Obamacare Going Down?

[rvg]

But the article just showed that the judges 80% of the time do not strictly follow party lines, including Roberts.

Most of them kinda do. Scalia, Thomas and Alito are the conservative wing. Ginsburg, Kagan and The Wise Latina are the die hard libs. Roberts is mostly conservo, Breyer is mostly liberal, and Kennedy ends up making all the decisions.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Most of them kinda do. Scalia, Thomas and Alito are the conservative wing. Ginsburg, Kagan and The Wise Latina are the die hard libs. Roberts is mostly conservo, Breyer is mostly liberal, and Kennedy ends up making all the decisions.

Of course. But looking at the results as a whole​, it would be dishonest to claim that we have the equivalent of puppets on the SCOTUS who simply follow their ideological masters. What we have are nine judges who have strong convictions about Constitutional law backed by logical rationale who nevertheless do make decisions as they themselves see fit from such rationale. Such strong convictions skew the way they vote into somewhat dividable lines of "conservative" and "liberal" but these terms shown by the article are not very accurate and thus show a weakness in the argument of them being stooges of the president who put them there.

And as Sasaki has just enlightened me, it is quite obvious that when you subscribe to the originalist strain of thought, there is no fluidity to what is the correct decision in a case, it is right there, shown through the intentions of the author from his/her writings. So of course you would at least have a natural block of "conservatives" that all vote along similar lines. But this in no way indicates any sketchyness but simply that these originalist judges are all starting from common axioms they consider true and are all following the implications of these axioms to the reach the same conclusions.

[CountArach]

*Then again, I'd like to be wrong. If they shoot down the individual mandate and admit that individual freedom is THAT important, and that the government REALLY SHOULD stay out of your business, then that's a fantastic precedent to set. We could close down gitmo on that precedent. We could repeal the Patriot Act on that precedent. We could keep the feds out of state-legal Medical Marijuana programs with that precedent. We could do a lot of good with it. But unfortunately, I think they'll just shoot down the bill with specific wording, so nothing will change and no decent precedent will be set unless this Healthcare bill is the only thing on the table you feel is worth talking about, as far as the government being able to make you do things goes.

There's a lot of good that it could do, yes, but at the same time the implicatins of that sort of precedent are huge. All it takes is some nutjob to say that the Federal Emergency Services (or some other equivalent which just can't be done properly at state level) infringe on his liberty and should be a state responsibility and suddenly he has a potential precedent to draw upon. I don't like the individual mandate, but I think that there should be some way to get rid of it without the Supreme Court getting involved.

As for how liberal/conservative the supreme court is, one metric has found that this is the most conservative bench ever.

[rvg]

There's a lot of good that it could do, yes, but at the same time the implicatins of that sort of precedent are huge. All it takes is some nutjob to say that the Federal Emergency Services (or some other equivalent which just can't be done properly at state level) infringe on his liberty and should be a state responsibility and suddenly he has a potential precedent to draw upon.

Not really. His case would likely be totally different as in he'll get spanked by the lower courts and SCOTUS would refuse to hear the case.

I don't like the individual mandate, but I think that there should be some way to get rid of it without the Supreme Court getting involved.

It's too late for that now.

As for how liberal/conservative the supreme court is, one metric has found that this is the most conservative bench ever.

It's been like this since Renquist, but it's getting more liberal: at least David Souter and Sandra D. O'Connor were somewhat centrist. Elena Kagan and The Wise Latina both are outspoken liberals.

[Tsar Alexsandr]

The Native Americans were mostly nomadic or semi-nomadic and they seemed to do a good job of not making a mess of things. But the modern government very much desires stability in it's populace. They're easier to watch and control that way.

I'm still pretty young so yeah, I kind of am a nomad. I intend to settle down someday but when I do I want to live in a sustainable way. Growing my own food, not contributing to pollution, etc. But as I only make money from selling art, my funds are pretty limited. I am looking for what people might call "a real job" but no one has ever given me one. I live in Michigan and our economy here is horrible.

Well... single payer healthcare? No I don't think I would. Is healthcare really important? I don't want it. I can't afford it. But what is government for? Is it to govern matters of state or line our pockets? To support our every need? I don't think so. And I don't want to pay for services I don't use.

On a final note, I literally can't afford to pay it.

[gaelic cowboy]

Well... single payer healthcare? No I don't think I would. Is healthcare really important? I don't want it. I can't afford it. But what is government for? Is it to govern matters of state or line our pockets? To support our every need? I don't think so. And I don't want to pay for services I don't use.

There is a bit of an inconsistency here though have you ever had the occasion to use the millitary, police or judicury.

If you dont use any of those services or at least use the less than most should you be exempt from paying for them an all.

[Tsar Alexsandr]

There is a bit of an inconsistency here though have you ever had the occasion to use the millitary, police or judicury.

If you dont use any of those services or at least use the less than most should you be exempt from paying for them an all.

I've used the bare minimum of services from the government, but that's not the key to my argument either. I'm not arguing for an end to taxes for example. I'll pay taxes. I just don't want to be told I have to buy something if I don't want it. Isn't that an American right?

In Michigan we're required to pay for car insurance as well, and that's a horrible system. Lets say you pay the bare minimum state mandated insurance. Well if you get into an accident caused by a drunk driver but the drunk driver has better insurance, you owe him money. Even if you're hurt so bad you have to go to the hospital. If you get in any accident with the bare minimum insurance, you will be the one who pays. If you caused the accident or were the victim. So in my state at least, people pay for something that might as well not even exist. Except if you get into an accident without the minimum insurance here there is a very nasty penalty for that, naturally. It's like paying to not have insurance though, or worthless insurance anyhow.

I'd prefer that the healthcare bill didn't pass or wasn't mandatory.

[Strike For The South]

The Native Americans were mostly nomadic or semi-nomadic and they seemed to do a good job of not making a mess of things. But the modern government very much desires stability in it's populace. They're easier to watch and control that way.
.

False, before the introduction of the horse most Indian tribes were fairly stable and we're not nomads anymore becuase that's no way to conduct buisness. Not becuase big brother is keeping an eye on us.

Kids these days.,.....

[Tsar Alexsandr]

False, before the introduction of the horse most Indian tribes were fairly stable and we're not nomads anymore becuase that's no way to conduct buisness. Not becuase big brother is keeping an eye on us.

Kids these days.,.....

I'm not really protesting for the rights of nomads. But if I were, what would be wrong with that?

Indian tribes often moved north or south to avoid weather changes. I would call that semi-nomadic.

I agree it's not a good way to conduct business but there's more to life than money yes? Oh wait I'm poor. I forget that money is the be-all and end-all of America these days. But with more government involvement there is more of a paper trail to watch us with. Now if I was paranoid about that I'd probably avoid the internet, but I like the internet so I'm not going to do that. I also have nothing to hide. And I'm not afraid to say I'm not a fan of governmental control gaining more power, that's not a crime yet.

But it's not about governmental control either. It's about an added expense that I don't want.

It is about governmental control in the sense it's another mandated law requiring us to pay for more things. And I don't think that's their right. Someone might tell me to get out if I don't like it. Well maybe I will.

[ajaxfetish]

The Native Americans were mostly nomadic or semi-nomadic and they seemed to do a good job of not making a mess of things. But the modern government very much desires stability in it's populace. They're easier to watch and control that way.

The idea that the native tribes were in some kind of mystical harmony with nature is a recent myth, perhaps part of a sort of cultural atonement for the centuries of ridicule and persecution that preceded it. Natives were responsible for extensive and regular burning of forests, and the standard means of hunting bison before the introduction of the horse was very wasteful. The primary reason Native Americans didn't make more of a mess of things was numbers. Try to pack over 300 million Indians into the U.S., and their lifestyle wouldn't be any more sustainable than ours.

Ajax

[Papewaio]

Modern cities are far more efficient per capita and combined with dedicated farming tracts has a much smaller land area footprint per person than nomadic lifestyles.

The carrying capacity of Earth is far larger due to modern inventions. Nitrogen fixing for instance uses around 6% of the worlds energy and helps provide 2/3s of the worlds food that wouldn't be possible without it.

=][=

As for health insurance.

"Give us your destitute, your weak, your sick, your poor."

And then what? Leave them like that?

End result in the US is a very lopsided expensive medical system whose results don't look any better than Universal Health Care in other societies and is more expensive too.

Modern societies made health care universal to increase carrying capacities of their societies. UHA is in the same basket as progressive tax based on income level, police, firemen, army and other services.

UHA is part of a social contract. It doesn't mean you can't top it up with your own resources, it just means everyone will be treated at a minimum level.

[Tsar Alexsandr]

The idea that the native tribes were in some kind of mystical harmony with nature is a recent myth, perhaps part of a sort of cultural atonement for the centuries of ridicule and persecution that preceded it. Natives were responsible for extensive and regular burning of forests, and the standard means of hunting bison before the introduction of the horse was very wasteful. The primary reason Native Americans didn't make more of a mess of things was numbers. Try to pack over 300 million Indians into the U.S., and their lifestyle wouldn't be any more sustainable than ours.

Ajax

I think you re-evaluation of the recent myth is a recent myth.

They did burn forests, yes. So did all of our ancestors who started agriculture in their societies. Slash and burn agriculture was the beginning of agriculture. I live in Michigan where the local natives made a large clearing in the great woods here. It was pretty sizable. But a small dent compared to the stress and strain of a small American city.