|
0 members (),
6
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums59
Topics17,128
Posts314,540
Members6,305
| |
Most Online294
Dec 6th, 2017
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 3,862 Likes: 1
enthusiast
|
OP
enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 3,862 Likes: 1 |
Justice Scalia to Obama's Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [AUDIO]The Daily Caller March 27, 2012 While Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, Jr. made the Obama administration's case for the constitutionality of the individual mandate in the health-care law Tuesday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia interrupted, telling Verrilli, "we're not stupid."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134
Administrator Bionic Scribe
|
|
Administrator Bionic Scribe
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134 |
Life is a banquet -- and most poor suckers are starving to death -- Auntie Mame
You are born naked and everything else is drag - RuPaul
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 27,583
Administrator Bionic Scribe
|
|
Administrator Bionic Scribe
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 27,583 |
No, not stupid-just corrupt< Justices Scalia and Thomas> 
milk and Girl Scout cookies ;-)
Save your breath-You may need it to blow up your date.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 3,862 Likes: 1
enthusiast
|
|
OP
enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 3,862 Likes: 1 |
Many things are. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 3,862 Likes: 1
enthusiast
|
|
OP
enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 3,862 Likes: 1 |
No, not stupid-just corrupt< Justices Scalia and Thomas> I never thought of any of the current Justices as corrupt. I just think of them as people with different viewpoints.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010 |
Scalia's apparent point is that people in a low risk pool (young people) should be allowed to decide not to buy insurance.
This is like saying that people should be allowed to decide when they will start paying social security contributions. The whole reason that social security was made mandatory for all was because it was clear that people often make poor risk analysis decisions.
The fact is that medical risk changes as we age... and that in any case, young people are comfortable taking large risks without even being fully aware of the nature of the risks
Left to our own devices, most young people will not buy insurance, and most older people cannot afford insurance that fully covers their medical risk
If Scalia thinks otherwise, he is stupid.
If he has not thought about it, he is also stupid.
Last edited by Ardy; 03/28/12 02:01 AM.
"It's not a lie if you believe it." -- George Costanza
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves. --Bertrand Russel
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134
Administrator Bionic Scribe
|
|
Administrator Bionic Scribe
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134 |
No, not stupid-just corrupt< Justices Scalia and Thomas> I never thought of any of the current Justices as corrupt. I just think of them as people with different viewpoints. As you know, Golem, there is a strong argument that Thomas should not be hearing this case, given his involvement by his wife in the opposition to the health care reform act.
Life is a banquet -- and most poor suckers are starving to death -- Auntie Mame
You are born naked and everything else is drag - RuPaul
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,428 Likes: 1
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,428 Likes: 1 |
I watched the first day argument in the entirety on Cspan. The discussion was much more abstract than any of the interpretations that I've seen or heard in the media. The gist of the discussion: The long-run implications are really for other tax cases. If the AIA were non-jurisdictional, then it is both subject to waiver and the creation of judicial equitable exceptions, and thus any tax might be challenged before it was assessed, if the government failed to raise the AIA bar or the courts found an equitable exception. (AIA - Anti-Injunction Act) Clearing away all of the rest of the discussion, I believe the case will be settled on this point of law. As with the Citizens United decision, the ramifications of the decision will probably not be connected to anything that resembles the public good, or the moral high ground, but rather like a game, that uses words and theory to determine the intent of previous legal determinations. Nine people trying to avoid a gotcha.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,430 Likes: 373
Member CHB-OG
|
|
Member CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,430 Likes: 373 |
Thomas, as per usual, did not ask questions during the argument. Isn't asking questions indicative of intellectual curiosity? How can that guy be a SCOTUS justice and just sit there, never ask questions, like a bump on a log, and render judgment? Oh, that's right - he's "earning" a paycheck for life. We're coming up on 20 years of the same B.S. from him. Twenty years of never asking questions during arguments. That guy has got to go!!
Contrarian, extraordinaire
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,428 Likes: 1
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,428 Likes: 1 |
Advice to the Supreme court... amicus briefs... funded by Koch Brothers link Several organizations that have filed amicus briefs with the Supreme Court have received substantial donations from the Koch family as well. These groups include:
Competitive Enterprise Institute: $666,420
Pacific Research Institute: $270,000
Texas Public Policy Foundation: $74,500
Freedom Works: $5 million
Cato Institute: approximately $30 million.
Family Research Council: brief co-authored by attorney Nelson Lund, a professor at George Mason University, which has received $29,604,354.
Galen Institute: “partner organization” of the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation; extent of donations unknown.
Landmark Legal Foundation: $5000
In addition, a Court-appointed attorney used a study by the Rand Corporation to show the impact of the individual mandate in the health care bill—even though Rand has received $100,000 from none other than the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation.
|
|
|
|
|
