The evidence that you tried to argue the congress exempted point and fell flat on your face.

Quote :

"I'm saying I don't know what I'm talking about."

Well no shit.

[Edited on July 1, 2012 at 7:34 PM. Reason : ]

7/1/2012 7:33:21 PM

Did you not say this:

The onus is on you since you're calling shenanigans. But, since you fail at proving any point, I'll do your work for you.





Then you posted this:

Quote :

"The 16,000 new IRS employees will almost entirely be processing those sweet sweet tax credits"

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/02/irs-and-the-health-care-law-part-ii/


Then you posted this?

Quote :

"Congress not only did not exempt itself but actually required its members to purchase insurance on an exchange"

Quote :

"MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE.— (i) REQUIREMENT.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are— (I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or (II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act). (ii) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: (I) MEMBER OF CONGRESS.—The term ‘‘Member of Congress’’ means any member of the House of Representatives or the Senate. (II) CONGRESSIONAL STAFF.—The term ‘‘congressional staff’’ means all full-time and part-time employees employed by the official office of a Member of Congress, whether in Washington, DC or outside of Washington, DC."

And that didn't even take two minutes.

__________________________________________________________

Doesn't that end the conversation?


Then I posted

So I started to read H.R. 3952 for myself and realized it's impossible to read....

Then you post

So you've gone from "omg, your facts are crazy talk" to "I have no idea what i'm talking about because it's too long"

7/1/2012 7:54:21 PM

Quote :

"I'll do your work for you."

It's called sarcasm. Any moderately intelligent person can see that what I posted shows that your comment about lewisje's supposed ignorant comments have no validity.

And just to make sure you understand, that means means you were wrong about the statements being ignorant.

You haven't addressed that at all.

Get it yet?

7/1/2012 8:06:48 PM

I'm sorry, what does means means mean?

7/1/2012 9:22:19 PM

Oh shit, a typo.

Sadly, nothing you've said makes sense, so pardon me this mistake.

Also, thank you FroshKiller and whoever did the chrome extension for better wolfweb. I'm ignoring you now.

[Edited on July 1, 2012 at 9:42 PM. Reason : ]

7/1/2012 9:40:58 PM

^I did the most latest improvements

7/2/2012 4:38:48 AM

These portions from this article are somewhat noteworthy:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57464549/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/

Quote :

"The conservatives refused to join any aspect of [Chief Justice Roberts's] opinion, including sections with which they agreed, such as his analysis imposing limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause, the sources said. Instead, the four joined forces and crafted a highly unusual, unsigned joint dissent. They deliberately ignored Roberts' decision, the sources said, as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate... But despite Roberts' strong language on the Commerce Clause, the conservatives would have none of it, the two sources said, even though there was no significant difference in their reasoning on that issue... The fact that the joint dissent doesn't mention Roberts' majority was not a sign of sloppiness, the sources said, but instead was a signal the conservatives no longer wished to engage in debate with him."

7/4/2012 5:41:58 PM

^god forbid they list who the 4 conservative justices are in the article.

I can't find a simple list of who voted for or against obamacare anywhere.



Finally found it
FOR OBAMACARE: Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor.
AGAINST OBAMACARE: Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito,Clarence Thomas


For reference:

Chief Justice

John G. Roberts, Jr..............GWBush...............2005

Associate Justices by Year

Antonin Scalia.....................Reagan................1986
Anthony Kennedy.................Reagan................1988
Clarence Thomas.................GHWBush.............1991
Ruth Bader Ginsburg............Clinton.................1993
Stephen Breyer...................Clinton.................1994
Samuel Alito.......................GWBush...............2006
Sonia Sotomayor.................Obama.................2009
Elena Kagan........................Obama................2010



[Edited on July 4, 2012 at 6:09 PM. Reason : .]

7/4/2012 6:03:54 PM

Read the syllabus; the references to the "Opinion of the Court" are most important: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

7/4/2012 10:06:24 PM

Bump

11/2/2012 10:05:30 PM

Big Sky, Big Money
How has the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision changed campaigns in America?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/big-sky-big-money/

11/2/2012 11:15:33 PM

Will they throw the election to Dubya Mitt Rethug this year?

11/2/2012 11:17:01 PM

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/11/ninth-circuit-gives-ok-warrantless-home-video-surveillance

I'm willing to bet that this gets overturned in the Supreme Court within the next year.

11/30/2012 12:41:10 AM

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/02/sonia-sotomayor-racist-prosecutor/62498/

not a case, but credibility points have been added

2/26/2013 12:00:08 AM

https://movetoamend.org/recommended-reading/supreme-court-takes-campaign-finance-case-will-rule-contribution-limits

If you thought Citizens United was bad take a look at this!

2/26/2013 2:10:25 PM

So parts of the Voting Rights Act look like they are about to be struck down?

damn

[Edited on February 27, 2013 at 3:53 PM. Reason : I guess just pre-clearance]

2/27/2013 3:52:44 PM

I haven't seen a source to confirm this, but if this statement is true, then Family Guy did it first:

Quote :

"Peter: Gays don't vomit. They're a very clean people. And they have been ever since they came to this country from France."

[Edited on March 28, 2013 at 5:01 PM. Reason : .]

3/28/2013 5:01:01 PM

Justices should get 1 25 or 30-year term limit.

3/28/2013 8:16:25 PM

^^However, the conept of sexual orientation as opposed to deviant (or occasional culturally sanctioned) sexual behavior was not seriously advocated until the sixties...the eighteen-sixties, and the term "homosexual" was coined in 1869 and popularized in 1886.

(This is why, for example, there is speculation about whether Abraham Lincoln was gay or bisexual, even though neither he nor his contemporaries used the language of sexual orientation, and I hope I'm not invoking Sapir-Whorf too strongly here.)

3/28/2013 8:28:06 PM

Yea, he didn't say that

3/28/2013 8:50:40 PM

That's from a satire site. C'mon dude.

3/29/2013 1:25:17 AM

I know one of the conservative justices said something about gay unions being newer than cell phones and the internet, so this didn't sound so far off. But that's why there was still the disclaimer.

[Edited on March 29, 2013 at 2:15 AM. Reason : .]

3/29/2013 2:15:02 AM

^ yeha I heard that too. i believe is it was Scalia. He was expressing his reluctance to make a decision on gay marriage because there hasn't been much investigation on if gays raising kids had a negative effect on the children and society as a whole. then mentioned that this whole thing is newer then cell phones and the internet. what an idiot!

3/29/2013 10:31:54 AM

'twas Alito

3/29/2013 11:45:11 AM

ah...thanks

3/29/2013 2:05:32 PM

South is no longer racist! Officially..

6/25/2013 10:18:22 AM

It's a good, logically consistent ruling. A lot of people are going to complain about it, but if you ever want any kind of reform in the way districts are drawn then something had to happen with the voting rights act. Requiring preclearance in Georgia but not in say... Arizona is not good legislation. The voting rights act made a hugely important impact, but now it's used to protect gerrymandered districts and keep representative districts from being drawn.

6/25/2013 11:54:29 AM

(might wanna re-think using Arizona as an example)

[Edited on June 25, 2013 at 12:47 PM. Reason : yeah]

6/25/2013 12:43:03 PM

Well Congress can certainly redraw the maps, although that's obviously not going to happen anytime soon, but the maps in use dated from 1972 iirc?

The South is still backwards of course, but not that backwards.

6/25/2013 1:09:29 PM

Ginsburg kills it:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/06/best-lines-ginsburg-dissent-voting-rights-act-decision

Lays out both the logical reasons why she dissents and even provides a handy list of VERY recent discriminatory voting laws attempted in Southern states.

Quote :

"The South is still backwards of course, but not that backwards."

It's still backwards enough that I don't trust them to facilitate voting for black folks.

[Edited on June 25, 2013 at 1:21 PM. Reason : .]

6/25/2013 1:20:54 PM

I thought the decision was pretty good, it just came at a really terrible time when there is little change the formula gets revised.

6/25/2013 2:14:09 PM

can someone give me a simplified plain-english version of the ruling?

all i can gather so far is that some states no longer have to get federal permission for voting?

6/25/2013 11:31:34 PM

It's too late for voting, so it doesn't matter.

6/25/2013 11:34:15 PM

cool clarification, bro

6/25/2013 11:39:05 PM

The government can legally store your bank account login information because it is encrypted and you forfeit your protections as a U.S. citizen by using encrypted communications.

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/top-secret-documents-show-rules-for-nsa-surveillance-without-a-warrant/248/

The supreme court is powerless at this point. Always has been, really. It took 20 years for their decisions on civil rights to be enforced, and they only were so then because it was politically convenient.

6/26/2013 12:07:03 AM

we have nothing to worry about smc, we're both white males

6/26/2013 12:12:41 AM

Quote :

"all i can gather so far is that some states no longer have to get federal permission for voting?"

That's pretty much what it's effectively like: The formula for determining which states, or portions thereof, are subject to preclearance (requiring permission from the Department of Justice for any changes to their electoral procedures) was declared unconstitutional because it hadn't been updated to deal with present-day conditions and instead relied on statistics from the early '70s; preclearance itself is still Constitutional, but Congress needs to pass a new formula into law, which is highly unlikely in today's environment of historically high partisanship and would certainly get challenged immediately upon passage.

Also, the actual practices banned by the Voting Rights Act are still banned, but now those jurisdictions formerly subject to preclearance can implement them right away (as the other jurisdictions always could), and then the discriminatory practices would only stop if the jurisdiction gets sued; the onus will then be on the plaintiffs to prove that the practices *do* violate the Voting Rights Act, while under preclearance, the onus was on the jurisdictions to prove that they *don't* violate it.

The net effect is that the vote will be suppressed more than it currently is and that Republican candidates and conservative ballot measures will become stronger across the South; I still thought that the ruling was technically sound.

6/26/2013 1:01:43 AM

I saw a graphic of the states that would be affected, and they either all or most appeared to be in the south, which are traditionally republican states

But for example Florida, which is geographically southern, but politically a swing state, probably had some shenanigans going on in 2004, so maybe I don't see why this decision will really do much practically

[Edited on June 26, 2013 at 1:06 AM. Reason : and thanks for the explanation]

6/26/2013 1:06:38 AM

6/26/2013 3:25:56 PM

^^ because now every state is a potential 2004 Florida.

6/26/2013 3:30:52 PM

Not that I don't appreciate the insightful constitutional analysis provided here at TSB, but for anyone interested in a more in-depth review of recent opinions and constitutional issues, check out the Volokh Conspiracy:

http://www.volokh.com/

It's one of my first stops for any breaking con law news.

SCOTUSblog is pretty good too, they live blog on opinion days like today.

http://www.scotusblog.com/

6/26/2013 4:42:28 PM

don't you dudes mean 2000 Florida?

because that was their year

[Edited on June 26, 2013 at 8:27 PM. Reason : yeah]

6/26/2013 8:26:31 PM

More like Florida every single year. But yeah I was just following along.

6/26/2013 11:55:47 PM

I wasn't sure if this should go here or in the "Police State" thread. Just our wonderful conservative justices whittling away at the bill of rights once again, this time the 4th amendment:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-scotus-la-search-20131114,0,6040764.story#axzz2kb2FMPi3

Quote :

"WASHINGTON — In a case that could narrow legal protections against police searches, a majority of Supreme Court justices sounded ready Wednesday to reject an appeal from an imprisoned Los Angeles gang member who contended that after he objected to a search and was then taken away under arrest, police unconstitutionally entered his apartment. Justices appeared to agree with attorneys for the Los Angeles Police Department, who defended the search as legal because the gang member, Walter Fernandez, was not present and his girlfriend gave police permission to enter their home."

So the guy didn't want police to come into his house. They arrested him and took him away and then asked his girlfriend if they could search and she said yes.

It goes directly against a 2006 ruling Georgia v. Randolph:

Quote :

"In that case, the court decided — in an opinion by now-retired Justice David H. Souter — that police had violated the rights of a Georgia man when they entered his home and searched based on his wife's consent. Because Scott Randolph, her husband, had stood in the door and objected, the court ruled that the police should have honored his objection."

just making it up as they go along . . . . .

11/14/2013 8:41:19 AM

Brilliant!

USA #1 sucks. Of course, most of the population would just happily go along with this.

11/14/2013 9:04:23 AM

^yea, I mean the guy was a gang member and did just kill someone. But even crappy people like that deserve the Bill of Rights - well until they're convicted.

Justice Sotomayor:

Quote :

""Get a warrant! When you have probable cause to believe a crime has been committed … you've got to secure the premises and get a warrant. I don't know why that's so difficult for police officers to understand.""

11/14/2013 9:40:27 AM

Oh yeh, the guy can rot in hell and honestly, I don't care for his rights, even though he should have them, as should all citizens. It's scary to know that our government and our courts are eroding away important limitations of government power and intrusion and the people don't care. The idiotic mantra of "I've done nothing wrong so I have nothing to worry about" is going to result in a very different country down the road, one that the population will end up regretting. I don't see how anyone can trust the supreme court with it's recent rulings and if it rules that this action was constitutional.

11/14/2013 9:55:21 AM

It's officially official. Cops can now arrest escort you off the premises if you refuse a search of your property and ask whomever else is at the residence if they can come in and search. Repeat the process until someone finally relents.

What is it about our strict constitutionalist judges that they don't understand what "Get a fucking warrant!" means?

2/25/2014 2:35:02 PM

The Georgia v. Randolph ruling surprises me more than this one. I was always under the impression that anyone rightfully present in a home can consent to a search.

But, yeah: "Get a warrant! When you have probable cause to believe a crime has been committed … you've got to secure the premises and get a warrant. I don't know why that's so difficult for police officers to understand." The time, effort and money spent on this case are far greater than whatever it would've taken them to get a warrant.

2/25/2014 3:30:39 PM

Exactly, they basically had the guy on domestic violence charges (why he got taken to jail), and they had decent evidence he matched the description of a gang member associated with multiple crimes. What judge isn't going to grant you a warrant for that?

How can these supposed strict constitutionalists kneecap the 4th amendment while simultaneously making other parts of the bill of rights sacrosanct and beyond questioning?

Alito, Thonas, and Scalia cannot die retire soon enough, IMO. Their "constitutional scholarship" is killing the common man.

2/25/2014 6:25:01 PM