Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Another HRC Ruling - But Different!Follow

#27 Jun 30 2011 at 2:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
No. It makes no damn difference.

Smiley: lol It's great that you think so.
Quote:
Getting the other side to look inconsistent or hypocritical...

...was never my point. You're so hung up on crying about how poorly you're treated that you don't even understand what's being said.

Edited, Jun 30th 2011 3:44pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#28 Jun 30 2011 at 4:04 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
No. It makes no damn difference.

Smiley: lol It's great that you think so.


Yes it is! :)

Quote:
Quote:
Getting the other side to look inconsistent or hypocritical...

...was never my point. You're so hung up on crying about how poorly you're treated that you don't even understand what's being said.


Uh huh. In all the years we've posted here, I have never seen you miss the opportunity to make the "Even people on your own side don't agree!" argument. I suppose it's possible that you honestly aren't aware of this habit and are just repeating what you've heard other people talk about and don't realize *why* they think it's relevant. I assume you are more self aware than that, but it's possible I guess.


But on a side note, having now looked at the case itself, I'm still unsure why this is such a "hurray!" moment for anyone on the side of the Health Care Reform law. This particular case is one of the weakest of the lot. It's arguing purely on the idea that the mandate represents a financial hardship to the people. Cheering a barely won ruling on that case is like cheering when your professional football team just barely beats the local high school team.


The cases that will really matter from a constitutional perspective will be the ones based on states rights. The core argument is that the commerce clause does not grant Congress powers that broad and that such things should rightly be handled at the state level. You'll note that this differs dramatically from the case in question here (whether government can do this at all at any level), and is a vastly stronger case.


So this ruling *really* doesn't matter.

Edited, Jun 30th 2011 3:06pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#29 Jun 30 2011 at 4:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Uh huh. In all the years we've posted here, I have never seen you miss the opportunity...

Never seen you miss the chance to cry about how mean everyone is to you poo' widdle pubbies, even if it means you have to miss (or ignore) the point to get your cry on.

Quote:
Cheering a barely won ruling

Smiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laugh

Seriously?

Quote:
This particular case is one of the weakest of the lot. [...] So this ruling *really* doesn't matter.

Any port in a storm. Another of your fine traits.


Edited, Jun 30th 2011 5:15pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#30 Jun 30 2011 at 5:12 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
Cheering a barely won ruling

Smiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laugh

Seriously?


Yes. Seriously. WTF do you think you're making a big deal about? The unusualness of a Republican appointed judge known to be a constitutionalist who unexpectedly rules in favor of the health care reform giving it the one key opinion needed to change the decision from "lose" to "win" for HCR.

Yeah. That's "barely won". It's not like the ruling could have been closer, right?

Quote:
Quote:
This particular case is one of the weakest of the lot. [...] So this ruling *really* doesn't matter.

Any port in a storm. Another of your fine traits.


That's hysterical given that this entire story is basically a desperate attempt to find some positive news on this issue. Let's find the weakest out of 30ish cases, then make a huge deal about how we barely squeaked out a win! Hurray!


Lol.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#31 Jun 30 2011 at 5:58 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
of course if it had been 2-1 against, you wouldn't be saying it barely lost.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#32 Jun 30 2011 at 6:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Yeah. That's "barely won".

It was a 2-1 decision. I'm not sure what you think "barely won" means but, (A) it has no place in a discussion about court decisions where you either win or you don't and (B) it's not as though you can get 51% of the decision or something. Are you really so desperate that you need to tell yourself a 2-1 decision is "barely winning" it?

Quote:
That's hysterical

Coming from a guy who can't come up with anything better than to say it was "barely won", I'm feeling okay about that.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#33 Jun 30 2011 at 6:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Sir Xsarus wrote:
of course if it had been 2-1 against, you wouldn't be saying it barely lost.

I'm reminded of one of the gay marriage threads where Gbaji was trying to downplay a precedent setting court decision by saying it was "barely won". I can't think of a single other person I've heard someone claim that a court decision didn't really count because it was "barely won" but it seems to be an idea Gbaji holds near and dear to his heart. A bizarre coping mechanism.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#34 Jun 30 2011 at 7:10 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
of course if it had been 2-1 against, you wouldn't be saying it barely lost.


If it had been 2-1 against, there wouldn't be a thread about it. Which kinda highlights my point about how this is the left hyping one case they won, while downplaying/ignoring all of the one's they're losing and/or have lost. Despite Joph's attempts to argue that this is precedent setting and will have some kind of effect on the judicial outcome of this issue as a whole, the greater value and objective is purely about PR.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#35 Jun 30 2011 at 7:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
of course if it had been 2-1 against, you wouldn't be saying it barely lost.

I'm reminded of one of the gay marriage threads where Gbaji was trying to downplay a precedent setting court decision by saying it was "barely won". I can't think of a single other person I've heard someone claim that a court decision didn't really count because it was "barely won" but it seems to be an idea Gbaji holds near and dear to his heart. A bizarre coping mechanism.


When I'm arguing against someone attempting to claim that a court decision should influence what the public as a whole views as right or wrong with regard to an issue, then yes, it is absolutely relevant to point out that said decision was very close and split among partisan lines. You have this very strange approach to debate in some issues where you try to use past court cases, not just as an argument about the legality/constitutionality of something, but as some kind of moral compass. As though I should somehow abandon my own positions on an issue because a court decision came down the other way.


My positions on issues aren't based on court precedent Joph. They're based on the application of principles. If I've arrived at a position, why the hell do you think pointing to a court decision that disagrees with that position will sway me (or anyone for that matter)? A court decision I disagree with is one I disagree with. I just don't understand the approach. I mean, I get it from a PR perspective (as I mentioned above). You want people to think your position is "right", so anything that can reinforce that is beneficial. It serves both to strengthen the position among those who already hold it *and* can be used to suggest that if/when a decision comes down the other direction that it's some travesty of justice or something.


To you, this issue in particular should be decided based on the assumed overwhelming economic and social benefits of the government providing health care to everyone. To me, this issue should be decided based on whether the mechanism government is using is in violation of the principles of the constitution. That's why the left and the right rarely agrees on anything. We're literally judging issues with different yardsticks.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#36 Jun 30 2011 at 7:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
If it had been 2-1 against, there wouldn't be a thread about it.

That's probably true, namely because it would have probably split along seemingly partisan lines and "the Democrat agreed but the Republicans didn't!" isn't very interesting.

If it split 0-3, it would have been worth a thread. If it split Dem/Rep against vs. Rep for, it would have definitely been worth a thread.

Quote:
the left hyping one case they won

Huh? There's been four lower court cases and they split 2-2 along "partisan" lines. This case, setting aside the partisan aspect, is notable because it's the first appellate court decision so it's the first time one of those lower court cases have hit Round Two. I've no idea what you think you mean by "are losing" in regards to the other cases. I know one of them has a appellate panel of three Democratic appointees so be sure to talk about how much the appointing party doesn't matter if they rule in favor Smiley: smile

The idea that one case or another is "more important" is some delusion you've either convinced yourself of or else the man on the AM radio/Freeper blog told you and you were naive enough to believe them. The reality is that the SCotUS will almost certainly bundle the appellate cases and rule on the constitutionality of the mandate based on all the lower court rulings since that's the grounds they're being contested on. Which is why this ruling is important, regardless of what you tell yourself; if the case is a 5-4 decision, the question will certainly be "What did Kennedy decide" and rulings in which constructionist judge(s) ruled in favor and wrote out reasoned pieces why the law is constitutional from that perspective may add weight to the defense's case.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#37 Jun 30 2011 at 7:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
You have this very strange approach to debate in some issues where you try to use past court cases, not just as an argument about the legality/constitutionality of something, but as some kind of moral compass. As though I should somehow abandon my own positions on an issue because a court decision came down the other way.

You have this charmingly naive approach where you think your precious snowflake opinions are worth more than the reality of precedent and settled law. You're entitled to those opinions but you give them far more weight in the real world than they'd ever deserve.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#38 Jun 30 2011 at 8:05 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The idea that one case or another is "more important" is some delusion you've either convinced yourself of or else the man on the AM radio/Freeper blog told you and you were naive enough to believe them.


In the context of the whole of this legal question, some cases are more important than others. This case is basically arguing the far far right libertarian position. It's basically saying "government doesn't have the authority to make me do something which hurts me financially". It's right in there along with arguments that the income tax is unconstitutional. Surely you get this, right? This is by far the weakest of the arguments being brought in terms of the likelihood of the court ruling favorably.

It's in there because you want to examine every aspect, and you never know. Maybe they'll get a ruling which upholds some portion of that far right libertarian viewpoint. I doubt it, but it's worth trying.

Quote:
The reality is that the SCotUS will almost certainly bundle the appellate cases and rule on the constitutionality of the mandate based on all the lower court rulings since that's the grounds they're being contested on.


Yes. But you do understand that they'll lump all those questions into one case, but the case isn't "won" for the defense unless it wins every question. The court isn't going to decide that the "individual can't be inconvenienced by the government" isn't strong enough and rule the whole thing in favor of the government. What is going to happen is that on some questions in the case (like most likely this one) the court will rule that the government can do what it's doing, but on other questions (like states rights in general, or states rights in terms of a contradictory existing health care law), the federal law fails the constitutional test.


That's why this case really doesn't matter. Oh. It would matter if it went the other way, since it might indicate just how completely screwed the Health Care Reform law is. But this is basically the argument no one really expects to win, but you use it anyway just to see.



Quote:
Which is why this ruling is important, regardless of what you tell yourself; if the case is a 5-4 decision, the question will certainly be "What did Kennedy decide" and rulings in which constructionist judge(s) ruled in favor and wrote out reasoned pieces why the law is constitutional from that perspective may add weight to the defense's case.



It wont come down that way though. You're naive if you think it will. It'll be more like the Wal-Mart case, with a majority (or even unanimous) decision on the question of violation of states rights, and perhaps a 5-4 split on other aspects like individual protection from federal action.


The point you seem to keep missing is that no amount of a lower court ruling on the idea of individuals being constitutionally protected from the federal mandate on the grounds that it might hurt them financially has any bearing at all on the much much much stronger states rights aspect of this case. There is no precedent set. Despite what you seem to think, precedent isn't some simple "for or against" a given ideological position on an issue. It's about how the law interacts with specific elements of an issue.


This case asked the question: Does the health care reform mandate's potential to negatively impact people financially represent an unconstitutional infringement of their rights? That has absolutely nothing to do with the question: Does the health care reform mandate represent an unconstitutional infringement of the federal government into an aspect of governance reserved for the states?


You're making the mistake of looking at this as a blanket "is the law ok, or not?". That's not how the courts rule these cases. They look at each specific argument being made against the law. In this case, that argument is a relatively weak one. I wouldn't put too much weight on it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#39 Jun 30 2011 at 8:08 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You have this very strange approach to debate in some issues where you try to use past court cases, not just as an argument about the legality/constitutionality of something, but as some kind of moral compass. As though I should somehow abandon my own positions on an issue because a court decision came down the other way.

You have this charmingly naive approach where you think your precious snowflake opinions are worth more than the reality of precedent and settled law. You're entitled to those opinions but you give them far more weight in the real world than they'd ever deserve.


The case isn't about whether a given judge likes the health care law or not Joph. That's where you (and most liberals) fail to get it. Oh, you do attempt to stack courts with judges who do rule that way, but that's not how they're supposed to rule, and thankfully most of the time the Supreme Court actually does this right. You think that because one ruling found the law constitutional, this has weight. But it doesn't. Because it's not about the law. Judges don't rule on the whole of a law. They rule on legal challenges made against that law.


That's where you're going wrong here. This case sets no precedent with regard to the more important challenges being made. It's why pretty much no one outside the liberal blogosphere is paying it much mind.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#40 Jun 30 2011 at 8:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The case isn't about whether a given judge likes the health care law or not Joph.

No, it's not. It's ultimately about how nine Justices feel about it. Your own opinions on the matter aren't relevant at all but things that influence or help indicate how they'll see it are very important, no matter how desperate you are to downplay them. Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#41 Aug 12 2011 at 12:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
An update!

In a 2-1 ruling, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the law unconstitutional. This time, it was a Republican appointed and Democratic appointed judge ruling against and a Democratic appointee ruling for. Not much in the way of details yet except that they overturned the lower court ruling that the entire law must be thrown out -- removing the mandate would leave the rest of the law constitutional in their opinion. There's one more Appeals case pending, I believe.

As they used to say on the news: "Further updates as events warrant" and onward towards the Supreme Court.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Necro Warning: This post occurred more than thirty days after the prior, and may be a necropost.
#42 Aug 12 2011 at 12:36 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Jophiel wrote:
"Further updates as events warrant"
"Until then, here are twenty four hours of coverage over five channels with opinions on this turn of events until further updates."
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#43 Aug 12 2011 at 3:05 PM Rating: Default
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
It could be that the ruling (R)judge was making a statement for the times that the judicial system isn't totally under the sway of congress. It could be the (R)judge is looking for his/her 15 minutes in the spotlight. Or maybe the judge just thought it constitutional for congress to mandate healthcare. It doesn't necessarily make a statement about whether or not they personally think it should be.

Edit: I missed the necro post part... Smiley: bah

Funny, i missed this thread, or ignored it, or spaced it out..hah!

Edited, Aug 12th 2011 11:11pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#44 Aug 12 2011 at 3:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You're running a bit late there. This was bumped in regards to today's ruling where it was (R)(D) against and (D) for.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#45 Aug 12 2011 at 3:12 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Jophiel wrote:
You're running a bit late there. This was bumped in regards to today's ruling where it was (R)(D) against and (D) for.

In that case my late-comment still applies...sort of.

Edited, Aug 12th 2011 11:15pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#46 Aug 12 2011 at 4:05 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
An update!

In a 2-1 ruling, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the law unconstitutional. This time, it was a Republican appointed and Democratic appointed judge ruling against and a Democratic appointee ruling for. Not much in the way of details yet except that they overturned the lower court ruling that the entire law must be thrown out -- removing the mandate would leave the rest of the law constitutional in their opinion. There's one more Appeals case pending, I believe.


Was this an appeal of the same case we discussed earlier? Or one of the other ones? Kinda head deep in code at work and don't have time to look anything up.


I'll repeat something I'm reasonably sure I said earlier (if not in this thread, than another): The party of the executive who nominated a judge isn't a 100% determinant of that judge's position on even hot button political issues. Doubly so the farther down you go in the judicial system. I guess I'm still not sure what the point of focusing on the judge mix in terms of Dem or GOP appointments is.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#47 Aug 12 2011 at 4:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Different case.

1-1 in the Appeals level now with one more case to get ruled.

Edited, Aug 12th 2011 5:09pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 368 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (368)