Pepper sprayed for public safety.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Was this prohibited by the Mass Constitution?

No. Amusing (as in laughable) arguments were made that it was, and they lost early and often in court.

Of course, we have a court that is less politicized and has more credibility.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Was this prohibited by the Mass Constitution?

No one thought there was any constitutional problem with it at all, until it became imperative to oppose Obama. It used to be something supported by many Republicans, like Mitt and Newt, as a part of market-based healthcare reform. But when Obama adopted (previously Republican-supported) market-based healthcare reform proposals, they became socialism, and Republicans suddenly realized they were unconstitutional.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

No one thought there was any constitutional problem with it at all, until it became imperative to oppose Obama. It used to be something supported by many Republicans, like Mitt and Newt, as a part of market-based healthcare reform. But when Obama adopted (previously Republican-supported) market-based healthcare reform proposals, they became socialism, and Republicans suddenly realized they were unconstitutional.

It won't be long before the supreme court disagrees.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

No one thought there was any constitutional problem with it at all, until it became imperative to oppose Obama. It used to be something supported by many Republicans, like Mitt and Newt, as a part of market-based healthcare reform. But when Obama adopted (previously Republican-supported) market-based healthcare reform proposals, they became socialism, and Republicans suddenly realized they were unconstitutional.

My point is that this is not a federal issue. If Mass wants to enact it and it is not prohibited under its constitution, have at it.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

No. Amusing (as in laughable) arguments were made that it was, and they lost early and often in court.

Of course, we have a court that is less politicized and has more credibility.

The question was rhetorical. See my post to Ty.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

My point is that this is not a federal issue. If Mass wants to enact it and it is not prohibited under its constitution, have at it.

You are correct that states don't have the same Commerce Clause constraint. Nonetheless, the constitutional objection is manifestly being made in bad faith, or opportunistically, depending on whether the Republican in question has any principles.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You are correct that states don't have the same Commerce Clause constraint. Nonetheless, the constitutional objection is manifestly being made in bad faith, or opportunistically, depending on whether the Republican in question has any principles.

Isn't a really good answer to a "bad faith" litigation claim the fact that a Judge agreed with it?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

The question was rhetorical. See my post to Ty.

club your post was quite clear. the only reason these guys could argue is they aren't interested in actually discussing the issues.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You are correct that states don't have the same Commerce Clause constraint. Nonetheless, the constitutional objection is manifestly being made in bad faith, or opportunistically, depending on whether the Republican in question has any principles.

Whatever you say.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Isn't a really good answer to a "bad faith" litigation claim the fact that a Judge agreed with it?

Made that argument many times, have you?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

club your post was quite clear. the only reason these guys could argue is they aren't interested in actually discussing the issues.

I would love to have a real discussion of the Commerce Clause issues with you, but you just hide behind the notion that the Constitution means whatever a few judges say it means -- the sort of thing that would have gotten you lynched by Earl-Warren-hating Republicans a few years ago.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

The question was rhetorical. See my post to Ty.

Sometimes, even rhetorical questions deserve answers.

I thought you'd want to understand Romney's health care bill and the constitutional challenge to it better.

Sorry for answering a question you didn't want answered.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Has anyone else noted Florida is a winner-take-all state with 50 delegates?

If the Stiff wins, he's instantly back in the race and has a good margin. If the Crook wins, he's way ahead with two states in a row and it will take a number of wins in proportional rep states to catch up.

So whoever is ahead after Florida has a very good chance of staying ahead until as late as Super Tuesday, even if they falter in subsequent primaries.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Has anyone else noted Florida is a winner-take-all state with 50 delegates?

If the Stiff wins, he's instantly back in the race and has a good margin. If the Crook wins, he's way ahead with two states in a row and it will take a number of wins in proportional rep states to catch up.

So whoever is ahead after Florida has a very good chance of staying ahead until as late as Super Tuesday, even if they falter in subsequent primaries.

Two polls this morning showing Gingrich up by 9% in Florida. I predict Club and Hank will shortly be saying much more positive things about Newt.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You all know my opinion of Fox.

But I admire the sheer artistry of this spin.

This part seems accurate:

When three women want to sign on for life with a man who is now running for president, I worry more about whether we’ll be clamoring for a third Gingrich term, not whether we’ll want to let him go after one.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...#ixzz1kILrp2ZO

After all, all kinds of women wanted to throw themselves at Clinton, and we'd have been a lot better off keeping him for a third term.