Pepper sprayed for public safety.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

HCR should die 9-0.

Why? For once you've actually gone and expressed an opinion on the legal merits, so I'd like to see you back it up.*

Given Scalia's decision in Raich, how could Congress not reasonably see the individual mandate as a necessary and proper means to regulating interstate commerce?

* Of course you won't.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

* Of course you won't.

i ain't rising to your bait. you no more can direct me than obama can direct an article 3 judge.

as to how scalia can justify whatever, i give my proxy to what is said in the opinion. if your opinion can be another's there you go.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

i ain't rising to your bait. you no more can direct me than obama can direct an article 3 judge.

as to how scalia can justify whatever, i give my proxy to what is said in the opinion. if your opinion can be another's there you go.

Yes, that's about what I expected from you.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Yes, that's about what I expected from you.

I really don't think you understand the proper role of a moderator. You're not here to bash the lesser posters. Do you really think your insults improve this board?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I really don't think you understand the proper role of a moderator. You're not here to bash the lesser posters. Do you really think your insults improve this board?

I'm sorry I bashed you. I think I speak for the entire board when I say that it would have been entertaining and edifying to see you attempt a constitutional attack on the individual mandate. But discretion is the better part of valor, and I can well understood why you would rather just keep ducking the question.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm sorry I bashed you. I think I speak for the entire board when I say that it would have been entertaining and edifying to see you attempt a constitutional attack on the individual mandate. But discretion is the better part of valor, and I can well understood why you would rather just keep ducking the question.

come to the Detroit board and see how well my posters get treated.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm sorry I bashed you. I think I speak for the entire board when I say that it would have been entertaining and edifying to see you attempt a constitutional attack on the individual mandate. But discretion is the better part of valor, and I can well understood why you would rather just keep ducking the question.

I don't usually reply to the same post twice, but given that all of you have said that Scalia could have no valid way to justify it, and given that you've all said that only politics gave rise to the challenge, any Circuit Court decision that has killed the law AND the only reason there is any possibility any of the Supremes is even considering killing it, what possible reason would anyone have for engaging you?

But, here, I'll tell you what Scalia can do, accepting all of your biases i list above: Scalia can over rule that tiny part of whatever decision you feel limits him here. And of course he will, because he is solely motivated by politics.

Any other questions?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't think his staff had to explain anything, but I do think they were happy to take the chance to keep the story alive another day.

The whole exchange does seem to age well. It almost seems that if Obama can win a newscycle just by baiting the Rs into opening their mouths,

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

i ain't rising to your bait. you no more can direct me than obama can direct an article 3 judge.

as to how scalia can justify whatever, i give my proxy to what is said in the opinion. if your opinion can be another's there you go.

Ty, you should know by now, Hank does not read stuff, whether blogs or opinions. I suspect he has someone who reads posts here to him.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

come to the Detroit board and see how well my posters get treated.

Do you honestly never tire of this?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Do you honestly never tire of this?

do i tire of trying to help Ty grow? would you have me act as you toadies approving his every burp? how would he improve?

do you know anything of Ty's professional life? since I have begun giving Ty constructive feedback his career has taken off. so even if I did tire, I could hardly quit now. He needs to move up more professionally and only I can help him.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I don't usually reply to the same post twice, but given that all of you have said that Scalia could have no valid way to justify it, and given that you've all said that only politics gave rise to the challenge, any Circuit Court decision that has killed the law AND the only reason there is any possibility any of the Supremes is even considering killing it, what possible reason would anyone have for engaging you?

As a matter of legal analysis, I think past precedents constrain the Court to find the individual mandate constitutional. Your post earlier today suggests you feel otherwise. Both of us have been to law school, so we both know how to have this conversation. You just don't want to. I suspect that you don't want to because you don't give two rips about constitutional law and don't really have an informed view, but that's just my suspicion.

But, here, I'll tell you what Scalia can do, accepting all of your biases i list above: Scalia can over rule that tiny part of whatever decision you feel limits him here. And of course he will, because he is solely motivated by politics.

Yes. The Supreme Court can absolutely decide to overrule its prior decisions as necessary to reach the result it wants, including the decision Scalia himself wrote in Raich. You are absolutely right that if Scalia need not be limited by the constitutional principles he himself previously said were the law of the land. I think you were being sarcastic, but if he does that, it will be very hard to understand as anything but political.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I think you were being sarcastic, but if he does that, it will be very hard to understand as anything but political.

i was saying if you are right, and the only reason the whole argument wasn't thrown out as a 9-0 affirmance of the law (not even whether they are affirming 1 decision or contrary ones) is politics then why not throw out everything. You better hope your'e wrong about the 5 likely to kill this monster being solely politically motivated cuz if they are they can kill it despite precedent.

like in gore/Bush the Supreme's stole the sacred right to vote w/o justification, stopping the Godlike good work of all those fucked up Dems in florida. give me a fucking break.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

i was saying if you are right, and the only reason the whole argument wasn't thrown out as a 9-0 affirmance of the law (not even whether they are affirming 1 decision or contrary ones) is politics then why not throw out everything. You better hope your'e wrong about the 5 likely to kill this monster being solely politically motivated cuz if they are they can kill it despite precedent.

like in gore/Bush the Supreme's stole the sacred right to vote w/o justification, stopping the Godlike good work of all those fucked up Dems in florida. give me a fucking break.

If I were betting my own money, I would bet that they uphold the individual mandate by a 6-3, 7-2 or 8-1 vote. I think Roberts doesn't want his Court to be known for a divisive, highly-charged, partisan 5-4 decision on this issue. I think Kennedy will go with him, and he will try to get Scalia and Alito to go along. Thomas is a lost cause. I tend to think that oral argument doesn't affect the outcome much, in this or any case, so I think people are overreacting to what happened last week.

But I wouldn't bet much money on it.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If I were betting my own money, I would bet that they uphold the individual mandate by a 6-3, 7-2 or 8-1 vote. I think Roberts doesn't want his Court to be known for a divisive, highly-charged, partisan 5-4 decision on this issue. I think Kennedy will go with him, and he will try to get Scalia and Alito to go along. Thomas is a lost cause. I tend to think that oral argument doesn't affect the outcome much, in this or any case, so I think people are overreacting to what happened last week.

But I wouldn't bet much money on it.

It's going to get blown up 5-4. I can't see any evidence whatsoever that Roberts gives a shit what his court is known for, the right side of the bench has its marching orders / idealogical imperatives / policy mandates to uphold, and they know why they're there. And of course Obama fucked it up out the gate by not going single-payer and instead trying to find some way to keep the insurance companies in business.