Judge allows states' healthcare suit to proceed

[Goobieman]

No, that's just your interpretation.

:lol:
Thanks for playing.

 

[Hicup]

No, that's just your interpretation. Laws are specific, to a point. But nothing can be written plain enough that everyone will read it the same way. Assuming that your intepretation of any comment is without question the only possible answer is hubris.

However, the question was, would you say OK or point to the constitution?

If it were me, I'd litigate, pointing to the Constitution? What's wrong with that? Smae thing that this lawsuit is doing, isn't it?

Tim-

 

[Patria Antiqua]

Interesting that you bring up guns.

Breyer, dissent, McDonald v Chicago



According to this, if Breyer is consistent, he opposes the court actions agianst CA Prop 8 and would have opposed the decision on Roe v Wade.

Now... do you think that is REALLY the case, or was Breyer picking and choosing the application of this argument according to how he wants the decision to turn?

Some righties perhaps, not me. I outlined what judicial activism actually is, and I stand by it.

I actually thought that Walker's ruling in Prop 8 (Although I disagree with the application of the law) was technically correct. Same with Roe v Wade, inter alia, that said, you have not answered the questions pointed at you like a big fat red target. You're new here, I see that, but you can't avoid direct questions, unless you want to marginalize yourself toot sweet.

Tim-

The uncomplicated answer is that I think "judicial activism" is a nonsense concept. It's a boogeyman for conservatives to blame their failures on.

However, just to be nice, no and no. I don't think case qualifies either, but I am amused at the right's readiness to try and circumvent the electorate via courts after all of their rhetoric against exactly those methods in California.

Oh, and about the Bryer thing, I don't see any inconsistency.

 

[Boo Radley]

:lol:
Thanks foir playing.

Anytime, but I see you won't answer the question or address the reason for the question. You first divert, failing to realize that different legal situations demand different responses, then flipppantly retreat. That's you call of course, but it doesn't advance your argument at all.

 

[Boo Radley]

If it were me, I'd litigate, pointing to the Constitution? What's wrong with that? Smae thing that this lawsuit is doing, isn't it?

Tim-

Exactly. So the point was, the people voting isn't magic. Laws don't disappear because a majority want something.

 

[Goobieman]

The uncomplicated answer is that I think "judicial activism" is a nonsense concept. It's a boogeyman for conservatives to blame their failures on.

And what do you call it when liberals blame their failures on it?

Oh, and about the Bryer thing, I don't see any inconsistency.

Of course not - willful ignorance is a powerful tool for that.
:roll:

 

[Boo Radley]

Not sure liberals do, but it would be a boogieman either way IMHO.

 

[Patria Antiqua]

And what do you call it when liberals blame their failures on it?

Scalia.

Of course not - willful ignorance is a powerful tool for that.
:roll:

I don't agree with you, so I'm wilfully ignorant. Why am I wilfully ignorant?

Because I don't agree with you!

Circular reasoning works because...

 

[Hicup]

PA -

However, just to be nice, no and no. I don't think case qualifies either, but I am amused at the right's readiness to try and circumvent the electorate via courts after all of their rhetoric against exactly those methods in California.

Careful now.. Obamacare did exactly the same thing, not only that, but it also bought the votes to get it through congress. By the way, who do you think the electorate, is? Do you think the electorate wanted Obamacare?

Boo - RE: Democratic majority

I'm not seeing how we disagree here?


Tim-

 

[Hicup]

Scalia.

I don't agree with you, so I'm wilfully ignorant. Why am I wilfully ignorant?

Because I don't agree with you!

Circular reasoning works because...

Because you are unable to articulate a valid reason for opposing something in one instance, and not opposing it in another identical instance? That's what they call hypocrisy.


Tim-

 

[Goobieman]

And, as long as someone else brought up guns and the court, lets look at some liberal judicial hinky-pinky

KOPEL: Sotomayor targets guns now - Washington Times

Re: McDonald v Chicago: Sotomayor's dissent contradicts confirmation testimony

The Breyer-Sotomayor-Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissent urged that Heller be overruled and declared, "In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense."

Contrast that with her Senate testimony: "I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller." And, "I understand how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans."

Yet her McDonald opinion shows her "understanding" that those many, many Americans are completely wrong to think they have a meaningful individual right.

To the Senate Judiciary Committee, Justice Sotomayor repeatedly averred that Heller is "settled law." The Associated Press reported that Sen. Mark Udall, Colorado Democrat, "said Sotomayor told him during a private meeting that she considers the 2008 ruling that struck down a Washington, D.C., handgun ban as settled law that would guide her decisions in future cases."

-Why did Sotomayor lie about her position on the 2nd?

-What regard do you suppose Sotomayor will have for Heller and McDonald when the issue of the 2nd returns to the SCotUS?

And the big question...
-Will liberals consider a future court where Sotomayor is part of a majority that overturns these issues of "settled law" an example of Judicial Activism?

 

[Goobieman]

Scalia.

This makes no sense whatsoevr

I don't agree with you, so I'm wilfully ignorant. Why am I wilfully ignorant?

No.. you're willfully ignorant because you -choose- to see no inconsistency, as that's the only way a thinking person could NOT see the inconsistency.

 

[Patria Antiqua]

Because you are unable to articulate a valid reason for opposing something in one instance, and not opposing it in another identical instance? That's what they call hypocrisy.


Tim-

I don't have a problem with any of these rulings or scenarios. Have I missed something?

PA -

Careful now.. Obamacare did exactly the same thing, not only that, but it also bought the votes to get it through congress. By the way, who do you think the electorate, is? Do you think the electorate wanted Obamacare?

Boo - RE: Democratic majority

I'm not seeing how we disagree here?


Tim-

I don't see how we disagree either, to be honest. I will say that Obama passed the bill going through proper channels, and I think the discussion about Obamacare's validity from a "majority rules" perspective ends there. Whether or not it's constitutional is another issue.

 

[Hicup]

And, as long as someone else brought up guns and the court, lets look at some liberal judicial hinky-pinky

KOPEL: Sotomayor targets guns now - Washington Times

Re: McDonald v Chicago: Sotomayor's dissent contradicts confirmation testimony



-Why did Sotomayor lie about her position on the 2nd?

-What regard do you suppose Sotomayor will have for Heller and McDonald when the issue of the 2nd returns to the SCotUS?

And the big question...
-Will liberals consider a future court where Sotomayor is part of a majority that overturns these issues of "settled law" a example of Judicial Activism?

If the 2nd is overturned, Sotomayer will learn real quick why the "framers" thought the second was a good idea!

Tim-

 

[Boo Radley]

PA -

Careful now.. Obamacare did exactly the same thing, not only that, but it also bought the votes to get it through congress. By the way, who do you think the electorate, is? Do you think the electorate wanted Obamacare?

Boo - RE: Democratic majority

I'm not seeing how we disagree here?


Tim-

Not sure yet if we do. But the quote I responded to was about what a majority wanted, voted for. Hence my response and example.

Not sure health care reform violates any consititutional laws, but that too will be settled in court. And if someone doesn't like a ruling, the common approach is to call it activism instead of going over the baisis for the ruling. Like stated above, I don't buy it as activisim.

As for what the people want, most of what is the bill, people do want. Two things skew the polling today:

1) Misinformation.

And

2) Not understanding that getting what want, things like coving those with pre-existing conditions covered requires changes, hence the mandate.

Like too many issues today, reasoned discourse too often slides into the hyperbolic and too often, factually challeneged.

 

[Patria Antiqua]

This makes no sense whatsoevr


No.. you're willfully ignorant because you -choose- to see no inconsistency, as that's the only way a thinking person could NOT see the inconsistency.

Oh, gotcha.

This is the "I'm right because I'm right because I'm right" argument.

 

[Goobieman]

If the 2nd is overturned, Sotomayer will learn real quick why the "framers" thought the second was a good idea!

GWB may have done several things wrong, but he unqustionably got it right when he picked his justices.

 

[Boo Radley]

If the 2nd is overturned, Sotomayer will learn real quick why the "framers" thought the second was a good idea!

Tim-

It won't happen in the US. But I do wish they'd clear up the langauge a little and rewrite the admendment. Just to make it more clear. But that would mean somoene certainly wouldn't liek the rewrite.

 

[Goobieman]

Oh, gotcha.
This is the "I'm right because I'm right because I'm right" argument.

Think so?
Show that the positions are consistent.

 

[Hicup]

Not sure yet if we do. But the quote I responded to was about what a majority wanted, voted for. Hence my response and example.

Not sure health care reform violates any consititutional laws, but that too will be settled in court. And if someone doesn't like a ruling, the common approach is to call it activism instead of going over the baisis for the ruling. Like stated above, I don't buy it as activisim.

As for what the people want, most of what is the bill, people do want. Two things skew the polling today:

1) Misinformation.

And

2) Not understanding that getting what want, things like coving those with pre-existing conditions covered requires changes, hence the mandate.

Like too many issues today, reasoned discourse too often slides into the hyperbolic and too often, factually challeneged.

Ah, I see, so we may disagree on some of the finer points, but concerning what is, and what is not judicial activism, we seem to agree.


Tim-

 

[Hicup]

GWB may have done several things wrong, but he unqustionably got it right when he picked his justices.

True Dat!


Tim-

 

[Patria Antiqua]

Think so?
Show that the positions are consistent.

I don't think that's how burdens of proof work. I've been waiting to see how they're inconsistent.

 

[Hicup]

It won't happen in the US. But I do wish they'd clear up the langauge a little and rewrite the admendment. Just to make it more clear. But that would mean somoene certainly wouldn't liek the rewrite.

Not sure I agree there. The Amendment is written pretty well, IMO. I once read a piece where several grammar experts verified that the grammar was consistent with the plain meaning and general understanding of the 2nd, as unequivocally about the rights of the individual America to own and bear arms, as not only a right of self defense, and of defense of one's nation, but in also defense against ones government propensity for tyranny.

I'll see if I can dig it up for you.


Tim-

 

[Goobieman]

I don't think that's how burdens of proof work. I've been waiting to see how they're inconsistent.

You can't see it on its face? Wow.
I'll type slowly and use small words.

Breyer argues that a court has no business overturning the will of the people, because the people better know how to deal with their issues than a judge.

The court, in CA Prop 8, did exactly that - overturned the will of the people.
Roe v Wade did just that - overturned the will of the people.

To be consistent, Breyer would oppose the court's actions re: CA Prop 8 and Roe v Wade, because he believes that a court has no business overturning the will of the people, because the people better know how to deal with their issues than a judge.

 

[Hicup]

Found it - J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment

Exceprt -

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' only to 'a well-educated electorate' — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

Tim-