Y2HH

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 07:20 PM) Is there something he could actually be sued for? It'd be very nice if there was some penalty for this sometime. Doubtful, there is probably no legal precident for this yet, it's relatively new territory. But I'd have to say a celebrity doing something like this is absolutely careless, and endangerment in the least. Given that people like the Black Panthers have basically issued threats about bringing Zimmerman to justice and posting bounties for his whereabouts, if I was this person, I'd be somewhere else.

Speaking of this case, douchenozzle resident hollywood piece of s*** Spike Lee took it upon himself to tweet Zimmerman's home address...probably to stupidly and carelessly incite retaliation violence. Big problem, though, this f***ing moron tweeted the wrong address, and some poor lady has been getting harassed...and should probably fear for her life. What a f***ing dick. I hope this f***ing asshole gets sued for everything he has and brought up on charges for potentially putting an innocent persons life at risk.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 06:03 PM) Correct, which of course means it'll never happen, and we're stuck with the current system, so we may as well start nominating justices when they're in their 30's to give us the best chance of them never leaving. Plus, short paper trail. Haven't they been getting younger and younger? The system, as it's set up, is terrible. There should always be term limits for positions of vast power.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 05:49 PM) What's your proposed solution to dealing with that? Searches for guns? Much more restrictive purchase requirements? I'm game. Might have to wait until a Republican justice retires for some of it to become constitutional though. The people doing this aren't acquiring them legally...so restrictive purchasing requirements don't do anything. All that does is make it harder for law abiding citizens, who arent the problem to begin with. And this is a discussion that would require a thread of its own...because it would be a long discussion. Edit, for reference, people I know (police) have confiscated many guns in their day...not one was legally acquired, registered, or otherwise. Not one. And yes I realize this is anecdotal, but it's reality...

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 05:21 PM) Not necessarily. What would have happened is that the recounts in Florida would have continued. When the decision was made it looked likely that Gore would win, but further review indicated that it wasn't as clear. However, the ruling specifically halted the recount and handed the Presidency to Bush. They could not have done the same for Gore, and they really, really had to stretch the definition of "logic" to reach the conclusions they did while admitting so at the same time. The point is that the recounts would have contuinued for the same politically driven reasoning if there was 5 liberals. That's still wrong, because it's politically driven determination.

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 05:25 PM) So let's all go back to the Wild West days where everyone is packing heat and we can take care of our own problems. I'm not an anti-gun nut, I own one but I keep it in my home for protection, I just don't like the fact there are jerkoffs like Zim running around determining who is suspicious or not and taking a police officer's job into his hands, when there isn't an obvious crime happening (unless it's against the law to be young, black and wear a hoodie). Like all the jerkoffs running around with guns in cities where it's illegal to do so? Because that's awesome, too.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 05:19 PM) Every year before 2012. So all the years that didn't end up mattering.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 05:17 PM) It's never digressing to bring up just how terrible Bush v Gore was in a discussion of the modern court. That just highlights the problem. If there were 5 liberal justices on the panel, Gore would have been president...and that's JUST as wrong, IMO, as what happened.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 05:15 PM) Only because (when healthy) he's moving so fast into the lane that you can't see what he's wearing. Usually he's just a red blur. When is this?!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 05:14 PM) There really is something that seems off if the way this country is governed is grandfathered in based on which party's President was in power when 5 of the justices were appointed versus which party's president was in power when 4 of the justices were appointed. (Especially if that grandfathering decides the next president, but somehow I feel like that's digressing). IF that's the way it's going to be then there ought to be at least term limits on the court so that the court can shift as society shifts more readily. I agree 100%...this is exactly what I was attempting to convey...but since you did it better, I'll just use this.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 05:09 PM) And similarly, if a Republican is elected and Justice Kennedy retires, that'll be the last of Roe V. Wade. Exactly, and I amended my post to include something to that effect. It doesn't belong in that court.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 05:00 PM) Your belief systems are tired directly to your ideology. What your suggesting is interpretation based strictly on what? Just whether document X says expressly that you can do Y? If the Framers didn't think about it are we screwed forever? How you view the role of government in your life is going to matter when deciding if X is a power under the Constitution. Personally I think the liberal/conservative leanings of the Court has less to do with which side you're on for various issues, and more about different governmental philosophies, i.e. the role of government and the interplay between local, State and Federal governments. It's not an easy subject to discuss, that's for sure. In law, I don't feel politics or political leanings belong in any regard...and I know it's impossible for people to not be "infected" by their political beliefs/ideologies...so what I'm wishing for is mostly impossible...but I think politics in our courts have reached a level never before seen...it's clearly a divided supreme court now...and I guarantee liberals are hoping one of the conservative justices dies or is forced to step down so a Democratic president can replace them, before another republican president comes around. And why? For the exact reasons I stated shouldn't belong in that court. Because they know they'd get a 5th liberal justice. And that's that. Just like conservatives are hoping (and praying) that one of the 5 conservatives on that panel does NOT die or step down.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 04:49 PM) I was referring to the PPACA, not the existing structure. They didn't write the PPACA themselves, either.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 04:43 PM) The funny thing is that a fully socialized healthcare system is plainly constitutional but this cobbled together patch based on conservative thinktanks is what we get instead. Right, because the conservatives of this nation, throughout history, all by their little bitty selves, founded, implemented and wrote all the laws surrounding what we have.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 04:36 PM) I understand your point and why you're arguing what you are. But isn't that also what you wanted? The police brought it to the DA and he decided not to press charges. No, because what he wanted was for charges to be pressed. Heh.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 04:27 PM) Y2hh, And I made a general point about the fact that in my experience, insurance companies are very good at ensuring their profitability. Maybe health insurance companies are the only exception, I dont deal with them that often, which is why I said "insurance companies", not "health insurance companies." Regardless it was about the fact that Im sure the health insurance companies will find a way to make money or change policies. They arent just going to sit and lose money, that was the point, and if youd like to disagree with it, so be it. Im not about to get into an argument over profit margins, because that really had nothing to do with the statement. Well they'd have to find a new way to make money or they'd go out of business. That's not what I'm disagreeing with you about. Any for profit business tries to find a way to make money or change policies for the reason I stated above. As for insurance companies (non health), I really dislike their business practices because unlike Health insurers, they're under almost NO rules/regulations whatsoever about costs, etc...they just do whatever they want...and get away with it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 03:20 PM) You also have an overwhelming number of legal scholars who, until today, felt pretty sure that the SC would find that mandate clearly constitutional. So you can't fault the liberal justices for supporting what most constitutional scholars believed was the proper interpretation of the commerce and N&P clauses. Kennedy's concern appears to be over the government defining a "limiting principle," but previous Commerce rulings required no such standard and, besides, limiting principles already exist in previous conservative rulings and aren't expanded by the ACA. There have been plenty of legal scholars that have said the opposite, too. Yes, I can fault them for supporting something. They're job isn't to "support" anything, it's to intrepret the law. And again, you keep pointing to "most constitutional scholars" simply because they happen to agree with your opinion on it, while totally disregarding the OTHER constitutional scholars that said it was unconstitutional. The way I see it, they're basing their opinions strictly on a political ideology. As for the highest court in the land usually voting 5-4 on landmark cases...shows that their opinions are based on political affiliations, not blind interpretation of the law. I find it hard -- no, impossible -- to believe that these huge cases always end up 5-4 and politics aren't playing a role. Our highest court has problem, and that's IMO, they're infected by politics.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 04:14 PM) I remember asking kap this way back when, but why? What's the point of the for-profit insurance industry? What innovations are there? What social good does it serve? What benefits does it actually offer over single-payer aside from ideological preferences. the overhead costs at private insurances are typically significantly higher than Medicare, so there's no gains there. I don't know...I don't work for a for profit health insurer...but who are you, or anyone else for that matter, to say they can't exist in a free market? Don't like for profit insurance companies...then don't do business with them.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 03:46 PM) I think you completely missed the point, I said "insurance companies" not just limited to medical insurance. That being said, they are still making a profit, which is not that common in today's economy. Insurance companies for the most part dont lose money, that is the point. Its not about how much profit they make, its about the fact they almost always make profit. I didn't miss the point. This is about Health Insurance companies, in a health insurance thread...so bringing non health insurance companies, even if they're other types of insurance companies, into the conversation is irrelevant...they're NOT the same business. And insurance companies, including health insurance companies, do lose money...so you have no point. You can't say "for the most part" and try to make a point about it...as it stands, their profit margins are extremely low (2-4%), and if something goes wrong, such as losing the wrong contract, they actually DO post losses. Again, they don't almost always make profits. Good companies make profits, regardless of industry. There have been PLENTY of health insurance, and other insurance companies that have lost money and/or went out of business. But keep pretending it doesn't happen...because I can already see that's what you're doing.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 03:52 PM) And of course, executive compensation is counted as an expense. ...in every industry, so that's irrelevant. Profit margins are profit margins are profit margins. Fact remains that health insurers aren't making tons of money like everyone continuously claims they are. Most (not all mind you), but most make profits...but not massive profits that people presume.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 03:14 PM) Retreat? How can he retreat if he's got someone on top of him beating the crap out of him? Given the facts of this case the requirement to retreat poses the exact same problems as the stand your ground law does. No one knows when the fight started or how it started. Zimmerman's story can be the exact same with the added caveat that he wasn't able to retreat because Martin jumped him and started wailing on him. He was lucky to have his concealed carry weapon on him and shoot him as he was on top of him. He's already saying he WAS retreating/giving up the chase when the confrontation occurred.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 03:07 PM) That's kinda silly, everyone has personal political and judicial philosophies that guide their decisions. That doesn't mean they are making rulings that they know aren't correct interpretations of the law but are being explicitly politically partisan. BTW that's why elected judges are such a dumb idea! Some more great reasoning from Scalia: So much for making reasoned, legal arguments and not dumb polemics. It's not silly. Yes, you can have personal philosophies...but they should NEVER be used to guide your decision. Their job is to interpret constitutional law, as written. Period. Their job is NOT to interpret said set of laws based on their ideals. The entire reason they say justice is blind...is that VERY reason. And yes, this court is explicitly and politically partisan one side or the other. That's why nearly every vote is 5-4. The only time you see a vote go higher than that, either direction, is when the law is pretty damn clear. But right now, what's going on in there is PURE idealism...you have 4 "liberal" justices defending the health care law and 5 "conservatives" attacking it. Seriously, what the f*** is that? I don't think my opinion that the highest justices in the land should be completely representative of BLIND justice is silly at all.

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 03:07 PM) It's my son ...it's not a very complicated case, if Zimmerman stays in his car and waits for the police to handle the sitiuation, Msrtin would be alive today. Zimmerman acted like an overzealous idiot and is the reason a kid is dead. Simple. See what I mean? Damn me for jumping to another conclusion. I based my guess on his sex solely on the length of his hair... Yes, we agree Zimmerman was overzealous...but that's not showing he broke any laws leading to the incident...and that's the issue. There are too many unknowns right now to throw the guy in prison and throw away the key...just because it "looks like it".

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 02:56 PM) I'm reading that the arguments today pretty much ignored precedence. Good thing we all hate activist judges. edit: jesus christ Scalia actually brought up the "broccoli mandate" GOP talking point. I don't think I can view this court as having any real, objective legitimacy any more, regardless of the final ruling. Yea, I'm not a fan of that court...either side of it. Because there should be no "sides" on that panel. I dislike the fact that 4 are "liberals" and 5 are "conservatives". If you are either, you shouldn't be allowed on that bench. Period. If at any point in your history as a lawyer or judge, you based a decision on any sort of liberal/democrat/republican/conservative idealism, you should never be allowed on the supreme court...and that can be shown about each and every one of them.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 02:51 PM) From my point of view...if he doesn't have the gun, he never starts this. The psychology on what having the ability to kill does to a person is pretty clear, they're consistently more aggressive toward conflict. Take the gun away, and he doesn't get out of his car pissed off at the fact that "These assholes always get away". I'm not a lawyer, but in court, I see his lawyer striking that down as speculative and/or circumstantial. And the judge upholds it as such. You can speculate all you want on Zimmerman's words, but you don't know for sure. Beyond a reasonable doubt means you need to know for sure. Right now, reason to doubt exists...and without more evidence, I don't see it happening. Whatever he said that's scrambled...people are saying it was something racist, but that's PURE speculation and assumption, unless they can clearly decipher it, and it ends up being racially charged...they have nothing. Right now, it's unfair to simply assume he said something racial, because nobody knows if he did or not.