Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 09:11 AM) One more flashlight for the Dems to get annoyed at, this one from my personal file. The incoming Republicans in the house have set up a "Youcut!" page, which is supposed to give "everyday americans" a chance to voice their opinion on what things they want to gut from the budget. Part of the stuff they've included are NSF grants. Specific, peer-reviewed, NSF grants. They come up with their own description of what the grant involves, and allow people to vote to cut them based on how funny their description of the grant sounds. Link. I'd much rather live in a society that questions government spending, even with an unreasonable eye, than one in which spending is NEVER questioned and is ALWAYS worthwhile.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 16, 2010 -> 12:35 PM) Exact same amount of evidence to say that it's wrong. I'm saying there's no evidence to suggest what the result would be. Let's see them play a game first eh?

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Dec 16, 2010 -> 12:20 PM) The Celtics are the beasts of the east. I've watched a few of their games and KG looks considerably better than he did last year. All I was saying that if we played the Heat in the playoffs that we'd have little to no shot. Would I love to be wrong? Of course. Zero evidence to back up this claim.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 15, 2010 -> 02:38 PM) But there is no written legal opinion which sets the standard as "Demonstrable effect on insterstate commerce" as you just wrote it. The correct standard is "Necessary and proper to the regulation of interstate commerce". Your wording is substantially more strict than the constitution. You're ignoring the law and confusing two areas of the law as being one. The Necessary and Proper clause only extends to existing enumerated powers of Congress. Here that's the commerce clause. The standard for the commerce clause is a demonstrable effect on interstate commerce AND activity (this judge, citing to two Supreme Court decisions). He ruled this provision didn't involve activity and didn't effect interstate commerce.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 15, 2010 -> 02:27 PM) Have you actually made an argument against that logic rather than just swearing at it? She's saying that inactivity which MIGHT later lead to activity effects interstate commerce. She's changing the standard from "demonstrable effect on interstate commerce" PLUS activity to "any conceivable potential effect on interstate commerce" EVEN WITHOUT ACTIVITY. Somehow she's saying this judge got it wrong because he got the law wrong even though she clearly doesn't apply the law correctly. If you guys would READ the opinion instead of relying on blogger commentary you'd have seen his LEGAL ANALYSIS.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 15, 2010 -> 02:22 PM) Doesn't it, though? How? Again, if you want to take the bulls*** logic train of the person Balta cited, then God help us all because Congress could regulate ANYTHING under the commerce clause. You all might like that (government saves!) but I sure as hell don't.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 15, 2010 -> 02:11 PM) Let me switch constitutional law professors here. Honestly, if you truly believe that bulls*** logic train, Congress could regulate ANYTHING in your life.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 15, 2010 -> 02:06 PM) Let me ask this...where in the constitution do we get the concept that the commerce clause's power ends at the point where it requires purchase of a product? You've granted that the Congress has a right to ban products, which is something not explicitly given by the constitution. The only way this judge was able to write his decision was to basically throw out the necessary and proper clause, such that he could say that Congress didn't have the authority to come up with laws regulating interstate commerce that aren't specifically allowed by the constitution. The judge himself couldn't make the argument that you're trying to make if he admitted that the Congress had a right to make laws that it deems necessary to regulating interstate commerce. If Congress has the authority to write laws necessary and proper to the regulation of interstate commerce, then Congress is fully within its rights to require purchase of a particular product. Because the entire basis for Congress' power under the clause is regulating interstate commerce! Banning products is regulating items that would effect interstate commerce. Sitting on your ass at home not buying health insurance doesn't effect interstate commerce, thus there's no basis for Congress to regulate it. You're completely ignoring the gigantic distinction he's making - interstate commerce requires activity. Here there is none. Thus Congress has no authority to regulate inactivity that doesn't effect interstate commerce.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 15, 2010 -> 01:58 PM) To elaborate...here is the direct quote from the judge's decision. Legal precedent for the necessary and proper clause has in fact done the exact opposite. Whether or not the commerce clause directly gives the government the right to require (or ban you) you to purchase a product, the Necessary and Proper clause is generally believed to expand the government's power to give it the authority to make laws that, as long as they don't violate something else in the constitution, enable it to regulate interstate commerce. This judge's opinion basically renders the necessary and proper clause powerless. For the N and P clause to apply it has to be based on some already recognized authority of Congress. He concluded that Congress has no authority in this specific instance under the Commerce Clause, thus the N and P clause is inapplicable.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 15, 2010 -> 01:42 PM) Things that the federal government declares to be criminal purchases are a fully appropriate precedent. "Purchases" being the key. And that's the big difference - saying you can't purchase X versus you MUST purchase X.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 15, 2010 -> 01:36 PM) The government infringes on your freedom to buy and not to buy things all the time. Like? (ignoring criminal things)

QUOTE (Tex @ Dec 15, 2010 -> 01:24 PM) huh? So a conservative will not argue with someone who doesn't agree with their viewpoint? No, i'm saying that all too often on this board (and throughout the national debate) people with strong liberal beliefs will often times argue in direct opposition to fundamental principles of their beliefs just to win a political argument. Like here. This is government actively CLEARLY infringing on your freedom to decide what to buy and what not to buy. Instead of holding true to that principle of freedom, liberals are actually arguing that this is somehow a bad decision. And yes, conservatives do the same thing. It's because we've become this society filled with a my side is right/your side is wrong mentality. We often times completely ignore the actual issue, and to win the debate for "our" side we'll argue ANYTHING.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 15, 2010 -> 12:54 PM) Pretty much the definition of judicial activism is stepping out of precedent to overturn the will of Congress. This point of view, if adopted, would be an enormous overhaul of precedent; it would, as I understand it, basically decide that the 10th amendment now supercedes the "necessary and proper" clause of Article 1. It could give any state that wants one a veto over federal legislation, whereas right now, the exact opposite is generally true. (1) There is no precedent here that was overturned. So no, this isn't judicial activism unless you define it as "any time a judge renders a decision." (2) No, it doesn't. READ the opinion (specifically pg 21-24). Don't rely on your bulls*** blogosphere commentary. This opinion does nothing of the sort, and is just made up bulls***. He's making a number of arguments with regard to that specific provision of the Act. The most important being that there is NO PRECEDENT and NO AUTHORITY for Congress to regulate activity that it forces upon people. The Commerce Clause requires activity that has a demonstrable effect on interstate commerce. There is no action here because I can choose to sit on my hands and not buy health insurance. I've done nothing to enter myself or my actions into interstate commerce. Because Congress doesn't have that power and authority, the Necessary and Proper Clause doesn't factor into the case. It is astounding to me that people don't think about this issue more clearly. The government is actively forcing you to do something, even when you could otherwise not be involved with it at all. And again, this is an issue that YOU should be fighting for, given your progressive beliefs. But keep believing that this is all a big play so that the rich can get richer. This is a decision THAT HURTS THE INSURANCE COMPANIES. You've admitted this. Why are you so against this opinion?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 15, 2010 -> 12:11 PM) Link to commentary from a blog so Republicans should ignore this post. If we want to continue to ignore the obvious here - he didn't strike the whole bill. He struck one portion of it, which IMO is the part that most fundamentally attacks a persons freedom (the right to not have the government tell them what they have to buy/not buy when it involves no one else but themselves). It's absolutely mind-boggling to me that liberals defend that portion of the bill, something they should be against 100% of the time. This just proves yet again that liberals will argue ANYTHING, including the opposite of their beliefs, when someone doesn't agree with their viewpoint. And I love that simply because he describes it as "obvious judicial activism" that it MUST be true. GMAFB. Let's call this what it is - someone is questioning the almighty Obama's agenda to have the government save society, so they're automatically part of a grand conspiracy of self-interested rich white republicans who have no concern for people but only for their pocketbook.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 14, 2010 -> 08:59 AM) The whole concept of him having to testify for something so meaningless was a joke. Who the f*** cares if he cheated on his wife? How does that affect anything whatsoever? I'd say a large portion of people in all 3 branches of government have been unfaithful to their spouses. Should we have all of them testify? What a farce. I agree 100%, but he did, and he lied, which made it all worse.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 14, 2010 -> 08:58 AM) I don't believe I compared the two. I believe the original comparison was Boehner and Gingrich. Gingrich resigned because he cheated on his wife while impeaching a President in a case built on Clinton cheating on his wife. I thought your point was that he shouldn't be like Newt, pointing the finger at Clinton for doing the same thing?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 14, 2010 -> 08:56 AM) It doesn't officially benefit him...however, it's close enough that I'd be damn uncomfortable if it was a ruling on my side. Judges who get salaries from consulting firms that they are part-owners of, who consult on bills for people who later appear before them, who then rule on that same bill? It's not illegal, but it's not exactly anything I'd call clean, and it's not something I'd want to be defending as a great thing for democracy. Well it's a good thing the Canons of Judicial Ethics are written for the real world. Based on your concerns, Judges should never be able to invest in anything because of the potential that their decisions might impact their portfolios. The reality is that unless there's a direct connection that impacts their decision making (still not sure how interpreting that one provision in the health care bill does that), there's not an issue.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 14, 2010 -> 08:43 AM) And that's not why Newt Gingrich resigned. Exactly. You're trying to compare the two when they're not comparable. Clinton got in trouble because he lied, not because he enjoyed a fine cigar with the company of women.

oops, sorry, it was your link, not strangesox's

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 14, 2010 -> 08:47 AM) No, but he did in the past employ the same PR firm that is paying the judge a salary, and he has been advised on health care policy by that PR firm. Link? and how does a PR firm help an AG make a constitutional argument? So he might have gotten some statistical information they've gathered. So what? And 10k is not a "salary." He could have made that making 2-3 speeches a year. Gimme a break. These guys have government salaries well into the 6 figures. Edit: This is all nonsense. According to the link provided by strangesox, he's an INVESTOR in the firm, not a consultant. And his decision didn't completely kill the bill. It killed one aspect of it. How does this make any sense that he's benefiting from the decision? If anything he just closed a door on what the firm is trying to accomplish.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 14, 2010 -> 08:41 AM) Ok, now you're the one putting words in my mouth. Do you think that the AG is the only lawyer who worked on the case, or do you think that the Virginia AG may employ other lawyers who helped argue the case? If the latter is the case, the word "Group" is entirely accurate, as is the fact that the AG had contracted with the PR Firm in the past. Let's put it this way...the rest of you'd have a problem with it, although not a huge one, if the roles were reversed here, and it was a Democratic consultant ruling positively on this case after having contracted for PR duties with the Obama administration and made money advising him on Health Care policy. LOL. Judge = GOP consultant. I get it. Love that you give Kap crap, but you consistently find a conspiracy lurking behind the shadows with every group that doesn't agree with your opinions.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 14, 2010 -> 08:41 AM) Ok, now you're the one putting words in my mouth. Do you think that the AG is the only lawyer who worked on the case, or do you think that the Virginia AG may employ other lawyers who helped argue the case? If the latter is the case, the word "Group" is entirely accurate, as is the fact that the AG had contracted with the PR Firm in the past. Yeah, other assistant attorney generals in his office helped him, since that's their job. He didn't hire some group of lawyer consultants from some outside firm. This is just nonsense.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 14, 2010 -> 08:40 AM) Dude, Gingrich resigned because of the affair, plain and simple. As s***ty as adultery is, committing perjury, while President of the United States, is worse. By a long shot.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 14, 2010 -> 07:58 AM) Basically, don't cheat on your wife while impeaching the President for doing the same? Yeah, who remembers he committed perjury? Who needs a President that is trustworthy, ethical and honest? Totally the same.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 13, 2010 -> 04:46 PM) It's a bit murky here because he's not actively part of the group bringing the lawsuit (i.e. it's not that consulting group that brought the suit), but a reasonable system might consider that a reason for recusal, since the group that did bring the suit had employed him in the past. That said, he didn't vote to overturn it because of the money. The ATTORNEY GENERAL in Virginia brought the case, not some private conservative group hell bent on destroying the world. Why do you keep making this up?