StrangeSox

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 12:26 PM) See my post above yours. While it's an extreme and simplified example...it's an example that highlights that just because both means lead to the same end, it doesn't necessarily mean they're both allowed and/or legal. They're not really different means, though. The PED analogy doesn't hold because it's introducing a new mechanism to the system, not a rewording of the same mechanism.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 12:07 PM) Recently I had to argue a case before the 1st District Appellate Court (state). My partners have done a lot of oral arguments in their careers, so during my prep they were giving me a lot of pointers. One of them was to expect ridiculous off the wall hypotheticals (much like Scalia's broccoli one). The reason why was two fold - (1) the judges know the law better than you do, so they're testing to see if they can move you from your position. They try to get you off your game to see if your position really stands up. (2) entertainment - judges get bored of 5 hours of legal argument. They like to spice things up a bit. I see that a lot in what Scalia does. Yes, he's already got his position on these issues (as does every other judge) before oral arguments begin. So why not have some fun? Poke around and see what you can get the attorneys to say. Scalia's broccoli thing (among other arguments he made) wasn't a "ridiculous off the wall hypothetical." It's been a GOP talking point for a while.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 08:59 AM) So this still comes back to a drafting issue, not a legitimate Constitutional argument. They could have chosen to raise everyone's taxes and offered health insurance credits instead. The end result would have been identical. Gotta repeat this question here. Clearly, raising everyone's taxes via a payroll tax or something similar and then granting a tax credit for those who have insurance would be constitutional. How is it that the exact same outcome but achieved through a slightly different mechanism that results in the same thing is unconstitutional?

QUOTE (Brian @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 11:31 AM) He's on the Adam Sandler path. Same material, new movie. I was never much of an Anchorman fan so don't care about sequel. I like the original but I've gotta assume a sequel will be repetitive and bad.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 09:14 AM) watch his appearance on Conan as RB a few days ago if you havent already. Jazz Flute! Will Ferrel is always hilarious when I see him on shows (his recent appearance on The Daily Show was fantastic) but he always does the dumbest movies.

Supreme Court May Be Most Conservative in Modern History

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 08:54 AM) You are purposefully ignoring the difference between choice to buy and forced to buy in every last one of the examples you listed above, which skirts around the entire conversation. You don't HAVE to buy a Chevy Volt, a house, a high efficiency furnace, or A/C unit for the tax credit(s)/incentives offered for such purchases. It's a choice coupled with an incentive to "take part". What they did with this was remove the choice...you must buy said product from private business, or you get penalized for not. These examples you cited are nothing close to the same thing. You're entire bolded section makes zero sense. You aren't paying ANY higher amount of tax for not taking part in purchasing a volt or a house...because you don't "have" to buy either. That's how easily they'd knock down your argument if you attempted it in court, by the way. So this still comes back to a drafting issue, not a legitimate Constitutional argument. They could have chosen to raise everyone's taxes and offered health insurance credits instead. The end result would have been identical. But now it's some egregious assault on liberty and freedom and the Constitution.

In the parade of horribles of recent state legislation, this one rates pretty low.

All it takes is one anonymous leak, though. If I were a doctor in PA, I'd be requesting that information from every company while looking up the mailing addresses of the editors of every major newspaper in the state.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Mar 29, 2012 -> 03:47 PM) Same. I hate reading fiction and I got through Game of Thrones' 800+ pages very quickly. Great characters, great stories. QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 07:29 AM) Couldn't really wait for season 2 to start and am already a third of the way through the second book. Very interested in Daenarys's story line in the second book but she's only appeared briefly so far You guys only have about 3500 more pages to catch up with the series! The second book is my favorite so far. First and third are about equal, fourth kinda dragged and the fifth picked it back up again.

QUOTE (Tex @ Mar 29, 2012 -> 03:41 PM) I am teaching The Giver for the first time. It seems to be a middle school classic so I am certain more than a couple people here have read it. Those that read it, what would you want eight graders to learn from it? My wife taught it (to seventh graders) last fall. I can ask her about that.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 7, 2012 -> 09:27 AM) This one usually dies a quick death, but why not try? I just finished Cormac McCarthy's The Road and it was every bit as good as the reviews. The writing fit so tight with the mood and tone of the piece. I finished it in a couple evenings and seriously had trouble sleeping last night. I have not seen the movie, and probably will resist renting it. My son presented it to me this Christmas, I hope he isn't hoping I die. The movie was decent but the book definitely had much deeper dread and despair.

But they didn't call it a tax!!!! Therefore unconstitutional! Scalia tipped his hand by relying on tea party talking points. And negotiating points that didn't even make it into the final bill.

They're going to strike down a constitutional goal with constitutional means because of drafting language.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Mar 29, 2012 -> 03:30 PM) Yeah, if this results in game only costing like $30-40 because they no longer have to make discs, make boxes, ship them across the world, and go through any sort of retailer, then that would be awesome. But I have a feeling they are using this to increase their own revenue, not decrease our prices. I am FIRMLY against this. lol, this will never result in games getting cheaper, only profits rising. Oh, and probably more DLC so that a "full" game costs $100 or so. I'm glad I take a while to get through games and usually pick them up new for $30-40 anyway.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Mar 29, 2012 -> 01:00 PM) I would imagine they are tied to your Online account as well. So if your system dies, you boot up your new system and log in to your PSN ID or Xbox Gamertag and then re-download all your s***. Much like in the way a Steam account works. But it would probably take forever to re-download a whole library, and this idea is just awful. No more sharing games with friends, or even playing a game at a friends house. This is already how it works for XBL purchases. I had to replace my HDD but was able to re-download any games I had previously purchased. Computer games have had similar controls forever.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Mar 29, 2012 -> 01:47 PM) Justice Thomas, in contrast, I don't believe has asked a question from the bench in six years. He doesn't ask questions during oral arguments hardly ever. But his written opinions, while I disagree with them strongly, show that he understands the issues at hand and has a pretty consistent philosophy.

Your Guide to the Idiotic Racist Backlash Against Trayvon Martin

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 29, 2012 -> 11:15 AM) I don't know the actual words used when they described this...did they specifically say concrete? I ask because it comes to my attention that he had grass stains on his shirt, so they say? Perhaps it was dirt/grass he had his head knocked into? I don't know, I never read the official report. Zimmerman claims his head was being bashed into the sidewalk.

Mark Tushnet with a not-so-kind review of Scalia's actions during the ACA hearings:

But it certainly doesn't look like someone who was having his head repeatedly smashed into the concrete.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 29, 2012 -> 09:35 AM) I think you are pushing the envelope a bit with the conspiracy thing, I don't think they made it big and complex for that reason. It was big and complex because it is f***ing Congress. You are certainly right that the Dems will say that - that the GOP now "owns" health care, that they actively worked to reinstate lifetime limits and pre-existing condition requirements. And they will be right, sort of. Both parties COULD have come to a way of eliminating those, without the mandate, if they wanted to. Congress is just too much a clusterf*** to pull it off. I don't know how you do that without the mandate or without a significantly more progressive bill than what was passed.

No, other parts, like reformation of Indian health care policies or something like that.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 29, 2012 -> 09:12 AM) Sort of. It certainly does make the law difficult to implement in some aspects. But that is for Congress to repair. It is for SCOTUS to find and determine problematic aspects of the law, not to remove dozens of related legislative items because in their subjective view it makes the law less effective. FWIW parts of the law are sustainable, parts aren't. Ginsburg got into that during oral arguments.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 29, 2012 -> 07:35 AM) Ok...I'm going to be the first "white guy" to say it aloud now...because it's reached the point of cliche. Regardless of your race, religion or tribal affiliation, if you weren't already wearing a "hoodie" and carrying an Ice Tea (like Lostfan), on twitter, on facebook, on the news, in public, or elsewhere in order to make a statement...stop and don't bother. It's a bandwagon of "look at me" now, and you missed your opportunity to be original. Thank you for your time. -The Cliche Police The Daily Show did a good job of making fun of the media over this.