Oral Arguments

[Galen Sevinne]

Thanks for chiming in. Why don't you go back and address the post about you parroting the Whitehorse talking point and the progressive thought process while you're here.

I did address it just not the way you wanted it to be addressed. The ideas we shared were primary points of the healthcare debate especially from a progressive side. Obama wanted a public option, the conservatives wanted a mandate. Obama couldn't get the public option because of blue dog dems so he compromised with a mandate. This is public knowldege not something just released by the White House.

Secondly, while I don't love the mandate, it is third best in line with a Single Payor and a Public Option and better than the status quo which is an unfunded mandate in EMTALA. Conservatives liked the mandate (before Obama liked it) because it forces personal responsiblity onto the individual to share their health risk with the rest of us already throwing our share of the risk in via health insurance premiums.

The fact that you guys think these are new "White House talking points" shows something about your understanding of the debate... which is not unlike falling for poor analogies that have nothing to do with the commerce concerns.

Obama and Kagan would never look to share conversations about the vote; there is too much at risk. Kagan will be a justice long after Obama is President. Additionally, the vote could look very different today than it looks in June. The Obama administration will develop strategies for all likely scenarios to best weather the political fall-out from whatever happens in June.

[NCRAVEN]

I did address it just not the way you wanted it to be addressed. The ideas we shared were primary points of the healthcare debate especially from a progressive side. Obama wanted a public option, the conservatives wanted a mandate. Obama couldn't get the public option because of blue dog dems so he compromised with a mandate. This is public knowldege not something just released by the White House.

No you didn’t , you said “I don’t get your claim”

Secondly, while I don't love the mandate, it is third best in line with a Single Payor and a Public Option and better than the status quo which is an unfunded mandate in EMTALA. Conservatives liked the mandate (before Obama liked it) because it forces personal responsiblity onto the individual to share their health risk with the rest of us already throwing our share of the risk in via health insurance premiums.

Some conservatives liked the idea. Just because it was thought of by the heritage foundation doesn’t mean everyone liked it. Even if they did like it doesn’t mean it’s any more constitutional than it is now.

The fact that you guys think these are new "White House talking points" shows something about your understanding of the debate... which is not unlike falling for poor analogies that have nothing to do with the commerce concerns.

Nice try Galen. The new terms were never used by the Whitehouse before or by you. You using them the same day the Whitehouse starts is no coincidence.

Obama and Kagan would never look to share conversations about the vote; there is too much at risk. Kagan will be a justice long after Obama is President. Additionally, the vote could look very different today than it looks in June. The Obama administration will develop strategies for all likely scenarios to best weather the political fall-out from whatever happens in June.

I do I believe I asked if it’s possible. But Kagan a committed leftist (like you) so ideology trumps all - so I do believe it is possible she would share that.

Now the part you didn’t address when you said I don’t get your claim and I clarified was this.

Pretending to be stupid, again!?
There is no claim here, it is as clear as day that you have started using terms that Whitehouse is trying to use as a way to distance themselves from something sooooo unpopular.

You go around championing progressive thinking, as if it’s something so intelligent few are capable of its high level of thought. When all progressive thinking is, are retread ideas that have NEVER worked, and you just parrot what someone else says and not think for yourself.
That’s what is so funny. Obviously someone of your intellect could see that.

[Galen Sevinne]

No you didn’t , you said “I don’t get your claim”

I didn't understand your claim but I think I do now. It sounds like you didn't know that the purpose behind the mandate was to force people to take responsibility for their share of their health risk until you simultaneously saw this idea written by me and whitehouse.gov on the same day? What did you think the mandate was for?

And you didn't know that in 2008 McCain in the Presidential debates argued for the mandate while Obama argued against it and for a Public Option? It was a sharp distinction in how each candidate would try to address healthcare reform. Maybe you missed it? I think maybe you just learned this as a result of similar postings by me and Whitehouse.gov (not to mention probably a dozen other liberal leaning blogs).

Anyway welcome to the debate.

[NCRAVEN]

I didn't understand your claim but I think I do now.

Wrong. Galen, I know I joke with you. Okay, I know I joke with you A LOT. But I know you're not stupid, so stop pretending. I am not debating the intention of the mandate.

My point is the Whitehouse starts using new terms that they never have before, and the same day you do too. Hence -

"You go around championing progressive thinking, as if it’s something so intelligent few are capable of its high level of thought. When all progressive thinking is, are retread ideas that have NEVER worked, and you just parrot what someone else says and not think for yourself.

That’s what is so funny. Obviously someone of your intellect could see that."

[AirFlacco]

Kagen wouldn't give a damn about 300 yrs of tradition. She would have done the honorable thing and recused
herself to begin with like others have that I posted above but she has no honor. Also, the vote this morning is just a preliminary vote to see who's voting what. Justices often change their vote. Kennedy changed his while writing his opinion.

Speaking of the transcripts, Galen must have written this up as a ghost writer-lol. He says Verilli did great.

Kennedy did leave the back door open saying it's a unique bill and making the point about
the uninsured costing the system too much money. Guy here says Verilli got stronger sticking to his
4 points as he went along.

Then Roberts reminded Carvin and Clements the gov't position is almost everyone will be entering the health care market on their own. That's a
crock of shit. There's 40M people that will get it for free and we'll be paying more so they get it.
That's the entire point of free health care.

Kennedy still scares me.

___________________________________________
Justice Kennedy warned both Clement and Carvin that the uninsured “are creating a risk that the market must account for.” In a similar vein, Roberts reminded Carvin that “the government’s position is that almost everybody is going to enter the health care market” on their own.
________________________________________________




http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/...rrilli-defense

[HoustonRaven]

I'd have to go pretty far back to hear Thomas ask a question

Touche

You do have a point, however when it comes to this case, I think all justices have been pretty fair about asking questions of both sides. Scalia would be the rights version of Kagan but he has been more fair than her, by far.

What shocked me what Breyer's line of questioning more than anything. He too (seemingly) saw the futility and lack of legal standing for a court to go through 2,700 pages and decide which policy of all of them was actually Constitutional. Very surprising coming from someone who supports the living constitution.

[NCRAVEN]

Touche



What shocked me what Breyer's line of questioning more than anything. He too (seemingly) saw the futility and lack of legal standing for a court to go through 2,700 pages and decide which policy of all of them was actually Constitutional. Very surprising coming from someone who supports the living constitution.

I agree, I was pleased by the fairness of his questions. And to a lesser extent Sotomayor.

[AirFlacco]

LOL - Kagen is the gopher at the meeting today. She takes notes of everything

said and she even gets the coffee and danish as the junior justice - part of 200
yrs of tradition.

No wonder she hates tradition-lol.

RUSH explains it:


So they're hunting around here, they're hoping and praying for leaks. If you know how to read between the lines of these liberal media news stories, as I do, you can see that they're mining for leaks here. They're asking clerks to let them know how it turns out. Here's what's going on today. This is the procedure, as it has been for 222 years. The nine justices will gather in this room and they will vote, and it's only them. There is nobody else in the room. There are no clerks. There are no secretaries. The most junior justice, who is Elena Kagan, takes the notes of the meeting. She is the note taker. She records what happens here. There's no secretaries; no executive assistants. There's no iPhone in there with Siri. There are no clerks. If somebody wants a cup of coffee, Elena Kagan goes and gets it. That's common, too. The most junior justice does the grunt work like that. It's traditional, and it's always happened.

They will vote. Opinions will be assigned. There might be a little discussion going around the room as the justices explain things that are important to them, noteworthy, but there's very little persuasion, if any, that goes on here. It remains entirely civil and collegial. Do not erupt in arguments. The arguments and the dissents and the disagreements occur in writing. The vote that is held today is not final because, after the opinions have been assigned and written, it's not likely, but it has happened -- in fact, it happened with Justice Kennedy in a fairly recent case, changed his original vote after reading opinions from the other justices. That could happen here.

So the vote today is subject to change, and the really fascinating thing about what's going on today is the vote itself and what happens as a result of it. And there is a theory that is floating around out there that I want to share with you. I'm gonna take the break here and I'm gonna share with you this theory, and as a little bit of a tease, I'll tell you this about it. The theory is how the vote gets to 6-3 for total constitutionality. That's the theory. How they get there is what's fascinating.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I'm not saying this is going to happen, b

[AirFlacco]

Here's Rush's theory on getting Galen's 6-3 vote on the constitutionality of it. Click on link and scroll down past pic of all the justices.




http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/20...hold_obamacare

[Galen Sevinne]

Here's Rush's theory on getting Galen's 6-3 vote on the constitutionality of it. Click on link and scroll down past pic of all the justices.




http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/20...hold_obamacare

Yep that was my reasoning from the beginning. I did think Scalia would be more in the game as well but that was a complete misread. I did start at 6-3 with a potential for 7-2 but I am back to 6-3 with a potential of an overturn now. I don't see a 5-4 uphold of the mandate, as if Kennedy goes in favor, I think Roberts throws in with him, making it 6-3. On the other hand, it isn't out of the question that it goes 5-4 overturn which I think will cause a major liberal uprising. I just might be down for being a part of that show. I have respect for the court though and think they do the right thing here which is exactly what Rush is coming around to.

Let the the confederacy of dunces know immediately. I want to see how the argument that I am now plagiarizing Rush is set up.

[NCRAVEN]

which is exactly what Rush is coming around to.

FYI. That wasn't Rush's theory, it was one he was reading from a left-wing blog. Not saying it's not a possible theory (although I hope the supreme court views things as how they relate to the constitution) just that i's not his theory.

[AirFlacco]

Right. He said it wasn't his theory, he was just putting it out there for everyone.

Galen - I quoted your 6-3 prediction and that was before Rush. No plagiarism here, not in this case but where HR mentioned above.

Nothing is impossible here and it's quite posslble Kennedy votes for it to make it
5-4. I don't trust him. Scalia is the one who doesn't even want to read the damn
thing. How can they vote something is constitutional if they don't even read it.
Roberts was too adamant about the broccoli example.

[Galen Sevinne]

Right. He said it wasn't his theory, he was just putting it out there for everyone.

Galen - I quoted your 6-3 prediction and that was before Rush. No plagiarism here, not in this case but where HR mentioned above.

Nothing is impossible here and it's quite posslble Kennedy votes for it to make it
5-4. I don't trust him. Scalia is the one who doesn't even want to read the damn
thing. How can they vote something is constitutional if they don't even read it.
Roberts was too adamant about the broccoli example.

I never said it was Rush's theory...just that he has come around to the likelihood of this solution. Scalia is an embarrassment to the whole process. Maybe later I will plagiarize a funny piece I read about the similarities to his comments and the right-wing talking points used during the last two years to caste ACA as some big government overreach.


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[NCRAVEN]

I never said it was Rush's theory...just that he has come around to the likelihood of this solution

I guess you didn't read the transcript. He wasn't coming around to the likelihood, he was reading that blog saying it was some guys reasoning for a 6-3 vote and the court cares how it's viewed not about the consitutionality of the law

RUSH: I'm not saying this is going to happen, by the way. The fact that it's so widely being predicted now, if it becomes conventional wisdom it could very well be like most conventional wisdom, and that is wrong. There's a very, very left-wing blog called the SCOTUS blog, and the guy there is predicting 6-3 for the whole thing being found constitutional, 6-3. A lot of others have looked at his reasoning, "Yeah, you know what, I like that reasoning, it makes perfect sense to me. I think I'll sign on to that." If it happens, and if it happens the way the theory explains it, we don't have a court looking at the law anymore. We have a fully politicized third branch of government.

Scalia is an embarrassment to the whole process. Maybe later I will plagiarize a funny piece I read about the similarities to his comments and the right-wing talking points used during the last two years to caste ACA as some big government overreach.

Of course he is, because you disagree with him. What about Kagan helping the defense(like you pointed out earlier in this thread).

[AirFlacco]

Ginsburgh too. They both had to plead Verilli's case for him. They acutally interrupted him
saying, you meant this don't you and he said yes.

That's not good before the judges.

Scalia was right. Nobody has read it. OBY hasn't even read it. Only the ones the wrote
it.

Galen - not even you have time to read it.

[Galen Sevinne]

Ginsburgh too. They both had to plead Verilli's case for him. They acutally interrupted him
saying, you meant this don't you and he said yes.

That's not good before the judges.

Scalia was right. Nobody has read it. OBY hasn't even read it. Only the ones the wrote
it.

Galen - not even you have time to read it.

I agree that the liberal judges were certainly trying to help Verrilli out. I don't condone that but I also don't see it as negative as Scalia throwing around negative conservative propaganda such a complaining about a 2700 page law and mocking it. Clearly he has hostility towards the law and while making the argument for Verilli is also out of line, propagandizing the court hearings really diminishes the reputation of the court.

The "Roberts Court" is in danger of leaving a poor legacy.

[HoustonRaven]

Justices shouldn't be deciding such stuff.

That's not a knock on Scalia. That's a huge thumbs up towards judicial restraint and a representative democracy.

Scalia understands the importance of allowing the people, via their representatives and not via the judiciary, to determine the constitutionality of laws.

[AirFlacco]

Yes indeed, and that liberal Bryer himself said the same thing as Scalia.

"I haven't read it, I promise."

So Galen has to condemn his comments too.



http://cnsnews.com/video/national/ju...word-i-promise

[HoustonRaven]

Maybe Kagen has been blabbing .....

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74743.html

[NCRAVEN]

Maybe Kagen has been blabbing .....

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74743.html

I heard him talk about that. What do you make of it?

I couldn't say for certain. If I had to guess from his tone and comments it doesn't look good for him. Accusing them of Judicial Activism.... no beuno