices understand what
you're saying if you're hiding under your desk with your teeth chattering?

mo_ntresor

----- 

[BillB]

Post by mo_ntresor

Post by BillB
With all the great litigators in the US
government, why did Solicitor General Verrilli make the ego play and
take it himself? Terrible move. I knew the material better than he
did...

bill, sotomayor's a hispanic. how would the justices understand what
you're saying if you're hiding under your desk with your teeth chattering?

Are you still running with the "Bill is afraid to go to Mexico" lie? Is
that the extent of your powerful intellect? You have nothing else based
even slightly in reality?

Oh well, you lose again.

[mo_ntresor]

Post by mo_ntresor

Post by BillB
With all the great litigators in the US
government, why did Solicitor General Verrilli make the ego play and
take it himself? Terrible move. I knew the material better than he
did...

bill, sotomayor's a hispanic. how would the justices understand what
you're saying if you're hiding under your desk with your teeth chattering?

and thomas is a black! you'd have to pick your jaw up off the floor and
plug your eyeballs back into their sockets before exchanging injera
recipes!

mo_ntresor

------ 

[Pepe Papon]

Post by BillB
I had a chance to listen to most of the government's Day 2 oral
submissions in support of the PPACA. Oh...my...God. That was painful.
Seriously uncomfortable to listen to. I have heard better advocacy from
pro se litigants on Judge Judy. With all the great litigators in the US
government, why did Solicitor General Verrilli make the ego play and
take it himself? Terrible move. I knew the material better than he
did...maybe not the details of the legislation, but the answers the
justices wanted to hear. The so-called "liberal Justices" were trying to
help him out by asking him questions with the right answers built right
in, and he *still* couldn't take a hint! When he answered the right
question at all, he just rambled on and on and to and fro, to the point
where what he was saying was almost indecipherable.

I was dismayed to read that the government was relying on the Commerce
clause with no mention of the power to tax. The argument should have
been, as a Yale Law professor pointed out a while back, that the
"mandate" is really a misnomer. There's no mandate; there's a tax
with a waiver for anyone who chooses to buy insurance.

[arseniccollection]

The thing is, oral arguments probably do not often persuade any Justice,
though the questions are a pretty good guide to the eventual decision.
Apparently, a high proportion of questions directed to your side is not
good news. Also, the tenor of the questions (e.g., Scalia likes to say
"idiotic") correlates with the final vote (duh!).

[Clave]

Post by arseniccollection
The thing is, oral arguments probably do not often persuade any Justice,
though the questions are a pretty good guide to the eventual decision.
Apparently, a high proportion of questions directed to your side is not
good news. Also, the tenor of the questions (e.g., Scalia likes to say
"idiotic") correlates with the final vote (duh!).

Was Scalia's vote ever in question?

Jim

[arseniccollection]

Post by Clave

Post by arseniccollection
The thing is, oral arguments probably do not often persuade any Justice,
though the questions are a pretty good guide to the eventual decision.
Apparently, a high proportion of questions directed to your side is not
good news. Also, the tenor of the questions (e.g., Scalia likes to say
"idiotic") correlates with the final vote (duh!).

Was Scalia's vote ever in question?

In this case, of course not.

[dsm]

Here's a funny short audio clip from Verrilli: Day Two