Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 241 To 250 Of 657 Comments
IS 'THE END OF AMERICA AS WE KNOW IT' REALLY SO BAD?
@Nagarajan Sivakumar:
I'm not disputing that at all -- to be honest, I can't think of a single case of theirs that doesn't have negative implications, in some fashion to some people.
But I also can't think of a decision that doesn't also have some positive aspect to it either. Even Dred Scot, a decision so disgusting and offensive to read even they admitted they were wrong, could be seen as a "positive" in the sense that it strengthened the importance of private property rights against government nullification.
In my opinion the rationale in Steward Machine Company v. Davis was bad. Very, very bad. "You guys are demonstrably idiots" bad.
But they got robes and I don't (and the few times I did get to wear a robe theirs outranked mine to a considerable degree). They may be "wrong" on SMC v. Davis in my opinion, but since "wrong" is defined whenever they decide in the law they are technically always "right".
That's an unfortunate reality of our system. I believe (as did the founding Fathers) that the pros of the system outweighed this con, but that doesn't make it any more paletable.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 25.08.2009 @ 23:43
@ken.mcloud:
"the notion that it is somehow ridiculous to take the [Constitution] “literally” absolutely floors me."
It's a very valid and "traditional" school of jurisprudence called "Original Intent" (highlighted most recently bu the Court under Warren). The way you seem to favor interpreting it is called "strict constructionism" or "four corners". Neither is "right" or "wrong" in the sense that both are accepted as being logically coherend and defensible.
Original Intent posits that the Founding Fathers were wise enough to recognize that things change. No document could cover every possible future situation, or absolutely define every word within it beyond dispute (what does "Militia" mean?). What the law should do is look at new situations in light of the original intent of the fathers. Use the language of the text, as well as what they wrote about their beliefs, and try to apply/construe the law to make them proud (basically).
Consider the 1st Amendment as an example: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech". Literally, that says that NO laws abridging freedom of speech. I can yell "fire" in a crowded building, I can threaten to kill you, I can urge a crowd to go on a muderous rampage . . . Congress can't outlaw those behaviors. Oh, and by the way, I'm a performance artist and my free-speech-protected "art" involves screwing sheep in public while smeared with feces. It's party time!!
That may be a grammatically valid reading of what they literally wrote . . . but that's not what they meant. They understood the concept of what are called "Time, Place, Manner" limitations on unlimited speech.The basis for Intenters is to try and fathom what the Founding Fathers would have said about a modern issue if they were here now. It is beyond dispute that the Constitution does not assign the authority for telecommunications infrastructure to the Federal government. That doesn't mean that they wanted the 13 States to be responsible for it . . . they never even concieved of it as a possibility. Based on what they intended the Federal government to be (which despite what some people think is NOT always obvious), what would they have said?
This is a very long and convoluted topic, so I'll just say that yes, it's "reasonable" to eschew a blindingly literal reading of the Constitution, and it's just as valid to think this is nonsense and insist on sticking to the "four corners of the document", or something in between. All are valid.
But let me add this: the main reason to have different interpretative approaches (as well as the reason to have a Judiciary at all) is because people disagree over what things mean. Let me give you an example from your comment#3:
"does anyone know of a case where any of these institutions that are blatant violations of the 10th amendment (. . . Social Security . . .) have ever been brought before the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional"
That's not a blatant violation . . . because the Supreme Court already said it wasn't.
Steward Machine Company v. Davis, 301 U.S, 548 (1937)
Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937)
Authorized under the general taxation powers to promote the general welfare.Now, you disagree with this. So did the dissenters on the Court. There are extremely few cases that get decided 9-0. It doesn't legaly matter whether you disagree with them or not: the call's been made, and so "the matter is decided" ("stare decisis", although my latin spelling is pretty rusty). If you want all the cases decided in a way you agree with . . . get a robe.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 25.08.2009 @ 18:27
I'm not trying to be rude. It's perfectly legitimate to interpret the Constitution the way you do. But as a legal matter the fact that you (or I) interpret it in a particular way is irrevelant -- as it was explained to me, "if the Supreme Court calls an apple a banana, then it's a banana".
That may sound ridiculous. But its absolutely, verifiably, indisputably true (and vitally necessary), regardless of how ridiculous it may be.
THE ROLE OF RACE IN OPPOSITION TO THE PRESIDENT
@Justice:
Agree 100% racism (I prefer xenophobia . . . "racism" is loaded) is not a Southern thing. Its a human thing. ALL people have some strain of xenophobia, to some extent. I also agree that "[o]bjecting to large government, higher taxes, and more socialism" are tenets of the Republican party. We may disagree with how genuinely the party follows those tenets, but they are tenets of the party.
If the xenophobia exists, then I don't think saying that the disagreements with Obama (NOT with the Democratic Party . . . with HIM) are based on policy differences is covering up the xenophobia. Obama is Hitler (for pushing for health care reform, a staple of the Democratic party for half a century), Obama is Stalin, "I want my country back!!", "I don't trust him, he's an Arab", showing up to a town hall with the President of the United States armed with a loaded AR-15 and carrying a sign reading "time to refresh the Tree of Liberty". . . that's not a policy dispute.
Several weeks ago, someone here mentioned the difference between opposition to Bush and opposition to Obama (I was, and am, vehemently opposed to the Bush Administration). Anti-Bush people demanded impeachment. The demanded prosecution. They DIDN'T advocate assassination, revolution, armed insurrection, etc. Those aren't tenets of the Republican Party.
"Don't socialize my Medicare!" may be phrased as a simple policy debate, but it is difficult not to see something more at play.
Mike Reynolds may phrase it strongly in comment #42, but the point he makes is valid. Republicans were/are opposed to the Clinton Administration. Many thought he was tacitly involved in a murder (if you believed Vince Foster was murdered). But the disagreement didn't go to hysterical levels like it has with Obama . . . and Obama hasn't been in power for even a year. Maybe the difference is truly that Obama's agenda is so radically different from other Democratic Administrations . . . but if it is I don't see the massive difference. If the current administration is simply a Democratic one, and the dispute is really policy based, then why the over-the-top behavior? I agree with the label "hysteria", and hysteria isn't a policy difference.
**off-topic: to SJ -- You deserved a fair and respectful response to your post to me several threads ago. By the time I got a break from work to get back here, I couldn't find the thread to reply. That was not my intent, and I apologize for leaving the questions you posed unanswered.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 22.08.2009 @ 12:59
So the Curious George dolls during the campaign, "Barack the Magic Negro", the jigaboo photoshops, Michelle's relatives are gorillas . . . those are simply policy critiques?
These wern't from Klansmen. They were from "regular" citizens and elected politicians. And they betray racism.
Maybe not the "Damn I hate darkies" school of racism. But the "see a young black man and worry you're about to get mugged" school of racism.
B. Poster pegged the number of racist influenced opponents at ".0000000000000000000001". If my math is correct, that's less than 1 person (assuming 300,000,000 Americans, and assuming every single person in America is opposed to Obama). Impressive. Even Klansmen aren't racially opposed to Obama.
To say that ALL opposition to Obama is racially motivated is nonsense. But it is equally nonsense to say "Is he black? I hadn't noticed". The examples above can't be explained any other way.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 21.08.2009 @ 15:52
@obamathered:
"much less of a lie than Obama’s deceptions that he wants to maintain private health insurance."
The bill explicitly, in clear, unambiguous language, maintains private insurance.
It's not a debateable point, unless you don't know how to read English.If the bill says "bananas are yellow", you can't use wishful thinking to make it say "bananas are purple". That's either ignorance, insanity, or deception.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 15.08.2009 @ 15:01
@scrapiron:
"Palin is the only one with the guts to bring up the death panels. They did exist in the bill"
Where?
No they didn't exist in the bill, and you're either talking about something you know nothing about, or you're a damn liar.
Prove me wrong.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 15.08.2009 @ 04:04
MocaLite:
Paying for a consultation once every five years honestly doesn't sound too "incentivising". That's like saying paying for a yearly checkup incentivises doing check-ups.
It was important enough that a Republican put it in the bill in the first place (John Isakson). In 08 he wanted to make the consultations mandatory (they were voluntary).
btw -- if you don't have a Living Will, a Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care, and/or a DNR . . . look into them. They are incredibly important if you want YOUR wishes carried out. What's to stop your son or daughter from saying "Moca told me they want the plug pulled" after you are unconcious?
Don't want the plug pulled? Write it down. Get it notarized. Put it your lockbox with your will. It is your life -- you should make the decisions about it.
Palin was for Advanced Directive planning last year, and had the government encourage citizens to look into them:"NOW, THEREFORE, I, Sarah Palin, Governor of the state of Alaska, do hereby proclaim April 16, 2008, as:
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 14.08.2009 @ 18:54
Healthcare Decisions Day in Alaska, and I call this observance to the attention of all our citizens.
Dated: April 16, 2008 "
http://gov.state.ak.us/archive.php?id=1094&type=6
"'We dropped end-of-life provisions from consideration entirely because of the way they could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly."
Awwww . . . how reasonable from Senator Grassley. Glad he had a rational approach to the issue.
"DES MOINES — Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, told people at a town hall meeting Wednesday they have “every right to fear” a provision in a House bill that would provide funding for end-of-life counseling.
'We should not have a government program that determines we’re going to pull the plug on grandma,'” he said"
http://www.globegazette.com/articles/2009/08/13/news/local/doc4a8399a299c99184706800.txtSo either he started taking his meds . . . or he claims one thing to he reporters and the exact opposite thing to the base. God Dammed pathetic liar.
. . .and y'all were worried that the Dems were going to run out of control in the Government? The trouble is the Dems are too polite. They needed to get on TV and say "that's a god-damned lie". Instead, they said "inaccuricies about provisions lead to misinformation among eligible constituernts."
God-damned liars . . . and god-damned wimps.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 14.08.2009 @ 17:25
correction: the GOP leader in the House. Sorry for the typo.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 14.08.2009 @ 05:36
"This was and is the GOP alternative."
I guess somebody forgot to tell Boehner:
July 23, 2009: "Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said on Thursday afternoon that Republicans will have an alternative healthcare reform bill to offer but did not say when it would be ready."
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/boehner-says-gop-health-alternative-is-coming-2009-07-23.htmlSince he made that statement months after S.1099 was submitted, it sure doesn't sound like the GOP leader knows that "the GOP alternative" already exists.
You want to tell him, or should I?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 14.08.2009 @ 05:35
