MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
" Dude I owe you big time .Come over one day after work and I'm opening a bottle of Bollingers " FT 6/ 28*
"I'm opening a Bollingers tonight" Flavius,right here
* as part of a massive fraud to rig the Libor to Barclays' advantage
Comments
Here's a comment from a lawyer reacting to Andrew Sullivan's live blog:
To my mind, Roberts didn't want to bless an expansion of the government's power, but even more didn't want to take new business away from the corporations that make up the health industry.
by Donal on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 12:51pm
I think this view is probably incorrect, for only Justice Roberts among the majority would not have also upheld on Commerce Clause grounds. Justice Ginsburg's opinion was joined by Sotomayor in toto and Breyer and Kagen with regard to the relevant section in which Ginsburg states she would have upheld under the Commerce Clause. So the views on the Commerce Clause as applied by Roberts in this case are solely his own. If a future Supreme Court finds his analysis persuasive, a majority may adopt that view and narrow the application of the Commerce Clause in the way Roberts would. But they are not bound to do so by this decision.
by AmericanDreamer on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 4:39pm
This is good on understanding what the ruling really said and what Roberts did (it contradicts your headline, BTW--the ruling did not approve a "mandate"):
Thompson points out an interesting incongruity that may end up being more important than he thinks: that Obama has been known to argue that it's a mandate, not a tax!:
Edit to add: And you know what? I totally buy Roberts' argument. We are free to live in sin rather than getting married, but we pay a tax penalty for doing so; we are free to rent rather than buy our home but we pay a tax penalty for doing so, etc. Sooo, here's the problem I wonder about: what's to prevent a GOP Congress removing the penalty? Or even a split Congress like we have now, in run up to elections, removing the penalty because a media campaign has made it an unpopular point of contention surrounding the election? In effect, getting rid of the "mandate"?
by artappraiser on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 2:31pm
Now the Wall Street Journal is stressing the same explanation: Supreme Court Upholds Mandate as Tax, and again, I wonder: what's to prevent Congress from getting rid of this tax/penalty, effectively getting rid of "the mandate"?
by artappraiser on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 2:39pm
OBAMA OVERREACHED
Congress had the power to tax all along, they were not entitled to a New Federal power
Instead of focusing the nations attention on job creation, or underwater homeowners WE were distracted on "making a mountain out of a mole hill"
Obamas signature plan; an Obama administration, trying to grab more power, than that granted by the Constitution.
When the democrats were in the majority, they could have just raised taxes, by ending the Bush tax cuts, and expanded a program, already in place "MEDICARE FOR ALL"
Imagine how much better off the country would have been, with Congressional cooperation, with Republicans being the minority of course ? Maybe the Democrats, wouldn't have lost at the mid terms; had Obama not overreached?
http://dagblog.com/reader-blogs/supremes-approved-mandate-14111#comment-158254
by Resistance on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 7:46pm
If Congress were to mandate Medicare for all, why in your mind would that be an unobjectionable, friendly mandate, vs. the mandate incorporated into ACA? Is your objection to Congress mandating health insurance coverage for everyone? To Congress mandating that individuals purchase health insurance from, in many cases, private for-profit providers?
by AmericanDreamer on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 7:54pm
Did you not read the opinion, or did not get the sense of it?
“Sustaining the mandate as a tax depends only on whether Congress has properly exercised its taxing power to encourage purchasing health insurance,.......... not whether it can.” Chief Justice Roberts
Whether it can what ? Has it "PROPERLY EXERCISED"
Obama and the Congress were seeking more power, than the framers of the Constitution stated, when they said “this is the power granted by the people and no more”
Obama and the Congress weren’t satisfied with the "properly exercised taxing power, to encourage purchasing health insurance;" they already had the ability to tax,
Obama and the Congress wanted the ability to MANDATE that EVERYONE BUY. That’s more than taxing power, it’s an abuse of the commerce clause.
What's next, everyone should vote or be fined? Everyone should buy and wear a flag lapel or be fined? Everyone should eat broccoli or be fined?
That abusive power grab, incited those who agree, the Federal Government of WE the people, has limitations.
That incitement, rallied the Tea party and the democrats lost the midterms.
We don’t need another future President or Congress, to use this precedent mandate, to extend to itself more power.
Bush grabbed more than he should have, why let Obama grab more; until finally the Constitution is null and void ?
WE don’t want to address in the future, a law of unintended consequences, because we failed to stop this MANDATE
We didn’t need a mandate.
TAKE THE CAPS OFF, all income, to support
ACA .Medicare minimum for all. That’s a taxing issue, a power already granted by the Constitution.If the rich, want more than the minimum; let them purchase a separate policy. That's commerce.
A taxation with representation, not a forced mandate.
by Resistance on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 9:37pm
Yes if Obama hadn't fought for the ACA he could have done other things.I don't think the Nation as a whole would have.
Like others here you probably overestimate what the Dem's "majority"(including Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman) could have achieved during the six months between the Minnesota election decision and that in Mass .
by Flavius on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 8:59pm
Nothing prevents them from doing it. But that just means nothing prevents them from getting rid of the mandate. They can always vote to repeal or amend any law they passed previously. I don't think the Court's upholding the mandate as a tax makes it any easier for Congress to get rid of it.
by Dan Kervick on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 4:05pm
Yeah my headline was wrong. At that point the A item was getting the news from Aix to Ghent- oops that was a different edition.
Well there was
Those damn limeys were actually rowing
was short hand for that. Wrong of course, but that's often true of my vaporings
by Flavius on Sat, 06/30/2012 - 9:02pm
The sheer intensity of winger and GOP distress over this decision may, as one effect, prompt some progressive-minded folks to entertain the thought that maybe the legislation wasn't all bad after all.
by AmericanDreamer on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 5:15pm
You mean like this from Ben Shapiro, syndicated columnist, bestselling author, Harvard Law grad, Breitbart.com Editor-At-Large, Freedom Center Shillman Journalism Fellow:
Or this:
Sen. Rand Paul's (R-Ky.) office: “Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional...." Sen. Rand Paul.
More on reaction in Jesusland at Driftglass.
by NCD on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 6:13pm
That site is spectacular, I haven't laughed so much since well, a day or two again, when I watched Louis CK tell Leno he was the Weirdest looking man on the face of the earth.
by tmccarthy0 on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 8:00pm
Yes (rhetorical question, though, I realize...).
by AmericanDreamer on Sat, 06/30/2012 - 10:52pm
"The Framers gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it, and for over 200 years both our decisions and Congress’s actions have reflected this understanding. There is no reason to depart from that understanding now.....
The individual mandate forces individuals into commerce precisely because they elected to refrain from commercial activity. Such a law cannot be sustained under a clause authorizing Congress to “regulate Commerce.”.....
Sustaining the mandate as a tax depends only on whether Congress has properly exercised its taxing power to encourage purchasing health insurance,..........
not whether it can.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-excerpts-from-chief-justice-robertss-opinion-on-healthcare-reform-20120628,0,5775958.story?page=2&track=rss
Well reasoned.
MEDICARE FOR ALL
by Resistance on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 7:43pm
One of the stories yahoo.com news is featuring is speculation about whether a Romney Administration would repeal Obamacare. If elected, what he very possibly could do, and very possibly would do in my view, would be to either sabotage, or cherry pick (implementing only the provisions his Administration likes) its implementation through the regulatory and executive branch implementation processes. Even IF the GOP wins back the Senate, IF Democrats were willing to filibuster a repeal attempt, 60 votes would be needed--unless repeal supporters tried to accomplish that using the reconciliation process, which is filibuster-proof.
by AmericanDreamer on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 9:04am