Supreme Court Upholds Obama's Health Care Act

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court today upheld the Affordable Choices Act. The opinion in King v. Burwell is here.

The 6-to-3 ruling means that it is all but certain that the Affordable Care Act will survive after Mr. Obama leaves office in 2017, and will give it a greater chance of becoming an enduring part of America’s social safety net

Dissenters: Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

The Court upheld the Act's tax subsidies intended to assist the ability of the poor and middle-class to buy health insurance. [More...]

In a democracy, the power to make the law rests with those chosen by the people. Our role is more confined— “to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). That is easier in some cases than in others. But in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done. A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan. Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter. Section 36B can fairly be read consistent with what we see as Congress’s plan, and that is the reading we adopt.

On the disputed phrase “an exchange established by the state” the ruling says:

Anyway, we “must do our best, bearing in mind the fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.” Utility Air Regulatory Group, 573 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 15) (internal quotation marks omitted). After reading Section 36B along with other related provisions in the Act, we cannot conclude that the phrase “an Exchange established by the State under [Section 18031]” is unambiguous.

It continues:

Given that the text is ambiguous, we must turn to the broader structure of the Act to determine the meaning of Section 36B. “A provision that may seem ambiguous in isolation is often clarified by the remainder of the statutory scheme … because only one of the permissible meanings produces a substantive effect that is compatible with the rest of the law.” United Sav. Assn. of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd., 484 U. S. 365, 371 (1988). Here, the statutory scheme compels us to reject petitioners’ interpretation because it would destabilize the individual insurance market in any State with a Federal Exchange, and likely create the very “death spirals” that Congress designed the Act to avoid. See New York State Dept. of Social Servs. v. Dublino, 413 U. S. 405, 419–420 (1973) (“We cannot interpret federal statutes to negate their own stated purposes.”).

The Court ruled that despite the ambiguity of the phrase, it is the Court and not the President, that is the final arbiter.

When analyzing an agency’s interpretation of a statute, we often apply the two-step framework announced in Chevron, 467 U. S. 837. Under that framework, we ask whether the statute is ambiguous and, if so, whether the agency’s interpretation is reasonable. Id., at 842–843. … “In extraordinary cases, however, there may be reason to hesitate before concluding that Congress has intended such an implicit delegation.” Ibid. This is one of those cases. The tax credits are among the Act’s key reforms, involving billions of dollars in spending each year and affecting the price of health insurance for millions of people. Whether those credits are available on Federal Exchanges is thus a question of deep “economic and political significance” that is central to this statutory scheme; had Congress wished to assign that question to an agency, it surely would have done so expressly. … It is especially unlikely that Congress would have delegated this decision to the IRS, which has no expertise in crafting health insurance policy of this sort. … This is not a case for the IRS. It is instead our task to determine the correct reading of Section 36B.has the final say in interpretation. Thus, there is no possibility a future president will be able to interpret it differently.

The ruling overturns the Federal appeals court deccision. What would have happened had the ruling gone the other way? According to the New York Times:

A ruling for the plaintiffs would not overturn the health care law completely, but more than six million people in about three dozen states could lose their subsidies. The effect of those cancellations would probably also lead to higher prices for everyone in those markets.

< Thursday Open Thread | SCOTUS Rules Constitution Requires Marriage Equality >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    No Chevron Deference = Huge Win (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Michael Masinter on Thu Jun 25, 2015 at 02:55:25 PM EST
    In an unquoted portion of the opinion, Roberts held that Congress did not intend to delegate to an administrative agency the interpretation of the critical language, "an exchange established by the state." That matters enormously; had he applied more conventional Chevron deference, he would have left the power to interpret with the IRS, and upheld its ruling.  Although the result would have been the same -- upholding tax credits in states that refuse to establish their own exchanges -- such a ruling would have left the next President with the power to abolish subsidies by changing the IRS interpretation.  Instead, Roberts declined to apply Chevron deference and held the interpretation of the statute to be a matter for the Court.  That interpretation now controls unless Congress amends the ACA. In soccer parlance, the anti-ACA plaintiffs scored an own goal with their ill conceived lawsuit.

    I love it (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 25, 2015 at 04:35:21 PM EST
    for most here this is an academic discussion.  Not fer me.   This is really really good news.   Now I don't have to worry about paying for follow up visits for my shingles flare up.   Which seems completely gone btw.
    Or for God only know what else.

    Very very good news.


    In this case, the limitation on deference (none / 0) (#13)
    by christinep on Thu Jun 25, 2015 at 05:07:33 PM EST
    works well ... at least in the opinion of people like yourself and myself who want to preclude the potential of later President's personnel adopting other approaches regarding subsidy under the ACA.

    Yet ... as one who spent her career with the feds (and, mostly at EPA) something tells me that we need to guard against certain unintended consequences in future.  For instance: Chevron, of course, is near & dear to EPA's implementation of the laws with which it is charged.  The nature of the several federal environmental statutes--in practice--depends heavily upon the Agency's interpretation of Congressional directives ... and, considering the technical & specialty aspects required by numerous provisions, judicial deference has long been accorded the Agency. That deference enables complex environmental laws to be administered, enforced by EPA (the Agency) in a timely manner.  So... what if administrative deference is limited per King v. Burwell?

    If deference to agency interpretation is limited when we like it, could there be other challenges to other Agency interpretations where we would want to see substantial deference? What about other areas where state and/or corporate challenges to future Agency interpretations could more readily be given deeper judicial review with the goal of thwarting Agency deference?  Could what we like today cut a different way in different Agency settings tomorrow?   (Hopefully, my little concern will be only academic.)


    Chevron Alive and Well (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Michael Masinter on Thu Jun 25, 2015 at 09:47:09 PM EST
    I don't think today's decision undermines Chevron for the reasons Roberts stated; there is no reason to think, and every reason not to think, that Congress intended to delegate to the IRS the determination of the phrase "established by the state."  By contrast, EPA has and was created to have technical expertise in the complex environmental matters Congress does delegate to it, and so the courts properly do apply Chevron deference to its construction of environmental laws. In short, I think this is a principled rather than an instrumental  refusal to apply Chevron, not a Chevron for me when it suits my purposes, but not for thee when it doesn't refusal.

    Good point. (none / 0) (#23)
    by christinep on Thu Jun 25, 2015 at 10:00:31 PM EST
    Kind of anti-climactic, in a good way... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by magster on Thu Jun 25, 2015 at 11:22:43 PM EST
    Roberts "Yeah.... no. Next!"

    What a great day (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by CST on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 09:07:37 AM EST
    for this country.

    One for the history books.

    Congratulations to the LGBT community (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by vicndabx on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 09:23:44 AM EST
    historic day indeed.

    Could we as a nation perhaps be turning a corner?

    I say about effin' time if we are.

    kinda sorta? (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Steve13209 on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 09:43:04 AM EST
    Some of the unnecessarily divisive issues are going away, which may actually open up a discussion on the IMPORTANT issues. You know, the ones that the oligarchs don't want us to discuss.

    ... always "kinda sorta" appear unimportant to those persons whose own rights aren't necessarily being compromised or abridged?

    Now, maybe that's not quite what you meant here when you wrote that, but that's very much the way it reads and comes across. On the other hand, if that IS your intent -- oy.



    I didn't take it that way (none / 0) (#111)
    by sj on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 02:46:29 PM EST
    I took it as the SC decision removed the usefulness of using gay marriage as a wedge issue.

    I can see your interpretation also, though.


    Well, he's likely wrong on that count, too. (none / 0) (#181)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 06:12:35 PM EST
    I very seriously doubt that yesterday's ruling will either remove gat marriage as an issue, or mitigate its potential political fallout for Republicans, for a long time to come.

    Just for starters, there is the GOP's 20-year-plus legacy of introducing and advocating for constitutional amendments across the country to ban gay marriage, laws to abolish child custodial rights of gay men and lesbians, &etc., all of which should rightly follow them to the Gates of Hell.

    Why, only a few short months ago, California Attorney General Kamala Harris was compelled to go to court just to keep this horrifying initiative off the state ballot, which could have otherwise provided an electoral sanction of potential genocide had voters decided in favor of its approval. While the likelihood of that occurrence was admittedly quite far-fetched, why even take the chance?

    The blunt fact of the matter is this. People who've been wronged and vilified to that extent by certain politicians -- as the LGBT community has clearly been by the GOP as a whole, and to a somewhat lesser extent by more than a few opportunistic Democrats as well -- tend to have awfully long memories when it comes to who did what to whom and when. And so do their relatives, friends and allies.

    Have Hispanic-Americans in California and their friends ever forgotten what then-Gov. Pete Wilson and Republicans tried to do to the state's Latino community with their hateful Prop. 187, even after federal Judge Mariana Pfaelzer finally ruled it to be unconstitutional in Nov. 1997?

    Of course not. In fact, while Prop. 187 brought short-term political success to Wilson and state Republicans in the 1994 elections, its underlying rationale of anti-Latino bigotry and animus ultimately proved to be a real game-changer in California politics, one from which the state GOP has yet to recover and probably won't for quite a while.

    Just sayin'.


    Wouldn't that be something? (none / 0) (#74)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 10:53:58 AM EST
    Not to say these divisive issues aren't important, they most certainly are, but as they slowly get settled and resolved it gets that much harder to divert our eyes from economic issues and our disastrous foreign policies.

    If we can to some resolutions on criminal justice reform, systemic racism and sexism, and legalize marijuana federally...the only wedge left that I can think of is abortion.


    In other news (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 09:32:31 AM EST
    The SC just found that the increased sentence under ACCA's residual clause violates due process and is unconstitutional.  Big win for the defense side of the house.

    The wins just keep on coming! (none / 0) (#52)
    by CST on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 10:05:38 AM EST
    Is it too much to hope for the EPA?

    At The Guardian... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 09:41:23 AM EST
    ...one of comments had this:

    Chief Justice John Roberts is reading his dissent from the bench, which the great Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSBlog says is the first time he's ever done such a thing. Some nonconsecutive excerpts from his dissent, which essentially argues that this was a matter for the states to sort out, and not for judges to decide:

    "This Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be."

    "Our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition."

    "Understand well what this dissent is about: it is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer."

    "Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens - through the democratic process - to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept. "

    "If you are among the many Americans - of whatever sexual orientation - who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not Celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."

    In other words, states should be able to discriminate based on the majority of votes.  How petty and it also appears that Roberts is paying attention to the blog that lambasted him yesterday.

    He also seems to be questioning his own courts authority, no ?  Sad.

    I Would Also Add... (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 09:43:13 AM EST
    ...this is just another issue the R's have spent untold millions of taxpayers money all for not.  Just one more issue they were on the wrong side of, historically.

    All for naugh, I would say. (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 10:24:32 AM EST
    it got them votes (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by CST on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 02:00:25 PM EST
    and more money for a while.  IMO, that's all they really ever cared about anyway.

    Roberts (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Steve13209 on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 09:44:55 AM EST
    Much the same sentiment as Scalia blasted Roberts for in the ACA decision, no?

    I doubt he wrote his dissent (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Jun 28, 2015 at 08:16:52 AM EST
    Between the time he was criticized by blog yesterday and the announcement of the decision today.

    Chief Justice Roberts dissent, (none / 0) (#107)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 01:57:59 PM EST
    sounds like he does not want to burn the 21st Century bridge--entirely.   He understands, and, indeed, encourages celebration of the decision.    But, he doesn't quite make it across the divide.  I will help him:  (cf. last paragraph): "...Celebrate the availability of new benefits.  But do  (omit not) celebrate the Constitution.  It has (omit had ) everything  (omit nothing) to do with it."

    Obergfell (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 10:37:16 AM EST
    mentions Charleston in his public comments.    Good on. Him.

    These remarkable, extraordinary times (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by christinep on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 03:20:15 PM EST
    First: Yesterday's SCT decision upholding the key subsidies component of Obamacare (ACA), thereby pragmatically securing that significant healthcare reform as part of the American structure. Then: The SCt decision recognizing a 14th Amendment Constitutional right for SSM ... and, J. Kennedy's impassioned recognition of the dignity that should be accorded all humans.

    Finally: The eulogy for Reverend Clementa Pickney. President Obama's eulogy synthesizes so much of what we have all come through ... starting with the man, the AME Mother Emmanuel Church and its meaning, the role of the Black Church in American history, the path that has been so hampered for civil rights by the remnants of hate and related symbols of the past (specific mention of the CSA flag), the violence from hate that leave so many dead, the move forward.  Central to all that is Grace. Then, he sang Amazing Grace.  

    The Eulogy is being described as remarkable.

    He really (none / 0) (#123)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 04:26:34 PM EST
    did an awesome job with that but I knew he would. Honestly he really missed his calling. He would have been an awesome minister.

    A wondrous week .... (none / 0) (#124)
    by christinep on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 05:00:12 PM EST
    Leaves me almost breathless.  When you think that some matters stay stuck or sink further; and, then a whirlwind of potential all the way around.  

    The President alluded to the saying that "God works in mysterious ways."  I agree (but, for me, that can be hard to remember.)

    Thanks for listening, Ga6th.  It feels so uplifting in these days that myself wants to fly like a bird. And, who knows? Maybe a post-presidency Obama could get a call for the ministry :)


    Our President has a goid singing voice. (none / 0) (#139)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 12:47:11 AM EST
    A natural born leader.

    I do wonder if the god he repeatedly referred to was the Christan God or an ecumenical one.


    He was talking in a Christian church (none / 0) (#140)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 01:44:08 AM EST
    and it is a matter of public record that he is a Christian, or were you not aware of the latter fact?

    Don't be an idiot. (5.00 / 4) (#141)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 02:00:52 AM EST
    Impossible, alas (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by sj on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 11:34:04 AM EST
    Thanks for the vote of confidence (none / 0) (#160)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 11:49:57 AM EST
    Why don't you write the White House (none / 0) (#145)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 07:39:51 AM EST
    the same question then, if it's important to you?

    And if you didn't know that Obama was a Christian, why the irritation when I informed you as such?


    And just to remind you (none / 0) (#146)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 07:43:06 AM EST

    Name-calling, personal attacks and insults, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by TalkLeft will not be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice

    Mordi, were you the school tattletale? (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by fishcamp on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 08:49:34 AM EST
    Oculus didn't call you an idiot, she said don't be one.  There's a difference.

    Just reminding her of the rules here. (none / 0) (#159)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 11:46:54 AM EST
    FYI, I have never initiated a complaint against another commentator here, and it would have to be more than a semi-artfully crafted non-insult, as in this case,  for me to do so.

    Says the Guy... (none / 0) (#190)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 08:49:33 AM EST
    ...who has been banned nearly as much as Jim.
    Just reminding her of the rules

    If anyone know the rules...

    And 88, I am just playing.


    Oculus seemed to need a little reminder (none / 0) (#191)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 08:59:12 AM EST
    but hey, don't be an idiot should be the unofficial motto of this site from now own, amiright?

    Please also review the policy re (5.00 / 3) (#172)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 01:59:48 PM EST
    chattering and/or blog-clogging.

    Thanks. Didn't know Jeralyn (none / 0) (#178)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 05:30:40 PM EST
    appointed you to be a hall monitor for the threads here.

    Just as an aside (4.57 / 7) (#179)
    by CoralGables on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 05:53:14 PM EST
    You can't call someone out as pretending to be the hall monitor, while you are pretending to be the hall monitor.

    Best possible ruling... (none / 0) (#1)
    by magster on Thu Jun 25, 2015 at 02:46:05 PM EST
    It forecloses a future GOP administration from using the Chevron deference to implement the opposite interpretation.

    Roberts is showing he's sensitive to claims that it's a political wing. Well, at least until the gay marriage ruling tomorrow or Monday.

    I've switched my bet (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Peter G on Thu Jun 25, 2015 at 02:56:31 PM EST
    to Monday for marriage. (I had thought it would be marriage today, and health care Monday.) I wonder whether Kennedy has come up with a rationale that Roberts can get on board with, since he likes so much to be on the winning side of the big ones. Then they can let Ginsburg et al. concur on broader grounds. Scalia has gone out of his way in the last week or so to say on several occasions, in different contexts, that "liberty" under the 14th Amendment is not an evolving concept, but rather must have a foundation in early American history. So we know what's on his mind, and where he will be coming from.  On this, I believe he will be joined by Alito and Thomas only. I also interpret those comments as his inability to suppress a strong reaction to a draft opinion by Kennedy taking a very different view of "liberty" if not of "equality" also.

    Hope you did not put actual money on that :-) (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 09:34:17 AM EST
    This case (none / 0) (#4)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 25, 2015 at 03:14:29 PM EST
    Was always going to be decided before DSM, since this was argued in the February term and SSM wasn't argued until late April.  The only cases left are from late March (the EPA consolidated cases) and everything else is from the April sitting.

    And Scalia (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 25, 2015 at 03:17:53 PM EST
    Will probably write the EPS cases since he's the only one who hasn't authored an opinion in the March term (good news for the states and industry groups)

    Or, he's in the whackadoo minority on every case. (none / 0) (#6)
    by magster on Thu Jun 25, 2015 at 03:32:48 PM EST
    [fingers crossed]

    Speaking of whackadoo, (none / 0) (#10)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jun 25, 2015 at 04:48:35 PM EST
    the crazies (which includes Clown Car occupants) are at after the "activist" judges with rathe (once a again) directed to Chief Justice Roberts.  Moreover, the right wing is re-circulating the theory of Roberts being blackmailed by Obama.  It and they are ugly.

    Clown Car on Today's Decision... (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 10:46:26 AM EST
    Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum tweeted:

    Today, 5 unelected judges redefined the foundational unit of society. Now it is the people's turn to speak #Marriage

    Republican presidential candidate Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, an outspoken opponent of gay marriage, said in a lengthy statement that the decision "will pave the way for an all out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians who disagree with this decision."

    "I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch," Huckabee said. "We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat."

    Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who said he will make a 2016 announcement next month, said, "As a result of this decision, the only alternative left for the American people is to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to reaffirm the ability of the states to continue to define marriage."

    Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina said, "This is only the latest example of an activist Court ignoring its constitutional duty to say what the law is and not what the law should be."

    I mean come on, it's a decision that basically affects no one who is straight in any meaningful way.  The world is not ending GOP, just your narrow religious views are being legally laid to rest, as they should be.


    Regarding Scott Walker's constitutional amendment (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by CST on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 10:55:26 AM EST
    Come at me 'bro.  He can't honestly be delusional enough to think it can win.

    Probably not (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 11:03:54 AM EST
      but he just might be cynical enough to realize he can raise a big ol' bunch of money fanning the flames.

    Ohhhh no (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 11:07:37 AM EST
    just wait.   This will become a contest among republican candidates as to who is more outraged/offended/insulted/horrified.

    lez le bon ton roulet


    Adding (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 11:44:29 AM EST
    the RIGHT WING candidates.  Huckabee, Jindal, Santorum yada yada.

    The sane one are already trying to move on.  Sadly for them they are in the minority.


    Only the beginning (none / 0) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 10:57:36 AM EST
    tip o the iceberg.  


    Fasten your seat belts


    Their heads were exploding yesterday, (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by Zorba on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 11:13:05 AM EST
    with the ACA decision, and now exploding again with this decision.
    Good.  Schadenfreude, how sweet it is!

    Huckaberry was the best (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 25, 2015 at 04:55:25 PM EST
    Huckabee calls court's health-care ruling an `act of judicial tyranny'

    There is a little pee comin outta me just thinking about the SSM decision.   Need to make sure I have both pot and vodka for the announcement


    Oops. Maybe not.... (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 25, 2015 at 05:22:07 PM EST
    "Today, these robed Houdinis have transmogrified a federal exchange into an exchange, quote, 'established by the State,' " Cruz said. "This is lawless".

    Possible?  Even if it's wrong can the SC be "lawless".


    That is such a profound question, Howdy, (none / 0) (#19)
    by Peter G on Thu Jun 25, 2015 at 08:44:22 PM EST
    that I hardly know where to start. You ask, "Even if it's wrong, can the SC be 'lawless'?" Entire books, entire graduate school courses on legal philosophy and jurisprudence, have been devoted to the complex and controversial question, "what is law?".  Positivists would say that the answer to your question is No, while natural law theorists would say Yes. And there are many other schools of thought in the field. I'm sure that's what Cruz was referring to, and assuming the average Texan's familiarity with.

    Just seemed an odd way (none / 0) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 25, 2015 at 09:12:05 PM EST
    to describe the highest court in the land.

    I hear from Rachel that tomorrow is the anniversary of both Lawrence and Windsor.  

    As well as the kickoff for gay pride weekends across the country.   Hmmmmm


    Amazing and true fact (none / 0) (#22)
    by Peter G on Thu Jun 25, 2015 at 09:57:05 PM EST
    that Lawrence v. Texas was decided June 26, 2003, and Windsor v. U.S. on June 26, 2013. Wouldn't it be really something if June 26 were victory day for Obergefell, too? If only the Stonewall uprising had occurred on June 26 instead of June 28, 1969, we would have ourselves a real National Gay Fourth of July or perhaps a Gay Bastille Day.

    Messed up link (none / 0) (#24)
    by Peter G on Thu Jun 25, 2015 at 11:13:02 PM EST
    for Stonewall. Should have tested it in "preview" mode; I usually do.

    We have our holiday. (none / 0) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 09:05:06 AM EST
    You mean, (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by Peter G on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 09:43:54 AM EST

    I think that marriage equality will ... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 02:48:55 AM EST
    ... be upheld as valid throughout the country, and that the ruling will come down tomorrow. Regardless of however Chief Justice Roberts decided to vote on the issue, I believe that we'll see that Justice Kennedy sided with the liberal wing of the court on this one.

    The Justices kicked this can down the road three years ago, when they upheld the 9th Circuit's ruling that the petitioners lack the legal standing to contest Judge Vaughn Walker's decision to strike down California's odious Proposition 8 in Hollingsworth, but declined to offer a more sweeping opinion of their own.

    Having thus opened the floodgates for various appellate courts to invalidate gay marriage bans in numerous states as unconstitutional, which ultimately dropped the ball right back in their laps, my money says that this time, they settle the matter once and for all.

    And if that's the case, then it will indeed be truly ironic that by seeking to enact a ban on gay marriage in California with a vicious hatemongering electoral campaign, opponents of marriage equality instead slit their own throats legally in the process, thus ensuring that the exact opposite of their intentions would ultimately prevail -- not just in California, but everywhere else in the United States as well.



    And so it goes. (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 10:33:15 AM EST
    In an expected landmark decision, the Supreme Court by a 5-4 vote ruled that same-gender couples enjoy a constitutional right to marry without regard to any state laws saying otherwise.

    Two decades ago, the Hawaii Supreme Court upheld Judge Ronald Chang's ruling in Baehr v. Lewin that the State failed to show a compelling interest why it should deny same-gender couples a marriage license, and thus was in violation of the Hawaii Equal Rights Amendment in our state constitution. Those farsighted state justices thus became the first major legal body anywhere in the country to directly challenge what's now the former status quo on the subject.

    Baehr was the case which set of a flurry of conservative activity nationwide, starting in Hawaii itself, to deny same-gender couples the right to marry. Looking back, it's rather amazing to consider how quickly public and judicial opinion otherwise evolved to the contrary on this issue.

    And now, it's over. Hallelujah!


    I hope there are as many (none / 0) (#27)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 07:36:09 AM EST
    wingnut tears over that decision as there were and are over the loss they sustained Tuesday.

    Oh, good (none / 0) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 25, 2015 at 05:36:02 PM EST
    lord. Talk about a collective meltdown. You would think people being able to get insurance was the end of the world.

    Well, they were wrong, Ga. (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 10:49:08 AM EST
    New day, new sign of the coming Apocalypse from SCOTUS. For tighty-righties, the right of same-gender couples to marry now marks the End Times.

    Heads are no doubt exploding as we speak.


    How many months ago something was argued (none / 0) (#7)
    by Peter G on Thu Jun 25, 2015 at 03:51:35 PM EST
    is not necessarily as strong a predictor of order-of-decision-release when the case in question is on the highest level of controversy, division of opinion on the Court, or public profile.  That's why I thought PPACA could come after SSM. But whatever. All foolish speculation of this sort will be over by June 30. And then we get to start again in October.

    True, but (none / 0) (#9)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 25, 2015 at 04:37:55 PM EST
    They've had two more months to wrangle out the ACA, and not nearly as much time for SSM.  I'm also betting the SSM cases are much more difficult since the ACA case had one question presented and was a statutory question and the SSM cases (there are 4 separate cases involved) each have (the same two) questions presented and are constitutional questions.

    Yes, that is quite true. (none / 0) (#15)
    by Peter G on Thu Jun 25, 2015 at 05:11:48 PM EST
    If they address all the different constitutional arguments, and if the dissent responds to the majority in any detail and vice versa, then the SSM cases will be more complicated.  Although the Chief's walk thru the statutory maze, while elegantly done, was not simple either.

    Agreed. I am betting (none / 0) (#12)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jun 25, 2015 at 04:57:05 PM EST
    on Monday, too.  The Memorial at the College of Charleston is scheduled for 11 am tomorrow, Friday, June 26.  The President will give the eulogy, the First Lady and Vice President will be present.  Also, members of Congress.  This may play into the Supreme Court timing.

    Actually, no. I don't think so. (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Peter G on Thu Jun 25, 2015 at 05:09:24 PM EST
    I'm pretty sure the Court doesn't give a rat's a*s about anyone else's schedule.

    If that's the ticket, (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jun 25, 2015 at 05:25:00 PM EST
    I'll move my bet.  Friday.

    I still think it will be Monday (none / 0) (#28)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 07:46:34 AM EST
    EPA cases, the residual clause in the ACCA case, and the Arizona redistricting case are my bet for today.

    Monday will be the death penalty case and the SSM cases and then the justices will be on vacation and away from the circus.


    Either way (none / 0) (#29)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 07:55:25 AM EST
    SCOTUSblog is running in the background so I can hear the click, click, click, when they start giving their thoughts on the day in a few minutes.

    #WaitingforLyle (none / 0) (#30)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 07:58:01 AM EST
    Here we go (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 08:58:04 AM EST
    At this time, make sure your seat backs and tray tables are in their full upright position. Also make sure your seat belt is correctly fastened.

    54k (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 08:59:37 AM EST

    There is a right (5.00 / 6) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 09:02:37 AM EST
    to marriage equality

    BOOM! (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 09:03:43 AM EST
    Need to make a run (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 09:06:59 AM EST
    to the liquor store so I can get back in time for the right wing freakout.

    And, it is a strong decision (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by christinep on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 09:14:42 AM EST
    Legally, basis appears to be the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Ethically--from what I'm hearing quoted on live news--J. Kennedy spoke with passion about the dignity of persons, the right to be treated with dignity and not excluded, etc.

    My eyes have tears for so many that have a fundamental human right recognized.


    All jokes aside (5.00 / 6) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 10:04:33 AM EST
    i have a lump.   If you had asked me 20 or even 10 years ago if this would have happened while was alive I would have said you are dreaming.

    Amazing and stunning in its scope.

    The dogs and I just started our own gay pride celebration.  I made pink dog cookies for them yesterday.


    It's hard not to get a bit emotional (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by CST on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 10:16:03 AM EST
    There are a lots of "historic" things that take place over a lifetime, but often you don't know they are historic until much later.  This is one of those times you know during the moment.  The other two in my lifetime that I can think of are Obama's first election and September 11th.

    We are now all waiting on (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 10:18:09 AM EST
    Invites and wedding pictures.  Get crackin' Capt!  :)

    Congratulations (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Zorba on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 10:19:33 AM EST
    to the country, to you, Howdy, and to all my gay friends.
    I lost some very close gay friends and a relative to HIV-AIDS many years ago, when the scourge was still fairly new in this country.  I cannot help but think that they are up there, somewhere, smiling at this decision, which was a long time coming.
    Love is love.  Doesn't matter what your sexual orientation, your race, or anything else, is.

    Bless you for that (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 10:23:59 AM EST
    its a funny thing.   My best friend and I (who have zero romantic involvement) have considered this just so there would be inheritance rights.

    God help the person who would marry me for any other reason.



    Congratulations to you Howdy and to all of the (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by vml68 on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 10:50:02 AM EST
    LGBTQ community.  What an awesome day!
    I got all teary eyed and choked up when I heard Obergefell being interviewed.

    My best friend is a lesbian and we have always joked that I only married my husband because I could not legally marry her, since he is basically the male version of her.
    As soon as the ruling was announced I messaged her and she replied with, " Shall we set the date?".
    It made me laugh and cry. While I have always believed that we would have marriage equality someday, I was not expecting it for another decade or so.

    Congratulations again to all!


    Seriously (5.00 / 7) (#78)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 11:02:12 AM EST
    Couldn't we stand more love in this country?  Even with people we disagree with, and in all aspects of life - romantic, friends, people we meet in the street, people far away?

    How is the fact that two people want to commit to one another and love and care for another a bad thing?


    There were a few GOP presidential candidates (none / 0) (#39)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 09:20:23 AM EST
    that were apoplectic yesterday as the bluebirds were singing. I can only imagine the cardiac meltdown that is taking place right now.

    I am somewhat conflicted (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 09:44:44 AM EST
    On one hand I am happy that thousands of people won't lose health care insurance.

    On the other I remain disappointed that we still haven't forced the true solution, a single payer program based on Medicare as a model,into a national debate. And with this ruling no Democrat will bring it to table because they fear that any discussion will tar them with a false claim that they oppose government sponsored insurance.

    And hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of the working poor don't have coverage and millions are being economically stressed by high premiums and high deductibles.

    Perhaps it will have to be a Republican, as Nixon did with China, to open the subject up.

    Yeah... (5.00 / 6) (#49)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 09:46:53 AM EST
    ...disappointed that the people you vote for don't coincide with your opinion, that must really suck.  If there was only some way to fix the dilemma you find yourself in Jim...

    Scott, I am not, unlike you, (2.00 / 1) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 10:29:40 AM EST
    an absolutist. I can see, for example, that if civilians who are being used to shield military sites that are being used to attack us are killed, then the villains are those using the shields, not us.

    And yes, the Repubs are just as guilty as the Demos are when it comes to establishing a single payer national health care insurance.....But the Demos are guilty. You will of course argue that half a loaf is better than none, which is what I said...

    On one hand I am happy that thousands of people won't lose health care insurance.

    But while you are busy patting yourself on the back millions remain without coverage....

    And Obama threw away a huge majority to do good in 2009-10 and has ignored the bully pulpit the presidency gave him ever since.

    He is your main man, Scott. Why don't you encourage him to fix the dilemma we are all in rather than worry about who I may have voted for because saving the country, to me, is the most important action.


    Yeah, keep acting like (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 10:51:28 AM EST
    Obama can get single-payer through the current H of R and the Senate if he just uses his bully pulpit against the Republicans.

    Funny... (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 11:01:46 AM EST
    ...that you think I don't know who you are.

    Did you just quote yourself as proof of a point you are failing to make, god damn.

    For the record, democrats overwhelmingly wanted to ensure every single American had health insurance.  We tried and succeeded as best as the republicans would allow.  The idea that uninsured people are the fault of the party that has been trying to insure them, is even more absurd than you.


    The fact that the ACA was passed (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 11:30:57 AM EST
    without a single Republican vote for it proves that Obama didn't try hard enough to get a bipartisan single-payer bill through instead.</s>

    Once you realize that Jim's attitude is "Demos always bad, Republicans almost never", then his commentaries make a lot of sense, even if they're unhinged from the real world events he purports to be describing, as in the present case before us.


    Not an abslutist..no at all (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 03:19:35 PM EST
    Yes, an absolutist would be like someone who never goes out of their way to ever critique, say, any prominent conservatives for any of their statements or policy positions..

    like someone who has adamantine fantasies like that all conservatives are automatically better on "national defense" issues, regardless of how little actual foreign policy experience they  have..


    I might (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 09:56:48 AM EST
     agree with that if it was not fantastical to believe that an opinion causing elimination of the subsidies for all who are not in state run exchanges, would motivate this Congress (or one we will have for a good while) to enact a single-payer universal health care system.

      I think one has to be incredibly optimistic to think this (or the next) Congress would even act to restore the subsidies to those who would have lost them under the contrary ruling.


    The current crop of Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 10:16:26 AM EST
    are against any kind of single-payer or any other national health care system.  

    If you read Bill Kristol's screed on health care reform from 20 or so years ago, it's understandable why this is so:

    "Health care will prove to be an enormously healthy project for Clinton... and for the Democratic Party." So predicts Stanley Greenberg, the president's strategist and pollster. If a Clinton health care plan succeeds without principled Republican opposition, Mr. Greenberg will be right. Because the initiative's inevitably destructive effect on American medical services will not be practically apparent for several years--no Carter-like gas lines, in other words--its passage in the short run will do nothing to hurt (and everything to help) Democratic electoral prospects in 1996. But the long-term political effects of a successful Clinton health care bill will be even worse--much worse. It will relegitimize middle-class dependence for "security" on government spending and regulation. It will revive the reputation of the party that spends and regulates, the Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests. And it will at the same time strike a punishing blow against Republican claims to defend the middle class by restraining government.(Ed)

    That's a good find (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 10:45:23 AM EST
      The "idea" expressed there is far more widely held and extreme than at any time n our history. He essentially declares  it is somehow illegitimate for the government to provide economic "security" to the middle class (the majority)rather than adopt its presumably legitimate role of standing aside so individuals can act as though they are each not part of a joint enterprise but are instead bare fisted competitors (if not enemies) who just happen to occupy the same geographical and temporal space.

     He does have an implicit  point though that much of the middle class is susceptible to the unsupported (indeed easily refutable)claim  that their interests are somehow advanced by restraining government regulation.


    I had no idea (1.00 / 1) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 10:31:34 AM EST
    you had an actual definition of "current crop" and had interviewed them.

    What busy guy you are.


    if you take the Republicans (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 10:48:00 AM EST
    who are running next year for President as the current crop, their reactions are well-documented, and can be found here.

    If you can find one Republican who wants to replace Obamacare with single-payer, that would be interesting, but all of them that I've looked up are about repeal, not repeal and replace with something better.

    Anywho, here are some of the reactions from the current crop of Republicans running for President

    Jeb Bush:

    I am disappointed in the Burwell decision, but this is not the end of the fight against ObamaCare. http://t.co/3yaEVF1TaW

    -- Jeb Bush (@JebBush) June 25, 2015
    Ted Cruz:

    Any candidate not willing to make 2016 a referendum on Repealing Obamacare should step aside https:/t.co/6i4WzLFzKR #FullRepeal

    -- Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) June 25, 2015
    I remain fully committed to the repeal of Obamacare--every single word of it. And, in 2017, we will do exactly that https:

    -- Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) June 25, 2015
    Marco Rubio:

    I disagree with the Court's ruling and believe they have once again erred in trying to correct the mistakes made by President Obama...

    -- Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) June 25, 2015
    ...and Congress in forcing ObamaCare on the American people.

    -- Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) June 25, 2015
    Despite the Court's decision, ObamaCare is still a bad law that is having a negative impact on our country and on millions of Americans.

    -- Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) June 25, 2015
    I remain committed to repealing this bad law and replacing it...

    -- Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) June 25, 2015
    ...with my consumer-centered plan that puts patients and families back in control of their health care decisions.

    -- Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) June 25, 2015
    We need Consumer Care, not ObamaCare.

    -- Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) June 25, 2015
    Rick Perry:

    Americans deserve better than what we're getting with Obamacare. It's time we repealed and replaced it! http://t.co/1EHfbVKBMa

    -- Rick Perry (@GovernorPerry) June 25, 2015
    Mike Huckabee:

    There isn't a 'do-over' provision in our Constitution that allows unelected, SCOTUS judges power to circumvent Congress & rewrite bad laws.

    -- Gov. Mike Huckabee (@GovMikeHuckabee) June 25, 2015
    #SCOTUS can't legislate from the bench & pass trillion dollar 'fix' to ObamaCare because Congress misread the states. http://t.co/IsTiI6Lqbz

    -- Gov. Mike Huckabee (@GovMikeHuckabee) June 25, 2015
    #ObamaCare ruling is judicial tyranny. http://t.co/Di6WjxOc3y

    -- Gov. Mike Huckabee (@GovMikeHuckabee) June 25, 2015
    Carly Fiorina:

    It is outrageous that the Supreme Court once again rewrote ObamaCare to save this deeply flawed law https:/t.co/NBAnohFTW7

    -- Carly Fiorina (@CarlyFiorina) June 25, 2015
    ObamaCare has not lived up to what we were promised. It has become clear that this law isn't working http://t.co/qaAR7pNVQJ

    -- Carly Fiorina (@CarlyFiorina) June 25, 2015
    Repeal Obamacare and let the free market--not more crony capitalism--improve access and care for all Americans. http://t.co/qaAR7pNVQJ

    -- Carly Fiorina (@CarlyFiorina) June 25, 2015
    Scott Walker:

    Today's #SCOTUScare ruling means Republicans must redouble their efforts to repeal and replace this destructive & costly law. -SKW

    -- Scott Walker (@ScottWalker) June 25, 2015

    Glad I could clear that up for you.

    BTW, that must be some sort of record for triple-posting the same comment.  

    You probably should probably relax, take a few deep breaths,  so you don't double or triple-post something again.  It's just a suggestion, take it for what it's worth.


    I had no idea (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 10:31:34 AM EST
    you had an actual definition of "current crop" and had interviewed them.

    What busy guy you are.


    I had no idea (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 10:31:34 AM EST
    you had an actual definition of "current crop" and had interviewed them.

    What busy guy you are.


    This business of posting a comment (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by sj on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 11:14:50 AM EST
    multiple times makes your blog-clogging so much more efficient, don't you think?

    sj a few weeks ago (2.00 / 2) (#125)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 06:00:58 PM EST
    Capt Howdy posted 48 comments.

    I'm just trying to keep up. (Sarcasm alert!)

    Now, perhaps you will:

    a. Criticize him.

    b. Or actually make a comment that is not just a complaint.

    My guess is that you will do neither.

    But on a serious note, the use of nested comments has a tendency to turn threads into Instant Messaging. Before we had nested it was usual to see a single post have comments re several others.

    But I believe that was before your time.


    I can't disagree with you (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 10:33:39 AM EST
    but we have to start somewhere.

    And Obamacare removes motivation  from the Demo base.


    speaking as one of the Dem "base" (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by CST on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 10:37:48 AM EST
    no it doesn't.  And it's a pretty safe bet that it's not going to take Hillary's eyes off the prize either.

    Clarification please (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 10:51:48 AM EST
    Obamacare removes motivation  from the Demo base.

    Not sure I understand why a big victory wouldn't inspire the base.  Why would anyone who supported Obamacare not be overjoyed and motivated?

    BTW, The real name is the Affordable Care Act, but in trying to use it to smear Mr. Obama, his opponents have now attached his name permanently to a Democratic Party triumph.  Be careful what you wish for.


    et al (none / 0) (#126)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 06:07:12 PM EST
    Mordiggian  - The point is, he didn't try. And given that a single payer system would cover everyone instead of a plan that covers some while paying for some by all I think it would be more popular than Obama's plan which covers, basically, just his base. And not very well at that.

    Scott - Whatever they wanted they didn't try to do it.

    Jondee, in the next open thread list some policies that the Repubs have in place and I'll be happy to oblige.

    Mordiggigian - Again, you assume what they would do if presented with a single payer system favored by the electorate.

    Repack - Once the base has subsidized insurance they won't be pushing to change the system.  Particularly when they see that a federal sales tax, which everyone must pay,  is coming.


    Happy to oblige.. (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 12:23:08 PM EST
    Uh-huh. Right.

    Just like you'd said you'd be happy to oblige in listing all of Obama's "extremist" policies and for some reason never could get around to it -- even after repeated proddings.



    You have nothing to support (none / 0) (#127)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 06:23:55 PM EST
    your contention that he didn't try hard enough, Jim. Just your unsubstantiated statement, as usual.

    And given that a single payer system would cover everyone instead of a plan that covers some while paying for some by all I think it would be more popular than Obama's plan which covers, basically, just his base. And not very well at that.

    Well, you are technically right that it would cover more people than his 'base', that is the people in the blue and red states that have established exchanges, if some of the red states expanded their Medicare programs with virtually no cost to them, but the Republican powers that be don't want to do that in those states.  Funny how that works, eh?

    Almost as if they don't want their people to benefit from Democratic policies...

    Again, you assume what they would do if presented with a single payer system favored by the electorate

    Yeah, let's pretend that the health insurance industry would sit on their hands and do nothing as they become regulated out of existence, Jim.

    I believe that's the most insightful thought you've had today.

    Nah, pay single-payer the way other countries have.  Sales taxes are inherently regressive, which I know you don't believe, but facts be facts as in this case here.

    Measuring the Impact of the Leadership Plan
    As the chart on this page shows, low-and middle-income families would see by far the biggest tax
    hikes under the leadership's plan:
    􀂃 The best-off 1 percent of New Mexicans would see a tax increase averaging just under 0.1
    percent of their incomes in 2011 under these proposals.
    􀂃 Middle-income families would see a tax hike averaging 0.5 percent of their incomes--
    about 6 times bigger than the tax hike on the best-off families.
    􀂃 The very poorest taxpayers would see a tax increase averaging 0.7 percent of their
    incomes--more than 8 times the tax hike on the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers.

    Tax the Wall Street crowd, they've done well since 2009, and can afford the burden.


    Obama took single-payer off the table, (5.00 / 4) (#128)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 07:49:33 PM EST
    right from the get-go; single-payer advocates were not invited to participate in the health care summit Obama convened at the beginning of his first term.  Single-payer advocates weren't even allowed to testify to Congress.

    President Obama's White House made crystal clear this week: a Canadian-style, Medicare-for-all, single payer health insurance system is off the table.

    Obama doesn't even want to discuss it.

    Take the case of Congressman John Conyers (D-Michigan).

    Conyers is the leading advocate for single payer health insurance in Congress.

    Last week, Conyers attended a Congressional Black Caucus meeting with President Obama at the White House.

    During the meeting, Congressman Conyers, sponsor of the single payer bill in the House (HR 676), asked President Obama for an invite to the President's Marchy 5 health care summit at the White House.

    Conyers said he would bring along with him two doctors -- Dr. Marcia Angell and Dr. Quentin Young -- to represent the majority of physicians in the United States who favor single payer.

    Obama would have none of it.

    This week, by e-mail, Conyers heard back from the White House -- no invite.

    It wasn't that Obama didn't try hard enough, it's that he actively worked to make sure it would never be part of the discussion.


    In retrospect, Anne (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by christinep on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 11:45:15 AM EST
    I believe that President Obama not only realized that any change/reform in the healthcare arena would be challenged via the Courts. but also discerned the essence of CJ Roberts judicial philosophy.  That is: The more we see from the Chief Justice the clearer it becomes that his brand of conservatism is steeped in fiscal conservatism and market capitalism--together with the usual appropriation of the earlier Justice Frankfurter's view of federalism.  That view seeps through his majority opinion regarding Obamacare (ACA) in his reasoning that Congress could not be presumed to have wanted to destroy the healthcare "markets."

    It was obvious that conservatives would attack any healthcare reform avenue chosen; and, it had to have been equally obvious that a Supreme Court knowing for upending matters--as in Bush v Bore--should be expected to deliver a 5 to 4 decision against the usual reform approach.  Recognizing that we here do speculate (all of us), I would suggest that President Obama made the best decision about the structure of the ACA by using a variation of the American capitalist operating structure ... using the structure where gain was possible for all or almost all participants so that individuals gained from reform as well as the insurance "markets" and other healthcare related markets.  By moving away from winner-take-all or zero-sum-game approaches, he (and we) obtained the vote of the Chief Justice's vote two essential times to gain the big win.

    We may well know what really happened one day.  I hope so.  In the meantime, the strong argument is that the constitutional lawyer, community organizer, and President turned out to be quite the judicial strategist in knowing how to read the Supreme Court and knowing which votes there would secure healthcare reform.  

    BTW, the light-bulb idea didn't shine for me until the decision.  Until then, I'll admit to a little question about why-didn't-he-go-the-whole-single-payer-or-public-option route.  When I read the CJ's opinion, tho, I knew in my mind as well as my heart that the early Presidential analysis about the Supreme Court had been flawless.  All in all, a stupendous week....


    Correction/typos (none / 0) (#161)
    by christinep on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 11:51:33 AM EST
    In second paragraph above: "...Supreme Court knowing for" should read "known for."  Also--apologies to former VP Gore for the typo shown above as "Bush v Bore" wherein the "B" should be changed to "G."

    Although........ (none / 0) (#173)
    by Zorba on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 04:16:13 PM EST
    There was more than a little truth to your "Bore/Gore" slip.  ;-)
    Although I have heard Al Gore speak with emotion on some occasions, he was often rather dry in his speeches.
    Not that it's a bad thing, that's the man's style, and he generally had his facts and proposals all lined up.  But the presentation was often not inspiring, let's face it.

    Thank you for a cogent and lucent (none / 0) (#171)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 12:24:49 PM EST
    analysis of the facts and political dynamics behind getting the ACA passed.

    He knew the HII wouldn't (none / 0) (#129)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 07:57:35 PM EST
    sit on their hands if he did favor single-payer, so he went with what he considered the best desk he could get with the Congress he had.

    Not according to SenatorTom Harkin (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by sj on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 11:34:06 PM EST
    so he went with what he considered the best desk he could get with the Congress he had.

    Don't kid yourself.
    "Democrats should have pursued "single-payer right from the get-go or at least put a public option. ... We had the votes to do that and we blew it."
    "There's this old saying: `If you have the votes, vote. If you don't, talk.' We had the votes but we talked," he said.

    Also (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 09:22:53 AM EST
    from Harkin.  
    I like to think of this bill as like a starter home. It is not the mansion of our dreams. But it has a solid foundation ... [and] plenty of room for additions and improvements," he wrote in the Huffington Post in 2010.

     Here is what Obama ran on, from the 2008 Democratic Party platform

    Covering All Americans and Providing Real Choices of Affordable Health Insurance Options. Families and individuals should have the option of keeping the coverage they have or choosing from a wide array of health insurance plans, including many private health insurance options and a public plan. Coverage should be made affordable for all Americans with subsidies provided through tax credits and other means.
    Single payer was never on the table.

    In my opinion Obama did sell us down the river on the public plan, that was a fight well worth having, but the for the most part he delivered the rest as promised.


    Of course it was never on the table (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by sj on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 06:04:16 PM EST
    There is ample evidence of that. It doesn't mean it wasn't possible, however. If he had fought as hard for it as he did to prevent it who knows what could have been.

    If (none / 0) (#182)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 09:18:32 PM EST
    is a tricky word to use when looking at history. If  only the 800 billion dollar gorilla in the room was willing to slip quietly into oblivion. If only said gorilla did not own pounds and pounds of Senate "flesh". If only there were a few sane Republicans. If only the right wing harpys would stfu with their screams of communism. If only the press was a presenter of fact not spin. There is just so much more to the story then the president not fighting the good fight.

    Since those elements exist in connection (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 09:14:07 AM EST
    With all issues that even remotely touch the corporate world, you have now designated "better than nothing" as the gold standard of what citizens should not only expect but should applaud as great legislation.

    Again, the perfect is the enemy of the good (none / 0) (#193)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 09:18:40 AM EST
    Actually in the past couple of decades (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 09:30:47 AM EST
    You have lowered the bar so far that crumbs from the table is being presented as "the good" rather than the bare minimum. That little ditty, that you are so fond of, has been one of the mechanisms you and others have used to make the peons accept that crumbs is the best we can expect. Good job.

    Being realistic (none / 0) (#195)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 09:40:13 AM EST
    means accepting reality, even if that's disappointing to you.

    I'm can remember back when I was a volunteer in the E.R. At Barnes a Hospital in St. Louis, and once rode in an ambulance with a man who had a knife in his back, he was being taken to the city hospital for the poor because his family didn't have the 1,000$ Barnes demanded for his treatment.  

    To say things haven't improved then is silly.  Is there room for improvement?  Yes!  

    To argue otherwise is to deny reality.


    Being realistic (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 10:09:04 AM EST
    Is accepting if you only attempt to get crumbs, you will never get anything more than crumbs and often not even that.

    City Hospital closed a while back and indigent people were taken to Barnes ER prior to Obamacare. Obamacare did not help indigent people or people under the FPL in St. Louis at all. In fact, since the legislation reduces the amount hospitals receive for treating the non insured, it will result in extremely poor people receiving less care, not more.

    The man in your scenario is no better off because of Obamacare. Prior to when ObamaCare was passed, he would have been taken to the emergency room (Barnes if closest) and released as soon as feasible when the emergency was over. Emergency rooms do not treat long term care and that man has no insurance. He will have to rely on the same resources that were available prior to Obamacare. Because he still doesn't have insurance and good HEALTHCARE still depends on you having GOOD insurance.

    Accepting the bare minimum and telling people to be grateful that they got a few crumbs is not being realistic, it is being defeatist and accepting that is all we can strive for.

    The little ditty of the perfect is the enemy of the good has become nothing more than you don't agree with my position  (that better than nothing is great) so just sit down and STFU.


    I also lives in Mobile, AL after that (none / 0) (#198)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 10:15:13 AM EST
    And clearly remember the crisis there when the hospital associated with the medical school there closed down their ER because none of the other hospitals in the area would take poor people or those unable to pay into their ER.

    The guy with the knife in his back made the front page of the Post-Dispatch, btw.

    Now, if you're saying that the ACA will be the Alpha and Omega of healthcare reform in this country, that the chance of single-payer ever taking place in th country is zero, then of course, you're not going to convince me of anything. And vice versa.

    Good day, to you, sir.


    That situation changed prior to (4.33 / 3) (#200)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 10:39:35 AM EST
    passage of ObamaCare legislation so to infer that Obamacare care had anything to do with the change in ER acceptance by Barnes is best case spreading misinformation.

    Once again, ObamaCare did not change healthcare in MO for people who are 130% of FPL. They are still uninsured and hospitals will receive less money from the federal government for treating the uninsured because of the legislation. Those are the facts. You can easily Google this to confirm the facts in MO.

    You are the one saying that Obamacare is the best we can do, not me. I'm the one saying that getting better healthcare options would have been helped by allowing the single payer advocates to present their case rather than Obama shutting them down.


    For (none / 0) (#197)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 10:14:13 AM EST
    The record I said no such thing. The ACA is indeed marginally "better then nothing" but I for one am not applauding it as "great legislation".  My assertion is that, given the political landscape at the time, that single payer was undoable.

    That is a lot of words (none / 0) (#188)
    by sj on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 01:51:27 AM EST
    to say pretty much nothing.

    If (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 06:09:26 AM EST
    only I got paid by the word.

    Yeah, he says that more than 4 years (none / 0) (#136)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 11:55:55 PM EST
    after the ACA was passed.

    Hindsight is always 20-20, and why didn't he stand up for it when the bill was being written.

    And of course, politicians never, ever, ever rewrite history to make themselves look good.

    Don't kid yourself.

    Sounds like good advice-- for you.


    Like I said (none / 0) (#137)
    by sj on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 12:04:25 AM EST
    your fantasies appear to be made of stone. You may now have the last word. I'm not jim.

    No, you fought so hard for it (none / 0) (#138)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 12:41:10 AM EST
    and unlike Jim, you're willing to at least put up a few links in defense of your position, which is more than he usually does for his.

    He didn't have to favor it (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 07:10:23 AM EST
    Also, he didn't have to kill any chance for it to produce a better healthcare solution.

    He could have let the process go forward without sabotaging single payer. He choose not to do so and instead let the insurance industry write the current legislation.


    Peter Shumlin (4.00 / 2) (#147)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 07:47:22 AM EST
    could not get single payer (whatever the reasons)in even the most liberal state in the country-Vermont.


    This fact should be considered to bring a dose of reality to opinions provided by some posters here.


    Thank you. As I will keep pointing out (none / 0) (#148)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 08:00:44 AM EST
    at the risk of offending some around here, to expect the HII to roll over and die was unrealistic, especially given the resources at their disposal.

    Jim (none / 0) (#130)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 08:18:35 PM EST
    Your arguments are all setting the the perfect as the enemy of the good(or at least better YMMV).

    Virtually every politician, pundit and analyst before during and after the health care fight knew that single payer was a non-starter.

    Your biggest beef seems to be "he didn't even try", as if this was some kind of sports contest. Sorry Jim, American Politics is way beyond hard-ball, the health care fight was an epic battle. Obama and other Democrats wisely chose not to waste resources on this "bridge too far".

    The ACA, flawed as it may be, is a marked improvement over the previous status quo. Perhaps even more importantly it finally gets the Federal Government's foot in the door. Maybe it isn't the total victory we cherish but it's a major victory none the less.


    I can't tell you (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by sj on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 11:39:19 PM EST
    how much it pains me to agree with jim, Obama did worse than not try to get single payer. He actively prevented it.

    In fact from my less-than-exalted point of view, part of that "epic battle" were O's efforts to prevent single payer.

    Which is different than saying the ACA is not an improvement over the previous status quo, because it is. But it is also so much less than it could have been.


    The HII wouldn't stand (none / 0) (#134)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 11:50:41 PM EST
    for essentially being put out of business.

    What part of that concept are you unable to understand?  It barely got by without any Republican votes.  To say that he could've gotten single-payer passed instead of what was passed is the sheerest fantasy Thst you share with Jim


    I don't think anyone is saying that (5.00 / 4) (#154)
    by Anne on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 09:30:49 AM EST
    he could have gotten it passed, but it should have been part of the conversation - the one the American people wanted and needed to have before the insurance and pharmaceutical industries cranked up the steamroller.  People needed to express the reality that having insurance isn't the same as having actual care.

    We never even got that opportunity, and that was Obama's decision; that's on him.


    You (none / 0) (#155)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 10:13:18 AM EST
    still don't get it. The consideration of single payer has always been suppressed, even within the Democratic party. You could hardly expect Obama, at his core a corporatist, would or even should suddenly go rouge just to have a "conversation" that the "American people needed".

    Sometimes rhetoric is useless, even dangerous. I do not think any good would have come from Obama waving the single payer flag in front of those "bulldozers".


    You might be right (none / 0) (#135)
    by sj on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 11:55:24 PM EST
    oligarchy that we are. But I wasn't aware it was their votes that were required to make it the law of the land.

    And I suspect that Senator Harkin -- one of the authors of the bill -- might know just a bit more of what was happening congressionally than either you or I. So you just cling to your fantasy -- which appears to not be sheer, but rather composed of stone.


    I'm sorry that bring realistic (1.50 / 2) (#144)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 07:33:59 AM EST
    iis beyond your powers of comprehension.

    As for Harkin, why don't you just tell me to quit making stuff up, like your new BFF Jim?


    Speaking of insults.... (2.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Zorba on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 04:22:15 PM EST
    I refer you to Jeralyn's comment policy, as you have done with others.

    And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

    Matthew 7:5

    To paraphrase the Waco Kid (none / 0) (#131)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 08:34:05 PM EST
    in Blazing Saddles, don't confront him with the facts, you'll just make him angry.

    et al (none / 0) (#150)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 09:14:58 AM EST
    FlJoe - Thank you for noting that you place winning "...a major victory..." over your leader doing the right thing.

    Mordiggian - Anne said it best:

    It wasn't that Obama didn't try hard enough, it's that he actively worked to make sure it would never be part of the discussion.

    sj - Be nice and apologize to Mordiggian for agreeing with me...lol


    My contention is that he couldn't have (none / 0) (#169)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 12:20:54 PM EST
    tried hard enough as the HII, with all their employees, resources, etc., wasn't going to down and die for him.

    I'm sorry that my political realism and disagreement with her disappoints you, but somehow I think you'll be able to carry on past it.

    Have a good day, Jim.


    Get back (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 11:03:59 AM EST
    to us when you start supporting Bernie Sanders.

    dont think (none / 0) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 11:24:36 AM EST
    it was an accident that MSNBC put Thomas Roberts in the anchor chair this morning.

    Congrats (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 11:52:44 AM EST
    howdy on the supreme court decision today. I know you must be happy. I am happy for you and all my other gay friends. I saw a bunch of gay guys on the TV singing show tunes in celebration!

    Singing a different tune, (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 12:28:48 PM EST
    but the biggest Drama Queens were Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito.  From Scalia dissent: "Whoever thought that intimacy and spirituality (whatever that means were freedoms)? and if intimacy , one would think freedom of intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage.  Ask the nearest hippie."  For an Opus Dei-type Catholic, you would think he might be familiar with spirituality. Note to Scalia: loosen up your cilice.  

    Then there is Alito, who treasures and protects traditional marriage, one that focuses on procreation, not one that focuses almost entirely on the happiness of persons who chose to marry.  


    And Clarence Thomas (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 12:33:10 PM EST
    talking about human dignity? This really isn't about human dignity so much as legal rights. Slavery apparently did not take human dignity away from people according to him.

    What is wrong with these people?


    Good to see Constitution rights (none / 0) (#88)
    by Redbrow on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 12:01:30 PM EST
    To life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ar being respected.

    This opens the door to legalizing marijuana and allowing everyone to enjoy the same liberty as those in the states with most liberal drug laws.

    To be consistent, all citizens also should enjoy the same liberty as those in states with the most liberal gun laws. State-issued Concealed carry licenses should now be honored everywhere.

    Thanks for the laugh (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 12:38:04 PM EST
    We needed that today.

    Maybe you were confused and (none / 0) (#98)
    by Redbrow on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 12:52:10 PM EST
    A amused by my use of the word liberal?

    Of course I meant it in the classical sense, from when liberals actually valued personal liberty.

    Not to be confused with modem Orwellian newspeak where "Liberal laws" would actually be akin to totalitarian.


    Well, to begin with (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 01:13:55 PM EST
    let's look at the record of liberals and personal liberty, from The West Wing and Lawrence O'Donnell:

     What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Republican party?  I'll tell you what they did.  Liberals got women the right to vote.  Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote.  Liberals created social security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty.  Liberals ended segregation.  Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Liberals created Medicare.  Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act.  What did Conservatives do?  They opposed every one of those programs.  Every one.  So when you try to hurl the word 'liberal' at my feet, as if it were dirty, something to run away from, something that I should be ashamed of, it won't work, Senator, because I will pick up that label and wear it as a badge of honor.

    Totalitarian would be like, limiting a women's right to have an abortion if she wants one, not limiting the right to discriminate against people based on their race or gender or sexual orientation, etc.

    This is your mind on Fox News.  Any questions?


    And, since you seem confused (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 01:32:38 PM EST
    on how the Full Faith and Credit Clause works, here's a link to the Wiki article.

    Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.[5]

    Actually that is a good quote (none / 0) (#153)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 09:28:55 AM EST
    But what happened was that the Progressives started calling themselves Liberals because their Far Left positions were being linked with communism/totalitarian philosophies. The Right took the bait and Far Left became Liberal.

    With the Vietnam Surrender the anti-war faction of the Far Left became dominant and that helped the Right to cast Liberal as  Far Left Anti-war Socialist Marxist Communist.  


    Vietnam Surrender ? (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 10:27:27 AM EST
    Darn that commie loving Nixon, he told us it was "peace with honor". You mean he lied to us? Made a double bank shot by besmirching the word liberal along the way. Well played Dick, they don't call you tricky for nothing.

    Yeah, it had nothing to do with (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 11:58:28 AM EST
     the families losing their loved ones and the fact that the light at the end of the tunnel turned out to be an oncoming train:

    Gen. William C. Westmoreland and a lawyer for CBS argued yesterday over one of the most memorable phrases of the Vietnam War, with the lawyer suggesting that the general had misled Washington into believing there was ''light at the end of tunnel'' in 1967 and the general saying he had not used that expression.

    ''I never had quite that degree of optimism,'' General Westmoreland told the jury at his libel trial against CBS in Federal Court in Manhattan.

    But the lawyer, David Boies, showed the witness a Nov. 26, 1967, cable he had sent during a visit to Washington to his deputy in Saigon, Gen. Creighton W. Abrams, in which the phrase ''some light at the end of the tunnel'' was bracketed in quotation marks.

    Q. Did you believe that degree of optimism was justified?

    A. I certainly did. I felt it was an accurate important portrayal.

    General Westmoreland acknowledged, under intense cross-examination, that he had told President Johnson, the press and others in November 1967 that American troops were ''grinding down the enemy,'' as the cable also indicated. But he said he did not intend to convey the impression that ''the war was about to be over.'' Wide-Ranging Testimony

    And how did that turn out?  From the Wiki:

    Westmoreland declared "victory," but later conceded that his team's "jury watcher" had concluded he was likely to lose.[13] The New York Times reported that Westmoreland had "surrendered to the evidence that . . . he and some of his aides in Vietnam in 1967 manipulated the estimates of enemy strength, apparently for political effect." "At the end, he stood in imminent danger of having a jury confirm the essential truth of the CBS report. For, in court, as on the original program, the general could not get past the testimony of high-ranking former subordinates who confirmed his having colored some intelligence information."[14] One of the jurors, speaking to the press when the trial adjourned, stated "The evidence in favor of CBS was overwhelming." [15]

    So the Progressive/Marxist/Lieberals got to the subordinates as well.

    Thanks for helping me educate people about the war, folks.


    And If this is too much of a digression (none / 0) (#165)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 12:03:05 PM EST
    From the threads' topic, I won't make any further comments here and will resume this at the next available open thread opportunity.



    So you didn't know that Nixon lied? (none / 0) (#162)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 11:55:24 AM EST

    And yes, at the behest of the Left Wing of the Democratic Party we surrendered.


    "We" (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 12:07:05 PM EST
    being all those people with the courage of conviction to actually go and fight in 'Nam. People like Jim and Rush and Sean and Newt and Cheney and..

    Oh wait..


    I forgot: heh (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 12:08:18 PM EST
    jondee, as you know I have never said anything (none / 0) (#176)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 04:26:07 PM EST
    about my service except that I served 10 years in Naval Aviation.

    Please do not make things up.


    Nixon? (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 04:22:15 PM EST
    at the behest of the Left Wing of the Democratic Party we surrendered.

    Thereby confirming that in today's politics, Richard Nixon would be considered a "left wing Democrat."


    Being linked to totalitarianism.. (none / 0) (#164)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 12:02:59 PM EST
    by who?

    it's called red-baiting and it's genesis lay largely in the fact that conservatives, to carry elections, substituted quasi-religious demagoguery and scare mongering for progressive ideas and rational problem solving -- while they at the same time sold the country out from under the people who voted them into office.


    jondee, you want to claim that (none / 0) (#177)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 04:28:35 PM EST
    people are known by who they associate with.

    Well, don't complain when it happens to you.


    I agree (none / 0) (#183)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 10:02:03 PM EST
    Being associated with someone who won't talk about their past is something all of us should avoid in the future.

    Oh I talk about my past (none / 0) (#186)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 28, 2015 at 11:45:35 PM EST
    with people I care about and have respect for their positions,

    Outside of kdog I can't think of a single commentator here that meets that requirement.


    You're a real barrel of monkeys. (none / 0) (#187)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 12:31:54 AM EST
    Thanks (none / 0) (#199)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 10:39:32 AM EST
    I can always depend on you to define yourself.

    BTW - I have posted much more about me than you have about you. If interested, bring the subject up on an open thread and we'll have a

    tell about.


    see also: (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by sj on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 02:56:52 PM EST
    Fallacy: false analogy.

    Not that I really expect you to get it...


    The derp in this one (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 03:03:28 PM EST
    is strong.

    god you're boring (none / 0) (#99)
    by CST on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 12:53:07 PM EST

    site violater (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by CST on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 12:56:09 PM EST
    Me - It's a personal attack.

    Feel free to delete.  My bad.


    That's not a personal attack (none / 0) (#101)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 12:59:44 PM EST
    A personal attack would be if you called him a bleeping a hole. Your approach was just boring.

    Well I Could Not Agree More... (none / 0) (#103)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 01:25:38 PM EST
    ...but I would have used the word 'bothersome'.

    At least the right now has something beyond emails and Benghazi! to campaign on; new Justices in the SCOTUS and/or a Constitutional Amendment.


    Today? (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 03:25:58 PM EST
    We should only be so lucky.

    I think we were confused (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 01:33:57 PM EST
    Because "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," is from the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution....

    I have never seen (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 02:07:41 PM EST
    ...anyone use marijuana to kill anyone else.

    As soon as I do, I will support arming everyone with the strength to pull a trigger.  That is the ultimate aim of the 2nd Amendment fanatics, isn't it?

    BTW, speaking as an Army veteran, I can tell you ONE THING that all "open carry" advocates have in common.

    They never served in the military.


    The LEO agencies (none / 0) (#110)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 02:15:16 PM EST
    state and local, would have a sh*t fit if they couldn't bust people for pot, nationwide.  

    They get to keep the money from any dealers they bust, so that income stream would be gone.  In addition, they'd have to go after other criminals who aren't so profitable for them instead.

    Crazy libertarians, trying to tear down the country in pursuit of abstract, idealistic goals.


    Yes, I Could Not Agree More... (none / 0) (#105)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 01:32:50 PM EST
    ...republicans are constantly on the wrong side of history.

    That was funny (none / 0) (#185)
    by Yman on Sun Jun 28, 2015 at 04:27:52 PM EST
    No, it certainly does not open that silly, imaginary door.

    The reactions from the (none / 0) (#90)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 12:19:04 PM EST
    GOP tend to run from Huckabee who says it's an affront to God to Rubio who's proposing Jim Crow for gay people.

    Turn on FOXNOOZE (none / 0) (#92)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 12:24:00 PM EST
    what decision?  Did you know there was an attack on an AMERICAN OWNED chemical plant in France?

    So they're (none / 0) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 12:28:11 PM EST
    going to completely ignore it? Must have gotten word from Rence not to rile up the troops.

    Breath deep (none / 0) (#91)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 12:22:17 PM EST
    and allow it to wash over you-

    A Glorious Treasury of the Conservative Gay Marriage Freakout

    All the obstacles against gay marriage being recognized everywhere are gone, and social conservatives everywhere are looooooooooooosing it. Gloating isn't nice, but let's just have one little taste, shall we?

    Jeb (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 12:30:25 PM EST
    Bush must have written his own statement because it made no sense. We're supposed to love our neighbor but it's okay to fight to deny them rights. Love your neighbor by putting him under Jim Crow. I guess the south was really showing their love for African Americans back in the day according to Jeb.

    10 Days of Conservative Hell (none / 0) (#112)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 02:49:26 PM EST
    Symbols of a treasonous 'nation' came down in droves, citizens get to keep their affordable insurance, and people who love each other, get to marry if they want.

    For normal people, these were some really good things, for conservatives, the worse 10 days since Jesus was arrested, tried, and sentenced.

    Though in Jesus' day... (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 03:08:00 PM EST
    the conservative establishment were the ones executing him, so those were good days for conservatives of that era...Jesus was the hippie liberal radical who loved everybody and healed the sick with anointing oils that more than likely contained cannabis.  

    Imagine that: people (none / 0) (#116)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 03:11:02 PM EST
    caring for each other, healing and loving each other..

    Jesus would be appalled.


    As John Fugelsang put it: (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 03:37:25 PM EST
    "Obama is not a brown-skinned anti-war socialist who gives away free healthcare. You're thinking of Jesus."

    This is what he (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 04:25:24 PM EST
    said today:

    If you're mad because a slavery flag comes down, millions keep their heallthcare & free people can marry who they love - we in the the 21st century wait to welcome you with open arms.

    I don't think that they're coming into the 21st century anytime soon though.


    No more than ISIS is (none / 0) (#168)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 12:10:12 PM EST
    Human sacrifice, (none / 0) (#117)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 03:19:02 PM EST
     dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

    Jim, I'm sad I didn't make the (none / 0) (#201)
    by fishcamp on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 01:06:25 PM EST
    Kdog cut.  I certainly hope this doesn't mean you will turn your naval airmen friends, from Boca Chica Naval Base loose on me, while I'm fishing the flats for bonefish.  They like to fly by low and fast to scare the poop out of man and fish.  I'll try and turn over a new leaf, if you will too.