Rep. Phil Hare, "I don't care about the Constitution."

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

we'll all pay for our own

A lot of us have been doing that for years.

And most of the rest of us can join you. This law will carry some people, but it does more to regulate the HC ins cos.

[kallend 2,230]

Quote

Quote

we'll all pay for our own

A lot of us have been doing that for years.

I take it you only drive on private roads, went to private schools, never fly, and make no use of police and fire services.

That's very noble of you.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Trial courts don't "overturn" anything,

Trial courts get the first hack at invalidating a statute. Yes. They make the first and often only crack at it.


[Reply]And appellate courts affirm or reverse a lot more than state trial cts

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Yea, some plans do they say, I bet they're limited in scope and have massive deductables with huge premiums. Go cry in your pillow, HC is here - WOO HOO

HC - unlimited in scope, low deductible, and trillions in premiums.

Then it will be unlimited in scope, small deductible, limited in treatment, and more trillions in premiums.

Then limited in scope, hige deductibles, limited treatment, and quadrillions in premiums.

You though healthcare was expensive? You've never seen expense until it's free.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I take it you only drive on private roads (nope. I drive public roads and pay taxes in fuel - based on usage)

went to private schools (nope. Just one. But I pay property taxes.

never fly (I've yet to fly without paying for it - inckuding the fees and taxes)

and make no use of police and fire services. (Yep. And they charge for it, which is why private security is so popular).

That's very noble of you.(I don't think it noble so much as doing my best to make sure that others don't have to carry my ass. But if that's noble, well, thank you!)

My wife is hotter than your wife.

• Quote

[futuredivot 0]

Man I hope you have better luck tracking conversations in the class room or you're fucking those kids up beyond all belief

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

And most of the rest of us can join you.

Then write the check and shut the fuck up-come on man, you remind me of my bloodhound bitch-constant howling for no good reason......except Maggie has health insurance because she lives in a household that considers it a priority.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

And most of the rest of us can join you.

Then write the check and shut the fuck up-come on man, you remind me of my bloodhound bitch-constant howling for no good reason......except Maggie has health insurance because she lives in a household that considers it a priority.

And you remind me of someone who is beatdown, defeated, crying, scared and just out of gas. Enjoy my party; FUCKING DEAL WITH IT. Oh, and don't forget to have a nice day.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

HC - unlimited in scope, low deductible, and trillions in premiums.

I presume you mean currently. Unlimited? Hardly. Low deductable? Hardly.

Quote

Then it will be unlimited in scope, small deductible, limited in treatment, and more trillions in premiums.

How will it be limited? In a free market, won't the demand for more HC = more HC professionals enterring the field?

Quote

You though healthcare was expensive? You've never seen expense until it's free.

You keep acting like the public option or single payer was passed

[lawrocket 3]

Requiring insurance companies to cover everyone regaedless of condition, be unable to charge people who take no care of themselves any more than those who do take care of themselves, and finding ways to pay for people who otherwise couldn't be covered?

Yeah. That will increase costs to everyone who has insurance already. I've got a preexisting condition. It's covered becayse is became existing while I had insurance. And I never had a gap in coverage.

I will be made to face the consequences of my responsibility.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Trial courts get the first hack at invalidating a statute. Yes. They make the first and often only crack at it.

Trial cts are supposed to apply the law that has been legislated or decided upon by appellate cts. Now with jurisdictional diffs, like a state ct ruling that a fed statute doesn't apply, they can try that and be within the rights, but trial cts don't revist the constitutionality of statute, they must apply that which has been decided or legislated, unless they rule it is inapplicable due to venue or other reasons. Trial cts apply law, not overturn it.

Quote

State trial courts don't affirm or reverse a goddamned thing. appeals courts affirm or reverse trial courts.

Has it come to academic dishonesty? I wrote the following, I will embolden what you trasncribed me as writing:

And appellate courts affirm or reverse a lot more than state trial cts refusing to acknowledge fed statute, they affirm or reject trial cts:

I was saying, as would be clear if you posted the entire passage, that appellate cts do more affirming / reversing than do trial cts rejecting fed statute. It was a proportionate comparison, but you decided to partially quote me.

Right, but as you just said they invalidate it, they can only find it doesn't apply to a given case, not that it is fundamentally invalid and strike it from the books.

Quote

Trial courts decide. Appeals courts affirm or reverse the trial court decisions.

Isn't that what I've always written?

Quote

The SCOTUS, for example, may affirm or reverse an appeals court's affirmation of reversal of an appeals court's affirmation or reversal of the trial court.

*YAWN*

Quote

Guess what happens if a party lacks the resources to appeal? The decision the either validate or invalidate a decision stands.

Yep, but fortunately, as for this elitist judicial system, it probably won't become precedent as these decesions are cherry-picked for publishing by the justices, at least at the state level.

Quote

Yep. All decisions of the trial court. The trial judge makes the decision. Appeals courts either affirm or reverse.

*YAWN*

Quote

True. Those in favor of limited government power may, indeed, be the opposite of what they say. Republicans are pro-family values but live opposite. Democrats hate the rich from their Lear Jets, are intolerant of intolerance, and think that other races of people need their help because they are inferior.

Agreed, so when I see these tea bagger dorks running around screaming for small gov, they are the ideology that was repsonsible for dropping a POS gov on Obama on teh brink of collapse with 10.6T debt, while >*T came from their own. The Lear Jet liberals is very relevant too, it's all a power grab, only hypocritical morons claim it's just the other side; they're angelic.

Quote

When you mentioned that the Constitution is useless nowadays.

LAWROCKET: I findit appalling how many people think what you think. Rules don't count. Process doesn't count. "The ends justify the means."

LUCKY: Where did I advocate it. See, counselor, unlike you I have the ability to be 3rd person objective. Take Heller for example, saying that, "well regulated" (with or w/o the hyphen; juries still out on that one) means well maintained is the fantasy of 5 of the current justices. Is that a FAR STRETCH? Of course, but subjectively I'm glad, just that objectively it's a farce, it has never been interpreted that way before. I can separate the cheerleader inside from the intellect, I don’t see that you can, which is why you bias your reasoning’s.

SO I'm not saying rules don't count; where have I?

As for ends justify means, I hope you're not so naive to think that the justices don't decide these cases based upon that practice, usually form 2 sides and get people to join, then have their clerk find flowery BS language to support it.

Again, the original writing is basically useless. There is enough precedent to stand on that reflects a real-life process, whereas the climate present at the time of the original writing was:

- Slavery
- Women's right absent
- Elitism
- Classism

If I had a Model T, I wouldn't drive it to work everyday, I would stick in my garage and marvel ove rit, take it out carefully once a month. I would drive the vehicles that stemmed from that and are being improved upon everyday until they are contemporary pieces of work. Get it? You don't like it, but the old cars (orig const) is antiquated and irrelavnt, the new hybrid car (living const) is relevant in today's world and can be used daily.

I'm for a set of rules, the problem is that how HC was passed is much like the process that much legislation has passed. I just read that 17 of the 23 reconcilliations were signed by R pres; you're fishing at the wrong lake when you're trying to catch rule circumventers.

Quote

Consensus here in this forum is otherwise.

I hang my life on that . I see you're looking for the popularity bump over substance. I can point to several areas where my personal opinion and legal opinion are far different.

Quote

I take it "shall not be infringed" didn't mean it, either.

See, I now understand why and how you develop your legal opinions. See how you post fragment of what I write, which is dishonest w/o the "..." and some support if neccessary to bring it into context. "Sahll not be infringed" sounds pretty tough if it stands alone, but when it's part of a sentence it is now under the scrutiny of context. I will post 2 of the versions:

1) A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

2) A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The comma is moved in these two versions. I've heard of there being a hyphen or not between, "well regulated." Either way, the entire passage must be considered:

- Well regulated (objectively means controlled)
- Militia (not standing army)
- necessary to the security of a free State (infers defense only)
- the right of the People to keep and bear arms (where, in the well regulated militia lockup)
- shall not be infringed (based upon all the previous conditions.

I don't know if you practice contract law, but it doesn't take a contract specialist to understand that all provisions affect the others as far as performance and expectations. This is why the US Const was great for its day, shitty shortly thereafter. It is very vague, but I think it was designed to be reinterpreted by the leaders of the future, knowing it was grwat for its time but that times change.

So yea, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed where we need to keep a free state, with a militia for defense, and as long as it's well regulated. It says nothing about the gun under your pillow, as there is no need to keep and bear that arm considering we have a standing army, aren't suject to hostile invasion and takeover and there is no regulation process in place in many states.

So the fact it shall not be infringed is only relevant if all other conditions are met.

Quote

Consensus here is opposite.

Again, living on your popularity contest, me gives a shit not. Do the majority of teh people think low taxes lead to prosperity too? They during the fascist pig years and guess what? They were wrong. They did in the 1920's; guess what? They were wrong. I've checked over and over and I still can't find a grain of give-a-shit to your DZ.COM popularity pole; I defer to substance.

Quote

Step outside of yourself and view what others see, and perhaps your subjective viewpoint will yield to objective reality.

Or drop your ad hominem and rely on substance. See how conservatives "rally the trops?" They try to pull everyone in to a popularity circel rather than the silly libs using data and substance.

Quote

I do. It's why I respect fokks like billvon and kallend - who keep me in check.

I respect them most of the time, they can almost always seperate themselves / their personal opinion from the issue. But I see more name-dropping for more....popularity; we get it. It is far better to be popular than it is to be correct.

Quote

I recognize that I have my viewpoints. Perhaps that's why so many view me as fairly objective. Not totally - nobody is.

I think you are extremely biased. Show me a legal position that you have decided is a certain way from a legal set of criteria, yet you personally think it s/b another way. Let's take taxes, you want no taxes as you make real good money and want to keep it all. But, all available data shows that we (as a nation) do best in high tax environments - Kallend who we both respect just said this very thing in a diff thread - so tell me, is your personal position inline with the very obvious fact that the US does best in higher tax climates? Or are you being biased by ignoring decades of data? As I thought.

Quote

Have you considered that telling people you are objective is a subjective argument? What's next? Are you going to brag about how humble you are?

I am totally objective. I do have an opinion on most things, but I can separate them:

- Guns: objectively disagree with Heller's reasoning / hope Heller stands

- Abortion: think it's disgusting / hope Roe v Wade stands

- Affirmative Action: think it goes too far / it needs to stand as well since racial bias exists today

- Gay Rights: don't have gay friends / am all for gay rights, marriage, etc

How many can you disclose? That's what I thought. Many things my personal opinion and objective legal postion are identical, but one doesn't influence the othr. I expect some mor eof your, "friends" will pop in here to cheerlead and tell us how objective you are.

Quote

Nope. Naivete breds idealism. Experience brings cynicism. I'm cynical.

So then is that an agreement that when the justices certify a case for being heard that they have pretty much already decided how they're gonna rule, just need a few law clerks to put the justifying BS in ink? Thought so.

(I will answer the rest later)