Up and about early today, to beat the heat, and over breakfast break I thought I’d take a look at the news. Instructive. The maw of instant news must be filled whether anything happens or not, and when nothing actually does happen (something is always happening, of course, but only Some Particular Things count when it comes to what we’re supposed to be thinking about) that itself becomes the news.
I swear, look at this shit, especially the last couple of sentences;
The Supreme Court’s ruling on President Obama’s health care law could be announced Thursday morning, a development that would have major implications regardless of the decision.
As HuffPost’s Supreme Court correspondent Mike Sacks reported, the verdict is anyone’s guess:
During oral arguments in late March, the court’s five Republican-appointed justices appeared to lean strongly toward invalidating the Affordable Care Act’s individual health-insurance mandate. The four Democrat appointees lined up solidly behind the law. Still, views may have softened in the weeks since the arguments, and the complexity of the issues involved may have left some room for twists and turns as the justices sat down to write their opinions.After prolonged anticipation, the court is expected to hand down its decision on whether the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate is constitutional by the end of the month. If no ruling is issued on Thursday, the decision could come next Monday. The justices could also decide to add more decision days next week, further adding to the uncertainty of when the ruling will arrive.
Translation: Space must be filled, clicks must be had, words must be written and we don’t have a fucking clue. Thus today’s headline is; Anticipatory Uncertainty Wracks Newsrooms from Coast to Coast.
There’s no hope, I tell you. None.
Fuck this, back to moving a big pile of dirt for me. That’s really happening.
Edit; Oh wait, hold the presses! There is some news after all, buried a little deeper (emphasis mine);
Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign asked Florida Governor Rick Scott to tone down his statements heralding improvements in the state’s economy because they clash with the presumptive Republican nominee’s message that the nation is suffering under President Barack Obama, according to two people familiar with the matter.
Scott, a Republican, was asked to say that the state’s jobless rate could improve faster under a Romney presidency, according to the people, who asked not to be named.
U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney addresses a campaign rally at Cornwall Iron Furnace in Cornwall, Pennsylvania. Photographer: Emmanuel Dunand/AFP/Getty Images
What’s unfolding in Florida highlights a dilemma for the Romney campaign: how to allow Republican governors to take credit for economic improvements in their states while faulting Obama’s stewardship of the national economy. Republican governors in Ohio, Virginia, Michigan and Wisconsin also have highlighted improving economies.
Scott should follow the advice of the Romney campaign and it won’t undermine his own message, said Mac Stipanovich, a political strategist and lobbyist in Florida.
“This is one of those situations where you could have it both ways and there’s enough truth in it that it would resonate,” Stipanovich said. “It would be better if everybody was singing from the same hymnal.”
Ah yes. The People who Asked not to Be Named. And, of course, The Hymnal.
Gunny, you are right and the Mac dictionary is wrong. Maybe it’s become acceptable to omit the “an” since “an anathema” isn’t so easy to say, but it’s not really any more difficult than “an animal” or anything else starting with “an-.” It’s just lazy speech.
As for “gotten,” though I’ve lived here all my life (well, mostly) it grates on my nerves. Sounds wrong, looks wrong. I use “got.”
I’m planning to frame that, just so you know.
hmmmm. I never tried sucking on any animal’s tits to see which one was best, so I guess I’ll need to defer to the experienced among us and stand corrected. I’ll cease use of the expression forthwith. Jabsco, take note. The VCs liquidity preferences will have you sucking front tit.
It’s getting worse by the minute. Here’s the NYT;
Jesus, they pay these people for this stuff too.
Goddamit, I could do it for half the price, and it would be funnier too.
Gawd.
“Small Earthquake Possible Sometime in Chile. May not Kill Dozens” says roadside watermelon vendor in Spain, who asked not to be named on grounds he only sold watermelons and knew bugger all about earthquakes or Chile.”
btw, just read MT’s latest: sadly, I think he’s perfectly right about Obama and the Dems if the SC strikes down the individual mandate. (The comments are horrendous in their short-sightedness. Why can’t anyone — like LHB, for example, who seems to have been stubbornly obtuse about it for months and months– that without the mandate, ACA inevitably becomes the “Un affordableHealth Care Act?)
“President takes Aspirin, shows his anxiety about SC decision, says person who asked for anonymity on grounds they were not authorised to comment on anything but Elastoplast.”
LHB hasn’t been obtuse. He’s just argued over and over that Obama and Congress over stepped their authority – that they can regulate commerce but they can’t compel it. Bluthner may come along and argue the converse. We’ll soon know in any event.
Tommy-
Yep, count me and Gunny, and maybe Bim too, as being with Lefty on this one.
They’re still at it. Latest headline this morning;
I’m on the edge of my fucking chair, the suspense is intolerable.
I won’t hash over that old ground. What’s weird is that back before 2008 almost no one, legal scholar or pundit, thought there was any question the mandate was of course constitutional. People argued the merits, but no one at all thought it was in any way contrary to the constitution.
That fully half the country -or more- thinks there’s a snowball’s chance in hell that it could be unconstitutional is all down to Republican spinning. Have to give the credit for that success, if for nothing else. They do know how to get control of the thread, whatever thread and where ever, and spin it in the direction they want it to go.
The mandate is still completely constitutional, always has been always will be. Unless this court wants to rewrite the entire 2oth century interpretation of the commerce clause altogether. But that’s not law at all, that’s just politics. For that matter they could reinvigorate Dred Scott if they were so inclined.
Bluth, I don’t want to get into that argument again either, but if commerce associated with healthcare is in no way distinct from commerce of any other kind, (if buying an HC insurance policy is the same, legally, as buying a new microwave oven, say) then it indeed falls under the umbrella of the commerce clause. And congress may regulate such commerce, but so far as I know there is no precedent for them being able, as tommy says, to compel it to occur.
Is there such a case? If there is then my whole argument is nonsense and I’ll drop it like a hot rock. But if there is not, would it not mean that upholding the constitutionality of the mandate would be a “rewrite of the entire interpretation” of that clause?
On the other hand, if we argue (and there are compelling reasons to do so) that the commerce associated with health care is fundamentally different in its dynamics and societal effects from “other” commerce—if it can be a “special case”—then is the commerce clause the appropriate argument anyway?
I’m not being obtuse here, at least not deliberately, and I’m nowhere close to being a lawyer, and that approach may be twaddle. But if it is, how so exactly?
I would not be making these speculative statements if the ACA was seeking to mandate a single payer arrangement—the medicare for all thing—with the repository of my money being a government administered fund. Clearly that would be constitutional, with copious precedent.
But can the Federal government really compel me to send money to Allstate or Lloyds under the commerce clause whether I want to or not?
And I do know that this is somewhat the argument adopted and hammered home by the right and all the usual suspects, but my hackles rose the first time I heard about it, and before I read what the right had to say. Still if I’ve been chumped into buying a specious argument, then shame on me, but I don’t get it, and I don’t see how opening that door for compelling commerce associated with health care doesn’t create a vulnerability for compelling other commerce. On what basis could such compulsions be denied if all commerce is commerce is commerce?
I don’t recall you and I engaging on this directly before now, and you’ve way more legal scholarship than I, so you may be able to show me the error of my ways. I’d like that. I’m not being facetious.
Breaking News headline;
We’re solidly in Monty Python territory now, folks.
Enjoy.
Yeah but Gunny, did you read the article? Even more pathetic than the headlines. Like if it leaked, who could it be? The janitors, printers, clerks? Squirrel, this sort of shit is why i pulled a 180 on Huffpo writers getting paid for content.
heh heh
Yeah.
Beyond parody.
I’m still smiling.
in other news, The Jesus is really keeping His followers guessing about the timing of His second coming. It’s said he’s done a deal with the 12th Imam to surprise the fans of bronze age Fertile Crescent religious creeds. God the Father and the Holy Ghost aren’t talking, either.
Gunny, this will all of course soon be a moot point, but just for fun, one last time, let’s run through the argument.
No one serious, even at this late date, thinks health care insurance is not a fit subject upon which, under the commerce clause, Congress has the power to make law if it sees fit. Otherwise Medicare would be unconstitutional, and no one is arguing that, but even insurance regulation would be unconstitutional, and no one is arguing that Congress cannot regulate insurance.
I’m pretty sure you agree that Congress could simply extend Medicare to the entire population -or VA insurance benefits, either one- and that would be entirely constitutional. As would the tax increases necessary to pay for it.
So far not a squeak of a constitutional argument. We can discuss all day if health insurance for all is a wise idea- even though every other developed nation in the west except the U.S. provides some form of universal insurance to its citizens. But nothing in the constitution says the congress is prohibited from passing unwise laws. So whether it is a wise law is not the issue. Only whether or not they have the power.
And we also know that Congress has the power to tax all citizens. That is not at issue in any sane forum either. So everyone will agree that congress could, without a squeak of a constitutional argument, levy a tax on all citizens that would pay for provision of health care for all citizens. Further, there is nothing to stop congress from passing a law that says we are going to tax you all to pay for health insurance, but we are going to allow you to choose what kind of health insurance you a.) want, and b.) think you can afford, which you can figure out by looking at the current market for insurance, and then you are going to tell us, along with your payment, which policy you want, and we are going to take the money you pay and buy you the policy, and to stop you being a free rider, and to encourage the insurance companies not to charge to much, we are going to set a minimum tax, which you are going to have to pay even if you choose not to tell us which level and type of insurance you prefer. Under the tax power there is no argument at all to stop congress doing that.
And there is nothing in any scrap in anything ever written about, or in, or around the constitution that says they have to call a tax a tax. They can call it a hamster and if it looks like a tax and smells like a tax- it’s still a tax and its still in their power to levy it.
So the crux of the case before the court comes down to is it constitutional to pass a law that instead of saying you pay us and we will buy you the policy of your choice, or a minimum amount if you refuse to make a choice, they pass a law which says we are going to cut out the middle man and you are going to pay directly.
So, yes, you have bought the guff the right has been doing such a good job of selling you. LHB bought it too. There is no reason at all the congress can’t pass a law saying you have to pay money to a private organization if they are doing so in order to regulate a matter which falls under their power to regulate interstate commerce.
They can (and of course have for a very long time) for instance, force you to pay money to a manufacturer (of your choice, and at whatever price you can find or prefer) of flaps that hang down behind the tires of your semi-truck, to stop gravel flying up and smashing the windshields of other people’s cars or killing motorcyclists.
Ah, you say, but I if I don’t drive a semi-truck I don’t have to buy the flaps!
And that is true. But everybody uses -or is at least at risk of using- the health care system. But everybody. Even Jehovah’s witnesses or Christian Scientists use it if they get their face ripped open by a bit of flying gravel: is there any sect that will stop a doctor sewing up a ripped open face, or pumping the stomach of a child who has ingested poison, or setting a broken bone? I know there are people who don’t want transfusions, and maybe even medicines, but there is plenty of medicine that they all still use, and I don’t think anyone anywhere in this country is not a potential (and inevitable) user of health care.
The mandate may not be a wise law, but Congress, in its wisdom, absolutely certainly and without a shadow of a doubt, has the power to pass it.
Doesn’t mean there won’t be a dissent. Which will either be feeble and convoluted and without interest, or, more likely, it will be a direct attack on the power to regulate commerce full stop. Which is to say a direct attack on the foundation of the Federal Government, full stop. I expect the latter. But I do expect it to remain a looney tunes dissent.
Call a tax a hamster, eh? The whole reason they didn’t call it a tax was they were too chicken to do so.
I think this is leading into what I’m coming to think of as “gotcha” government.
I get a traffic ticket about once a decade. The last one a few years ago was over $200 for a minor infraction (pulling across the street to grab a parking slot). Shortly afterwards my wife got tagged by a camera for a rolling California stop and received her ticket by mail for almost $500. If you want to go to court you can, but as tickets are now so expensive that everyone who gets one goes to court to see if the judge will reduce it or at least grant traffic school, so the courthouse queues line down the street. Figure on losing a day.
I see Highway Patrol all over the place now with their radar guns out. I’ve become quite adept at noticing cameras hanging by stoplights.
One does not need to be a cynic to understand that this is less about traffic safety than it is about generating hefty fines by cash strapped governments. Taxation by gotcha. Does it exacerbate contempt for government? I suspect it does.
One of the differences between liberals and conservatives is that liberals really do believe that the government has the absolute right to do what it wants. Yet, anyone who has taken a grade eight civics class has learned about the federal government’s enumerated powers and the state government’s police powers. Obviously, we’re about to find out if that difference really stands.
But no, the government can’t, or at least shouldn’t, be able to call a tax a hamster. There is enough chickenshit in the world without that. A quick internet search suggests that mudflap requirements are state, not federal mandates.
Never in all my life have I known or heard of a liberal who believes that. It seems that conservatives have managed to convince themselves to believe some very silly things.
To quote Bluthner:
The primary argument being made against ACA is that the government did not have the power to pass such a law, wise or unwise. We’ll see.
Tommy,
of course those traffic laws are being used to generate funds rather than increase safety. Try running a car in London, they don’t tend to get you for moving violations but the parking rules are so obscure, and changeable, and arcanely marked, and zealously enforced, that anyone keeping a car in the city just has to budget for at least four or five hundred dollars worth of tickets per year. (That’s on top of your parking sticker for own zone, too.)
And yeah, the mandates for mudflaps are state laws, you are right about that, what the federal case, from 1958 was about was striking down a state mandate that prohibited a flap of a different design which was legal in another state. But the feds could mandate a particular design for all states if they wanted to, or at least there is nothing in the constitution that prevents them from doing so.
And that is the point: there is nothing in the constitution which limits the commerce clause powers. It’s just not there. Congress has the power to make annoying laws, and gotcha laws, and to regulate commerce until the pips squeak. The remedy isn’t to pretend they don’t have the power, the remedy is to vote the bastards out of office.
And yeah, they didn’t call it a tax because they were chicken. So vote them out for being cowards, but it’s still a tax, whether they call it a tax or not.
btw the ones who were too chicken to call it a tax were the ones with the R after their names.
Why doesn’t the power to regulate interstate commerce stop at intrastate commerce? In any event, we’re soon going to find out if the law stands or not, but it seems most betting is that the IM will be struck. I, however, hesitate to wager because damned if I know.
If this Wikipedia article is correct, not a single Republican in the House or Senate vote for ACA, so the ones that were too chicken to call it a tax appear to have all been Democrats.
this stuff is easy to simply look up.
Yeah I know they didn’t vote for it! But the reason the law was written that way was to try to get them to share in the burden of responsibility for doing something about the fucked up state of health care provision in the country, using a program that REPUBLICANS invented! Since when are Democrats, on the whole, afraid of passing new taxes? They like new taxes.
Bluthner
Yes it will all soon be moot.
You have not convinced me that “regulation” of existing transactional particulars, and “compulsion” that a transaction begin is a meaningless legal distinction.
Again, is there (at Federal level) any example of such an application of the commerce clause? I don’t think there is.
Safety rules like mud flaps, seat belts, load tie-down rules and all the rest don’t originate in a simple appeal to the commerce clause, and road safety rules are under State purview anyway.
This is the nub of your position, if I read you right;
Again, there are numerous examples of the Feds regulating transactional particulars in already existing commerce, but none I can think of where they’re saying they can compel such commerce to begin. If it’s upheld, I think that will be new ground.
Do the States have such Constitutional power? Sure. They do it all the time.
The argument that HC is a “special case” enshrined in your (correct) appeal to the idea that everyone, eventually, will be a HC “consumer” is perfectly valid. It makes perfect sense to consider HC as a unique market dynamic for that and several other reasons. But if we do that HC commerce is “different” in some definable ways from “regular” commerce, and doesn’t belong in the same legal (commerce clause) bucket as buying a new microwave oven.
I take no pleasure in finding myself on the same page as Scalia and Boehner etc. Trust me.
Gunny, they are not compelling the commerce. The commerce already exists, for every single citizen. That is the crux of the matter. Every single person in the country was getting ‘insured’ for his or her health care even before the ACA, but those who were doing it by free riding on the paying customers were doing it in the worst, most expensive, least efficient, least helpful to themselves and others, way possible.
The mandate, therefore, does not create commerce. It tries -albeit not perfectly by any means- to regulate the commerce that already was going on, which included everyone.
Yeah, may be you could make a case that HC commerce is different from other commerce, in the sense that it touches every single person instead of just some or even most, but that only strengthens the case that Congress has the power to regulate it.
But if they do strike it down, you are on the money, that’s exactly the road they will take: HC is different. It won’t be a coherent argument, at least not in the light of nearly a century of constitutional law, but they might well do it. 4 of them might. I think Kennedy has too much self respect as a jurist for that, which is why I’m still willing to wager the mandate stands.
If Romney gets in and gets to appoint a couple of new Justices, though…. kiss the commerce clause and a federal government with any useful regulatory powers goodbye.
LoL
tommy
Oh tommy, that’s not only nonsense, it’s Glenn Beck puerile. Sorry to be so blunt, but it is.
You understand power, tommy, and you know that disempowering the government won’t leave a hole where no power is exerted. Some other power will move into the empty space, and if it ain’t government it will be unelected power. In some areas that can be beneficial (on balance) and in others not so good.
I’m no liberal, but none of the liberals I know believe in unlimited government power. They believe, like you and I, in a balance of power. Our disagreement is over where that balance lies.
And yeah, it’s true around here too—traffic violations are rapidly being exploited as a revenue source. That’s been true for a long time in some municipalities in Texas. Locals know the ropes, and are careful, but turistas don’t, and ain’t, and are thus “taxed” at will. Pretty soon an out-of-state license plate will be enough to get a ticket the way things are headed.
Hah! Just the way things were in Georgia/South Carolina in the sixties! There was simply no way on earth to drive through either state (except on the interstate) with an out of state plate and not pick up a ticket somewhere.
Tommy – You should know that sweeping generalizations about and psychoanalysis of the opposition, coupled with hyperbolic rhetoric are reserved for the other team
I got a $100 jaywalking ticket in LA. Westwood village, even. They didn’t like New Yorkers. I said fuck it, gave up my license and moved back to NY.
porn
I got one of those in Santa Monica in ’94. But I love to jaywalk. Best place of all to do it is in Germany. Their heads explode.
did you pay it? i didn’t. that was total bullshit. i moved instead.
hoped i fucked up someone’s quota numbers too.
Well of course there is some other power. Often enough, it is people doing what they want to do as opposed being told. Who needs an elected power for that? Regardless of what some or all liberals may or may not believe, Bluthner’s view (which he is obviously more than free to clarify) appears to be that the commerce clause appears to be a catchall to pass whatever law Congress pleases. I don’t believe the view it is limited to Bluthner, though perhaps there are other liberals that disagree with him.
Tommy, I think you are confusing my reading of the document with my desire. The fact is that in the document there is no limitation placed on Congress’s power to regulate commerce. That in no way means I desire every aspect of commerce to be regulated.
The only limits on that power to regulate are what Congress thinks fit (and of course they can’t infringe on the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights either. )
The argument about the ACA is about is it a good law, not is it constitutional.
Keep in mind that the constitution we now live -from 1789- under is not the first one we tried. The first constitution -from 1776- failed badly, mostly because it did NOT grant Congress strong powers to regulate commerce. So there is a good reason why the grant of power in current constitution is so broad.
The first constitution created a paradise for State’s Righters. The more I hear Mittens speak, the more I think he’d prefer to go back to the old Articles. Which of course would work even less well now than they did in between 1776 and 1789, but I’m also sure that certain people would be able to make a lot of money out of the misery they would bring.