Obama’s law professor: If the Supreme Court strikes down the mandate, they must be biased political hacks

posted at 10:12 pm on February 8, 2011 by Allahpundit

One of the most pitiful, relentlessly irritating op-eds about O-Care that I’ve read since our long national nightmare began in summer ’09. To understand what makes it so grating, you need to know that the author, Laurence Tribe, is not only a Harvard Law prof who taught Obama but a bona fide titan of constitutional jurisprudence on the left. He wrote a famous treatise on the subject and was, in his younger days, a perennial candidate for the Supreme Court when Democrats were in the White House. You might also remember him as the guy who sneered, amusingly, in a letter to Obama that Sotomayor isn’t nearly as smart as she thinks she is, and who endorsed Kagan because he thought she’d be better able to keep Anthony Kennedy from “drifting” towards the right.

You need all of that as background for two reasons. One: If, per his credentials, you’re expecting an argument for the mandate here that’s novel or unusually penetrating, you’re mistaken. His points about the Commerce Clause and Congress’s taxing power are as pedestrian as it gets, stuff you’ve read in a hundred different permutations from liberals over the past 18 months. Two, and more importantly: The point of this op-ed isn’t to make legal arguments at all. Ann Althouse has been destroying Tribe all day long, in three separate posts, on the nuts and bolts of his argument, but taking him seriously enough to respond to him might actually give him too much credit, I think. His goal here isn’t to persuade Times readers that he’s correct on the legal merits; his goal is to persuade Times readers that if the Supreme Court disagrees with him, it is, must, and can only be because they’re right-wing hacks with no regard for the Constitution or for precedent. It’s transparent narrative-building for liberal bien-pensants, a way of moving the Overton window so that any unfavorable ruling, notwithstanding the legal novelty of the mandate or the reasoning of the majority opinion, must be illegitimate. Which is to say, it’s a nakedly political argument dressed up as a plea to keep politics out of law.

The justices aren’t likely to be misled by the reasoning that prompted two of the four federal courts that have ruled on this legislation to invalidate it on the theory that Congress is entitled to regulate only economic “activity,” not “inactivity,” like the decision not to purchase insurance. This distinction is illusory. Individuals who don’t purchase insurance they can afford have made a choice to take a free ride on the health care system. They know that if they need emergency-room care that they can’t pay for, the public will pick up the tab. This conscious choice carries serious economic consequences for the national health care market, which makes it a proper subject for federal regulation…

Given the clear case for the law’s constitutionality, it’s distressing that many assume its fate will be decided by a partisan, closely divided Supreme Court. Justice Antonin Scalia, whom some count as a certain vote against the law, upheld in 2005 Congress’s power to punish those growing marijuana for their own medical use; a ban on homegrown marijuana, he reasoned, might be deemed “necessary and proper” to effectively enforce broader federal regulation of nationwide drug markets. To imagine Justice Scalia would abandon that fundamental understanding of the Constitution’s necessary and proper clause because he was appointed by a Republican president is to insult both his intellect and his integrity

Only a crude prediction that justices will vote based on politics rather than principle would lead anybody to imagine that Chief Justice John Roberts or Justice Samuel Alito would agree with the judges in Florida and Virginia who have ruled against the health care law. Those judges made the confused assertion that what is at stake here is a matter of personal liberty — the right not to purchase what one wishes not to purchase — rather than the reach of national legislative power in a world where no man is an island.

I can tolerate him spoon-feeding talking points to the left about the Court’s supposed illegitimacy, but please, in the name of decency, spare us the condescending, backhanded, surely-they’re-better-than-that tone. John Yoo, who accuses Tribe of coming across “as a teacher instructing the Justices not to disappoint him,” wonders why it shouldn’t also be the case on a matter of first impression like the mandate that Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan are left-wing Democratic hacks if they vote to uphold the law — which, let’s face it, they surely will. The votes of Republican appointees like Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, and even Scalia are in doubt here, but there’s no doubt which way our four liberal all-stars will tilt, never mind what further expansion of the Commerce Clause might mean for a government of allegedly limited powers. Exit quotation from one of InstaGlenn’s law-prof correspondents: “[I]t seems to me that the arguments against constitutionality are making supporters sufficiently nervous that they’re doing some battlefield preparation…”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

I see some of us are getting away from Tribe’s diatribe and on to the solution of the mandate issue. I would like to hear from any of you that think my idea is an unworkable one. My solution to the mandate issue is to pass a law that makes any medical assistance rendered to anyone without insurance the legal and financial responsibility of the person receiving that assistance. Meaning that any expense incurred by the medical facility or staff can SUE the recipient, within an expedited venue, for total reimbursement including liens on property and confiscation of any known wealth or income.
I am not a lawyer but if the law was written specifically towards this one issue with the details plainly written so that every deadbeat or person who saves their money to pay for their own treatment could understand the consequences of not buying insurance then we would not have the “Mandate” issue at all.

inspectorudy on February 9, 2011 at 11:14 AM

Why is it assumed that people who choose not to purchase insurance, and wind up in the emergency room, don’t intend to pay their bills? The only ones who fit that category are the illegals, imho.

It’s not “assumed” it’s shouted from every rooftop a liberal/progressive/socialist/media-talking-head can find.

I suspect strongly that if you were to be allowed to collect the data (and you aren’t), that you would find that a super-majority of individuals who find themselves seeking medical care, and who also do not have medical insurance, do in fact wind up paying for it themselves.

There are essentially two problems in the medical insurance industry as I see it:

1) Lack of competition across state lines.
2) Mandates imposed by government on coverage.

Fix the first and the second will take care of itself.

Jason Coleman on February 9, 2011 at 11:17 AM

Tribe is a long time extremist left wing hack. As lawyers go he is closer to Robespierre than John Marshall.

tommyboy on February 9, 2011 at 11:19 AM

Liberals tend to forget that there is a black and white, static document out there that trumps any precedent they can think of. It’s called the Constitution and it was written in plain English.

Pattosensei on February 9, 2011 at 8:10 AM

This.
I keep saying this over & over over the years on threads like this.
But people like crr6 etc. do not seem to understand this point.
That is why they should read this article to get them thinking.

SCOTUS is NOT the sole abritator (sp?) on what is, or is not, Constitutional. As another arm of the Federal Beast, it is a foolish notion to consider that as viable.
This is akin to letting child molestors run daycare centers, letting the fox guard the henhouse, trust the wolf to keep the sheep safe.
Every state has a RIGHT and a DUTY to its citizens to be the vanguard against the Federal Beast usurping the sovereign power of the state, as well as the rights of their citizens.
I do not care what legal precendent was set, it does not matter how convoluted lawyers get in the interpretations, the Constitution & Bill of Rights + Ammendments are CRYSTAL CLEAR , ESPECIALLY the 10th Amdmt., about what the Federal Govt may, or may not do.
And even using articles from the Federalist is not helpful bcs to interpret the INTENTION of the founders is UNNECESSARY.
We already HAVE their intentions! They are written down in plain English for all to see & read for themselves!
Their intentions exist in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and all Ammendments!
This is not hard to understand!
What is hard for those like crr6 to understand is the fact that there is no negotiation with what is written in these documents. They are not dynamic in nature. They are completely STATIC.
The Progressives have foisted this evil notion upon our beloved Republic through gerrymandering districts etc. by entrenching themselves with power they are not allowed, as per the previously aforementioned documents.
The states have been complicit in this usurpation of their sovereignty.
ALL of them in their own little ways.
And it has got to stop.

Badger40 on February 9, 2011 at 11:23 AM

Aww…looks like when the conversation doesn’t go crr6′s way, she runs like the wind.

fossten on February 9, 2011 at 11:30 AM

My solution to the mandate issue is to pass a law that makes any medical assistance rendered to anyone without insurance the legal and financial responsibility of the person receiving that assistance.
inspectorudy on February 9, 2011 at 11:14 AM

Easier answer: repeal the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986.

Vashta.Nerada on February 9, 2011 at 11:31 AM

Laurence Tribe……legal acumen
crr6 on February 9, 2011 at 10:46 AM

Based on his plagiaristic behavior, how is it possible to take someone with that sort of character and habit seriously at all?

Badger40 on February 9, 2011 at 11:35 AM

I’ll try this again:

Liberals tend to forget that there is a black and white, static document out there that trumps any precedent they can think of. It’s called the Constitution and it was written in plain English.

Pattosensei on February 9, 2011 at 8:10 AM

This.
I keep saying this over & over over the years on threads like this.
But people like crr6 etc. do not seem to understand this point.
That is why they should read this article to get them thinking.

SCOTUS is NOT the sole abritrater (sp?) on what is, or is not, Constitutional. As another arm of the Federal Beast, it is a foolish notion to consider that as viable.
This is akin to letting child pervs run daycare centers, letting the fox guard the henhouse, trust the wolf to keep the sheep safe.
Every state has a RIGHT and a DUTY to its citizens to be the vanguard against the Federal Beast usurping the sovereign power of the state, as well as the rights of their citizens.
I do not care what legal precendent was set, it does not matter how convoluted lawyers get in the interpretations, the Constitution & Bill of Rights + Ammendments are CRYSTAL CLEAR , ESPECIALLY the 10th Amdmt., about what the Federal Govt may, or may not do.
And even using articles from the Federalist is not helpful bcs to interpret the INTENTION of the founders is UNNECESSARY.
We already HAVE their intentions! They are written down in plain English for all to see & read for themselves!
Their intentions exist in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and all Ammendments!
This is not hard to understand!
What is hard for those like crr6 to understand is the fact that there is no negotiation with what is written in these documents. They are not dynamic in nature. They are completely STATIC.
The Progressives have foisted this evil notion upon our beloved Republic through gerrymandering districts etc. by entrenching themselves with power they are not allowed, as per the previously aforementioned documents.
The states have been complicit in this usurpation of their sovereignty.
ALL of them in their own little ways.
And it has got to stop.

Badger40 on February 9, 2011 at 11:38 AM

OK, it seems as if the word ‘m0lesters’ is a problem on this site?
If so, extremely pathetic.

Badger40 on February 9, 2011 at 11:39 AM

Aww…looks like when the conversation doesn’t go crr6′s way, she runs like the wind.

fossten on February 9, 2011 at 11:30 AM

I’m sure there’s a perfectly good reason she had to go when the going got hot.
Studies, you know.
Important genius stuff.
Ruining the world, one Progressive step at a time, and all that stuff.

Badger40 on February 9, 2011 at 11:40 AM

Hey crr6, here’s a Supreme Court precedent for you:

These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.

Can you tell me why this precedent should not apply in consideration of PPACA?

rockmom on February 9, 2011 at 11:45 AM

Did Tribe plagiarize this OpED too?

Republican Yogi on February 9, 2011 at 11:54 AM

Can you tell me why this precedent should not apply in consideration of PPACA?

rockmom on February 9, 2011 at 11:45 AM

A decision of whether or not to purchase health care isn’t “central to personal dignity and automony” in the way that choosing a sexual partner, or choosing whether or not to have an abortion is. Even if it were, this law doesn’t criminalize that choice like the laws in Lawrence and Roe did. You just pay a tax penalty.

The choice also isn’t completely private, in the sense that the decision implicates others if you’re subsequently injured and can’t pay for your care.

You’re free to bring a suit based on a substantive due process, in fact I bet someone will at some point. I don’t think it will be successful though.

crr6 on February 9, 2011 at 11:56 AM

OK, everyone has medical insurance ………………. from where are the new doctors going to come? We already have a shortage.

SC.Charlie on February 9, 2011 at 12:02 PM

OK, everyone has medical insurance ………………. from where are the new doctors going to come? We already have a shortage.

SC.Charlie on February 9, 2011 at 12:02 PM

We will have citizen doctors … comrade.

darwin on February 9, 2011 at 12:35 PM

Can someone please ask this guy…

“Do you believe a law mandating the purchase of firearms by every able bodied citizen, to be Constitutional?”

“If not, how does that differ from the healthcare law (other than gun ownership is a defined right while healthcare is only an implied right)?”

dominigan on February 9, 2011 at 12:37 PM

OK, everyone has medical insurance ………………. from where are the new doctors going to come? We already have a shortage.

SC.Charlie on February 9, 2011 at 12:02 PM

Why do you think the Feds took over the student loan program? It will be used as leverage to “entice” more students to go into the medical field.

dominigan on February 9, 2011 at 12:38 PM

The choice also isn’t completely private, in the sense that the decision implicates others if you’re subsequently injured and can’t pay for your care.

crr6 on February 9, 2011 at 11:56 AM

You should be arrested for tortured logic.

darwin on February 9, 2011 at 12:46 PM

The choice also isn’t completely private, in the sense that the decision implicates others if you’re subsequently injured and can’t pay for your care.

crr6 on February 9, 2011 at 11:56 AM

It’s. Not. Your. Money.

fossten on February 9, 2011 at 12:52 PM

A decision of whether or not to purchase health care isn’t “central to personal dignity and automony” in the way that choosing a sexual partner, or choosing whether or not to have an abortion is.

Why not? It’s my body, either way. What gives the government the right to penalize me if I exercise my right to choose not to purchase a product that I do not need?

Even if it were, this law doesn’t criminalize that choice like the laws in Lawrence and Roe did. You just pay a tax penalty.

And what happens if you do not pay that tax penalty? Why is the IRS hiring thousands of “enforcers”?

The choice also isn’t completely private, in the sense that the decision implicates others if you’re subsequently injured and can’t pay for your care.

And your choice to abort a child that you could afford to raise isn’t completely private either, in the sense that the decision reduces the population paying into Social Security, which may affect my future benefits and those of all future retirees. So why can’t I force you to have that child? Someone else’s decision to pursue a low-paying career when he could be making more money reduces the total revenues for the government, and enables him to avoid paying income taxes while still enjoying the benefits of everything the government provides for them. Why can’t the government force everyone into taking the highest paying job they can get so they can “pay their fair share?”

You’re free to bring a suit based on a substantive due process, in fact I bet someone will at some point. I don’t think it will be successful though.

crr6 on February 9, 2011 at 11:56 AM

I don’t think it will get to that point, because the law will be overturned or repealed well before 2014.

rockmom on February 9, 2011 at 12:56 PM

Obama’s law professor: If the Supreme Court strikes down the mandate, they must be biased political hacks

That!!! Right there!!! That explains the reluctance of Obama, to reveal his grades. If this was his professor, and he’s a professor of law….this is NOT comforting of our schools of higher learning. *sigh*

crr6 on February 9, 2011 at 11:56 AM

There’s probably an ambulance leaving soon. Run after it, won’t you?

capejasmine on February 9, 2011 at 12:57 PM

The choice also isn’t completely private, in the sense that the decision implicates others if you’re subsequently injured and can’t pay for your care.

crr6 on February 9, 2011 at 11:56 AM

You should be arrested for tortured logic.

darwin on February 9, 2011 at 12:46 PM

crr6 just argued that there is no such thing as privacy based on the butterfly effect.

I wonder if she’d care to extend that logic to the privacy rights of people seeking an abortion. Certainly the termination of an unborn life “implicates others” if you go to get an abortion and “can’t afford to pay”…

Scrappy on February 9, 2011 at 1:00 PM

The most socially destructive legislation of our time. It will be summarily struck down. Scalia’s opinion will be a gem of withering and comprehensive moral and legal denunciation.

rrpjr on February 9, 2011 at 1:11 PM

If the left is so certain, why are they slowing down the SCOTUS track? The VA AG is submitting a fast track, the gov’t is submitting the opposite.

Schadenfreude on February 9, 2011 at 1:11 PM

inspectorudy on February 9, 2011 at 11:14 AM

Any hospital can sue any patient for unpaid bills, or at least turn them over to a collection agency. I don’t think we need any new laws for that.

Akzed on February 9, 2011 at 1:15 PM

OK, everyone has medical insurance ………………. from where are the new doctors going to come? We already have a shortage.

SC.Charlie

a great number of qualified people try to secure a place in medical school each year.

it’s a relatively simple matter to increase the number of students under training.
we also have little problem in attracting doctors trained overseas.

audiculous on February 9, 2011 at 1:19 PM

Scalia’s opinion will be a gem of withering and comprehensive moral and legal denunciation.

rrpjr

don’t count on Scalia to vote against it. he’s already written an opinion that has him with more than one foot in agreement with this.

audiculous on February 9, 2011 at 1:21 PM

a great number of qualified people try to secure a place in medical school each year.

And you know this how? I think you’re being very liberal with the term “qualified”.

we also have little problem in attracting doctors trained overseas.

audiculous on February 9, 2011 at 1:19 PM

I prefer the homegrown, home trained variety … thanks.

darwin on February 9, 2011 at 1:26 PM

Do Charles Fried, Orin Kerr, Erwin Chemerinsky, Laurence Tribe, and Akhil Amar have legal acumen? You do realize your view is in the minority here, right? It’s pretty much held by a few wingnuts like Randy Barnett, and that’s it.

crr6 on February 9, 2011 at 10:46 AM

The guy who called Vinson’s decision the 21st century Dred Scott? I’d say you’re greatly overrating his legal acumen.

But I was incorrect in my post. The PPACA will actually be declared unconstitutional by a 5-3 vote, if Kagan has any integrity as a Justice.

Good Solid B-Plus on February 9, 2011 at 1:29 PM

don’t count on Scalia to vote against it. he’s already written an opinion that has him with more than one foot in agreement with this.

audiculous on February 9, 2011 at 1:21 PM

Because health insurance and medical marijuana are totally the same thing.

Have you even read Scalia’s Raich concurrence?

Good Solid B-Plus on February 9, 2011 at 1:31 PM

A related development-our AG is a Democrat political appointee, BTW.

CONCORD, N.H. – New Hampshire’s House has ignored Attorney General Michael Delaney’s objections it lacks the constitutional power to tell him what to do and voted to require him to join a lawsuit against the federal health care reform law.

The House voted 260-103 Wednesday to force Delaney to join 28 other states in suing to block the Affordable Health Care Act. Delaney told a House committee if the bill becomes law, he will challenge it as a violation of the constitution’s separation of powers clause.

Del Dolemonte on February 9, 2011 at 1:35 PM

crr6 on February 9, 2011 at 11:56 AM

As was said above, my choices will always affect someone in some way.
It does not give you the authority to mandate my behavior based on this notion.
If a choice of mine breaks a law, then I must be punishable under the law appropriately.
Your naked power grabbing ideals are nothing short of despotism, cloaked in the robe of oppresive, nany-state Progressivism.
The ugliness of it is astoundingly obvious.
No amount of your kibbitzing is going to make it OK with the Const.
You cannot explain this is all right.
It is not.
And the fact that you feel it is your right to impose such things upon your fellow citizens in direct opposition to the Const is doubly insulting.
As long as the Constitution is the founding document in this country, it will NEVER be OK for people like you to infringe upon the rights of its citizens, no matter how much legalese you spew.

Badger40 on February 9, 2011 at 1:40 PM

a great number of qualified people try to secure a place in medical school each year.
And you know this how? I think you’re being very liberal with the term “qualified”.

we also have little problem in attracting doctors trained overseas.

audiculous on February 9, 2011 at 1:19 PM
I prefer the homegrown, home trained variety … thanks.

darwin on February 9, 2011 at 1:26 PM

At UND there are so many seats to be had for medical school.
There are a certain # of these seats reserved especially for Native Americans.
From what I hear, they are not always filled.
If this happens, they do not send someone else.
The seats go vacant.
I happen to know a VERY qualified applicant who has tried to get in twice now & been turned down bcs of the competition (and she is no dummy).
She is looking elsewhere bcs she still wants to be a Dr, though I have no idea why.
There is something very wrong with a system that encourages foreigners over citizens to participate in a program.
Let us look at this & other programs like Affirmative Action.
Tell me how AA gives us the most qualified applicants.
It most definitely does NOT.

Badger40 on February 9, 2011 at 1:44 PM

Why not? It’s my body, either way.

This has little to nothing to do with your personal autonomy over your body. Even if you purchase health insurance you have a right to refuse medical treatment, if you wish.

What gives the government the right to penalize me if I exercise my right to choose not to purchase a product that I do not need?

What gives government the right to tax you if you don’t do something? Is that a serious question?

And what happens if you do not pay that tax penalty? Why is the IRS hiring thousands of “enforcers”?

You can’t be subject to criminal liability for failure to pay the tax penalty, the law explicitly says so.

And your choice to abort a child that you could afford to raise isn’t completely private either, in the sense that the decision reduces the population paying into Social Security, which may affect my future benefits and those of all future retirees. So why can’t I force you to have that child?

Because having a child is an intensely personal decision protected by the 14th amendment. As I said above, it’s related to one’s personal autonomy in a way that purchasing health insurance isn’t.

Someone else’s decision to pursue a low-paying career when he could be making more money reduces the total revenues for the government, and enables him to avoid paying income taxes while still enjoying the benefits of everything the government provides for them. Why can’t the government force everyone into taking the highest paying job they can get so they can “pay their fair share?”

If I’m not mistaken, there’s also a case saying one’s right to pursue a lawful profession is protected by substantive due process.

I don’t think it will get to that point, because the law will be overturned or repealed well before 2014.

rockmom on February 9, 2011 at 12:56 PM

That’s nice that you’re confident. I think the reason no one’s (to my knowledge) raised a SDP argument is that it’s a completely ridiculous argument. Which is interesting, because I think most of your objections to the law are really substantive due process arguments cloaked as commerce clause arguments (that is, you’re saying “government can’t do this because it encroaches on my own personal liberty and autonomy,” not “government can’t do this because it exceeds current commerce clause doctrine.”

crr6 on February 9, 2011 at 1:44 PM

Because health insurance and medical marijuana are totally the same thing.

Have you even read Scalia’s Raich concurrence?

Good Solid B-Plus on February 9, 2011 at 1:31 PM

Apparently you have recently, because you keep excitedly babbling on about it. OMG GUYS I READ SOMETHING!

But I was incorrect in my post. The PPACA will actually be declared unconstitutional by a 5-3 vote, if Kagan has any integrity as a Justice.

Good Solid B-Plus on February 9, 2011 at 1:29 PM

You don’t really know anything about anything, so I’m curious as to what you’re basing such a specific opinion on.

Actually, no I’m not.

crr6 on February 9, 2011 at 1:47 PM

The choice also isn’t completely private, in the sense that the decision implicates others if you’re subsequently injured and can’t pay for your care.

crr6 on February 9, 2011 at 11:56 AM

You should be arrested for tortured logic.

darwin on February 9, 2011 at 12:46 PM

I don’t get why you keep dismissing that argument. There’s empirical evidence that it happens, and in relatively large dollar-amounts.

crr6 on February 9, 2011 at 1:49 PM

crr6 on February 9, 2011 at 11:56 AM

A decision of whether or not to purchase health care isn’t “central to personal dignity and automony” in the way that choosing a sexual partner, or choosing whether or not to have an abortion is

I disagree. And I’d bet real money that some of the Men in Black disagree also. I would argue that requiring someone to enter the stream of commerce against their will would be tantamount to requiring someone to enter the sexual stream against their will.

The choice also isn’t completely private, in the sense that the decision implicates others if you’re subsequently injured and can’t pay for your care.

Much like I always have the choice to not engage in sex, and the choice to not engage in commerce with someone else, the state always has the choice to not provide for my medical care if I don’t meet certain conditions.

JohnGalt23 on February 9, 2011 at 1:52 PM

The choice also isn’t completely private, in the sense that the decision implicates others if you’re subsequently injured and can’t pay for your care. crr6 on February 9, 2011 at 11:56 AM

On that “logic” then every purchase we make on time should need insurance for potential non-payment. E.g., if I buy a riding mower and lose my job how do I pay for it?

If I am too sick to work to pay my medical bills, I can sell my riding mower. Why would anyone beside me be obligated to pay my bills?

I guess if I were a member of a class favored by liberals however, I would be under no obligation to pay my own freight. I guess that’s what you were thinking.

Akzed on February 9, 2011 at 1:56 PM

Apparently you have recently, because you keep excitedly babbling on about it. OMG GUYS I READ SOMETHING!

Actually, read it years ago, but since you keep banking on Scalia being on your side, I’d say it’s a relevant bit of jurisprudence. It’s going to make it funnier when Scalia votes the PPACA unconstitutional.

But I was incorrect in my post. The PPACA will actually be declared unconstitutional by a 5-3 vote, if Kagan has any integrity as a Justice.

Good Solid B-Plus on February 9, 2011 at 1:29 PM
You don’t really know anything about anything, so I’m curious as to what you’re basing such a specific opinion on.

Actually, no I’m not.

crr6 on February 9, 2011 at 1:47 PM

Yeah, you never actually present a cogent counter-argument to anything, so I’m surprised you’re being such a condescending douchewad.

Actually, no I’m not.

Good Solid B-Plus on February 9, 2011 at 1:56 PM

What gives the government the right to penalize me if I exercise my right to choose not to purchase a product that I do not need?

What gives government the right to tax you if you don’t do something? Is that a serious question?

crr6 on February 9, 2011 at 1:44 PM

Nice twist there. The question had nothing to do with taxing.

So much for Obama’s “this is not a tax” sales pitch. liberals are so dishonest that they will call it a tax when it suits their purposes and “not a tax” whenever it’s politically inconvenient. Pathetic.

Scrappy on February 9, 2011 at 1:57 PM

I don’t get why you keep dismissing that argument. There’s empirical evidence that it happens, and in relatively large dollar-amounts.

crr6 on February 9, 2011 at 1:49 PM

Why u mad bro?

Good Solid B-Plus on February 9, 2011 at 1:59 PM

I disagree.

I’m shocked.

And I’d bet real money that some of the Men in Black disagree also.

Really? How much? Because I think the substantive due process argument is an even more frivolous one, which is why I haven’t seen it in any of your side’s briefs.

I would argue that requiring someone to enter the stream of commerce against their will would be tantamount to requiring someone to enter the sexual stream against their will.

I’m sure you would, but SCOTUS disagrees. Since the Lochner era SCOTUS has consistently distinguished between economic liberties (which are not subject to strict scrutiny review under substantive due process) and certain social liberties (which are). If you were making this argument in say, 1890 you might have a case. But the Lochner era is extinct.

Much like I always have the choice to not engage in sex, and the choice to not engage in commerce with someone else, the state always has the choice to not provide for my medical care if I don’t meet certain conditions.

JohnGalt23 on February 9, 2011 at 1:52 PM

If you show up to a hospital emergency room with no health insurance or money, federal law requires that you be given care.

crr6 on February 9, 2011 at 1:59 PM

Actually, read it years ago, but since you keep banking on Scalia being on your side, I’d say it’s a relevant bit of jurisprudence. It’s going to make it funnier when Scalia votes the PPACA unconstitutional.

Even one of Scalia’s own clerks said he’s not sure which way he’ll come out on the case. How on earth do you know?

You don’t know anything. About anything. Which is fine, but it’s bizarre that you keep acting as if you do.

Yeah, you never actually present a cogent counter-argument to anything, so I’m surprised you’re being such a condescending douchewad.

Good Solid B-Plus on February 9, 2011 at 1:56 PM

Seriously? Read my posts up and down this thread, for starters. Then read your own posts. Who’s making arguments and who’s ankle biting?

crr6 on February 9, 2011 at 2:02 PM

Actually, read it years ago,

OH SNAPS!

crr6 on February 9, 2011 at 2:03 PM

Actually, read it years ago,

OH SNAPS!

crr6 on February 9, 2011 at 2:03 PM

I know. Isn’t it annoying when people say stuff like that, or go on about how they’re at some pestigious law school?

Scrappy on February 9, 2011 at 2:08 PM

The choice also isn’t completely private, in the sense that the decision implicates others if you’re subsequently injured and can’t pay for your care. crr6 on February 9, 2011 at 11:56 AM

Based on this premise, what happens if I take out a loan for a car & then lose my job & I can’t pay for it?
Does that mean the taxpayer has to pay for my car?
So the lender cannot come after me legally for payment at all?
Health care industry should have a right to sue for non-payment. And just like any other debt, keep at it until the get it from you.
You should not be able to discharge any debt unless you have gone through the hoops to declare bankruptcy, which should not be easy to do.
The federal govt has no right to insist that just bcs I do not have health ins that I am never going to pay any medical bills I might incur.
Most people DO pay their medical bills.
Someone mentioned above that the people who DO abuse the system are allowed to get away with it.
They should never be allowed to do so.
This Obamacare is nothing but a tax.
And that is the way it should be staed.
This legal kibbitzing is nothing but defending an UnConst power grab.

Badger40 on February 9, 2011 at 2:09 PM

it’s a relatively simple matter to increase the number of students under training.
we also have little problem in attracting doctors trained overseas.

audiculous on February 9, 2011 at 1:19 PM

Not if they see that they will not realize large incomes with all that work and payments (loans/malpractice ins) they have to shell out!

Don’t believe it? My daughter already changed her medical profession plans after she saw the writing on the wall… “Why would I go through all that just to come out of school making the same amount (after loans and malpractice ins) as an RN? It doesn’t make sense.”

You see, with socialized medicine, the Government pays… and when it gets expensive (like with existing Medicare/Medicaid), they try to cut payments to doctors. So when surveys among doctors indicate that 40% plan on leaving the Medical profession within 5 years of full Obamacare implementation, YOU BETTER START LISTENING.

dominigan on February 9, 2011 at 2:10 PM

Even one of Scalia’s own clerks said he’s not sure which way he’ll come out on the case. How on earth do you know?

You don’t know anything. About anything. Which is fine, but it’s bizarre that you keep acting as if you do.

Well, given your complete lack of policy chops in every topic not relating to the law, I’m willing to bet I know quite a bit more about politics than you. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever seen you make a cogent, sophisticated non-legal argument on this site that wasn’t either a catty ad-hom or a piece of hideously boilerplate liberal rhetoric.

Actually, I’m willing to bet I know quite a bit more about practically everything than you, outside of the incredibly esoteric world of law. You don’t seem to have a very strong grasp of non-legal history, literature, or philosophy, besides your one Aristotle quote.

But you’re right, I don’t know which way Scalia will vote. Neither do you. I’m making a prediction of 5-3/5-4. I already know you won’t make any prediction because, well, you’re sort of a coward. Hell, a week before the midterms, you said “We’ll probably lose the House.” Well, ****, Nostradamus, can I get the Pick Six numbers too?

Yeah, you never actually present a cogent counter-argument to anything, so I’m surprised you’re being such a condescending douchewad.

Good Solid B-Plus on February 9, 2011 at 1:56 PM
Seriously? Read my posts up and down this thread, for starters. Then read your own posts. Who’s making arguments and who’s ankle biting?

crr6 on February 9, 2011 at 2:02 PM

Yeah, responding “I’m shocked” to someone saying “I disagree”? That’s a pretty spectacular takedown, dude.

Good Solid B-Plus on February 9, 2011 at 2:11 PM

OH SNAPS!

crr6 on February 9, 2011 at 2:03 PM

Yeah, crr never ankle-bites.

Good Solid B-Plus on February 9, 2011 at 2:13 PM

Good Solid B-Plus on February 9, 2011 at 1:56 PM

From The Office, Season 5 Episode 14, 2/5/08:

Michael Scott: I would give that lecture a solid B+.

On 12/14/09, Oprah asked Obooba to grade himself:

Hussein Obooba: Good, solid B+.

Akzed on February 9, 2011 at 2:14 PM

I know. Isn’t it annoying when people say stuff like that, or go on about how they’re at some pestigious law school?

Scrappy on February 9, 2011 at 2:08 PM

Yeah, crr attends the prestigious “List of T-14″ Law School.

So did PR, iirc.

Good Solid B-Plus on February 9, 2011 at 2:15 PM

From The Office, Season 5 Episode 14, 2/5/08:

Michael Scott: I would give that lecture a solid B+.

On 12/14/09, Oprah asked Obooba to grade himself:

Hussein Obooba: Good, solid B+.

Akzed on February 9, 2011 at 2:14 PM

But what grade would Prison Mike give the lecture?

Good Solid B-Plus on February 9, 2011 at 2:15 PM

“I stole… and I robbed… and I kidnapped the president’s son… and held him for ransom, and I gave Obooba a solid C-,” -Prison Mike.

Akzed on February 9, 2011 at 2:19 PM

And your choice to abort a child that you could afford to raise isn’t completely private either, in the sense that the decision reduces the population paying into Social Security, which may affect my future benefits and those of all future retirees.
rockmom on February 9, 2011 at 12:56 PM

I like that – crr6 is now firmly in the pro-life camp, based on identical logic.

Hiya Ciska on February 9, 2011 at 2:21 PM

“I stole… and I robbed… and I kidnapped the president’s son… and held him for ransom, and I gave Obooba a solid C-,” -Prison Mike.

Akzed on February 9, 2011 at 2:19 PM

Do you really expect me to not push you up against the wall, *****?!

Good Solid B-Plus on February 9, 2011 at 2:21 PM

“And I never got caught neither…”

Akzed on February 9, 2011 at 2:22 PM

“But you’re in prison…”

Akzed on February 9, 2011 at 2:22 PM

I like that – crr6 is now firmly in the pro-life camp, based on identical logic.

Hiya Ciska on February 9, 2011 at 2:21 PM

To be fair, I think crr has claimed in the past to not be a big fan of abortion.

Good Solid B-Plus on February 9, 2011 at 2:22 PM

“Why would I go through all that just to come out of school making the same amount (after loans and malpractice ins) as an RN? It doesn’t make sense.”

dominigan on February 9, 2011 at 2:10 PM

I know at least 4 people who are not pursuing a degree in medicine for this very reason.
Why get $hit on when you don’t have to?
That’s why there are so many foreign doctors coming in.
They are doing the jobs Americans won’t do, for the reason that the citizen knows they can do better without all the hassle.

Badger40 on February 9, 2011 at 2:23 PM

Well, given your complete lack of policy chops in every topic not relating to the law, I’m willing to bet I know quite a bit more about politics than you.

Maybe! Probably not, but maybe!

Look though, I’m sorry I hurt your ego. But just because your buddies at Case Western thought you’re wicked smart, doesn’t mean it’s not true. The sooner you learn that, the better.

In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever seen you make a cogent, sophisticated non-legal argument on this site that wasn’t either a catty ad-hom or a piece of hideously boilerplate liberal rhetoric.

I generally post about things I know about. If I don’t know about it, I won’t claim to or act as if I do. That’s the difference between you and me. You’re mind-numbingly ignorant, but you act like you’re frickin Oliver Wendell Holmes.

But you’re right, I don’t know which way Scalia will vote. Neither do you.

…right. Which is why I don’t make dumb*** predictions. But you do, and with an inexplicable air of certainty.

I already know you won’t make any prediction because, well, you’re sort of a coward.

LOL. Ok, bud. Looks like I touched a nerve. Let me see if I can make you feel a little better.

You are very special and smart. You are extremely knowledgeable about history, literature, philosophy and law. When someone points out that you are stupid about something, it’s just because they are jealous of your apparent intelligence and wit, or because they are compensating for their own inadequacies. You are successful and live and work in a world-class city. You are completely in control of the situation.

Feel better?

crr6 on February 9, 2011 at 2:23 PM

I like that – crr6 is now firmly in the pro-life camp, based on identical logic.

Hiya Ciska on February 9, 2011 at 2:21 PM

My body, my choice, blah blah blah.
Who wants to be punished with all of those taxpayers?/

Badger40 on February 9, 2011 at 2:24 PM

But just because your buddies at Case Western thought you’re wicked smart, doesn’t mean it’s not true

Or that it’s not not true!

crr6 on February 9, 2011 at 2:24 PM

crr6 on February 9, 2011 at 2:23 PM

My body, my choice.

Badger40 on February 9, 2011 at 2:24 PM

So I wonder if Obooba had the script from a rerun of The Office in his head when O asked him to grade himself…

Akzed on February 9, 2011 at 2:25 PM

There are people that go to the ER for either regular care or emergencies and stiff the hospital for the bill, but they are mostly illegal aliens. Take them out of the equation, as they should be, and the problem of the ‘uninsured’ diminishes significantly.

If someone wishes to go uninsured and is willing to pay cash for their care, or put it on a credit card, or have to get a second mortgage and go into debt for a long time, I have no problem with that.

slickwillie2001 on February 9, 2011 at 2:26 PM

If someone wishes to go uninsured and is willing to pay cash for their care, or put it on a credit card, or have to get a second mortgage and go into debt for a long time, I have no problem with that.

slickwillie2001 on February 9, 2011 at 2:26 PM

I’ll go further – if they don’t provide payment confirmation upfront, they don’t get treatment.

Hiya Ciska on February 9, 2011 at 2:27 PM

slickwillie2001 on February 9, 2011 at 2:26 PM

When I worked in DC back in the mid-80′s there was a big problem with people using ambulances for taxis.

They’d get near where they wanted to go then demand to be let out.

And of course, Medicaid or whatever dole they were on paid for it.

Akzed on February 9, 2011 at 2:28 PM

I’ll go further – if they don’t provide payment confirmation upfront, they don’t get treatment.

Hiya Ciska on February 9, 2011 at 2:27 PM

That’d solve the economic problem, but I don’t think our country is comfortable doing that from a moral standpoint.

crr6 on February 9, 2011 at 2:29 PM

crr6 on February 9, 2011 at 2:23 PM

Whargblagralb bad snark and unfunny sarcasm

*yawn*

Yeah, that was about what I expected. Like I said, you’re not a very sharp person in general outside the realm of law, hence why I don’t put much stock in your assessment of my intelligence.

Seriously though bro, are you really this unfunny? I thought you said you’re a fan of AP. Shouldn’t you have picked up some modicum of sarcastic wit from him?

Good Solid B-Plus on February 9, 2011 at 2:30 PM

That’d solve the economic problem, but I don’t think our country is comfortable doing that from a moral standpoint.

crr6 on February 9, 2011 at 2:29 PM

Between paying for deadbeat medical care and national default, I’d guess quite a few people will get comfortable with it.

Hiya Ciska on February 9, 2011 at 2:31 PM

Or that it’s not not true!

crr6 on February 9, 2011 at 2:24 PM

Duble negatives r hard.

Good Solid B-Plus on February 9, 2011 at 2:31 PM

If someone wishes to go uninsured and is willing to pay cash for their care, or put it on a credit card, or have to get a second mortgage and go into debt for a long time, I have no problem with that.

slickwillie2001 on February 9, 2011 at 2:26 PM
I’ll go further – if they don’t provide payment confirmation upfront, they don’t get treatment.

Hiya Ciska on February 9, 2011 at 2:27 PM

I don’t think a hospital sohuld be forced to do something for someone that the persona cannot pay for.
However, in a trauma situation, a lot of times there is no time to discern whether someone can pay.
You just save the person’s life.
However, they do not need a private room with world class service etc.
Really, if the govt got out of health care in the 1st place, Medicaid etc., then prices for services would go down & then people would be able to afford basic care.
I only go to the Dr when I HAVE to.
I do yearly woman checkups bcs cancer runs in my family.
I did a mammogram bcs of that.
But I don’t feel the need to do one every year bcs I watch my body for signs of things going wrong.
How many of us have gone on a Dr visit & felt we did not get our money’s worth?
But bcs we might have decent ins, the full cost is not born by us.
And since we pay so much for health ins, we might feel we should milk things for all that it is worth.
Like I pay over $5000/yr for a farm & ranch policy even though we have never had a claim.
And it keeps going up.
So when the adjustor came out to see the damage for hail on the house, you almost feel like you want to squeeze every penny out of them you can.
If I wasn’t forced to have that policy, I could take that $5000/yr & SAVE or INVEST it & if something happened to my house, I could use that money to fix it.
But no, instead it goes to some other company & I get no return.
It’s a fricking scam.

Badger40 on February 9, 2011 at 2:35 PM

Heh, actually, it’s pretty funny that crr is talking about someone else needing an ego boost, when he has all but admitted that the main reason he trolls here is to laugh at all the wingnuts and flaunt his own hyperinflated sense of self.

Is that ironic, or just sad?

Good Solid B-Plus on February 9, 2011 at 2:40 PM

flaunt his own hyperinflated sense of self.

Is that ironic, or just sad?

Good Solid B-Plus on February 9, 2011 at 2:40 PM

I have actually always found it fascinating that curr6 thinks he/she is some kind of mental genius.
I have only seen genius a few times in my life, & she/he is NOT in that category.

Badger40 on February 9, 2011 at 2:42 PM

I generally post about things I know about. If I don’t know about it, I won’t claim to or act as if I do.
crr6 on February 9, 2011 at 2:23 PM

ITT crr finally admits that he knows nothing about non-legal American politics.

I mean, we already knew that, but it’s refreshing to see you get it off your chest.

Good Solid B-Plus on February 9, 2011 at 2:43 PM

I have actually always found it fascinating that curr6 thinks he/she is some kind of mental genius.
I have only seen genius a few times in my life, & she/he is NOT in that category.

Badger40 on February 9, 2011 at 2:42 PM

But, uh, he’s used the same Aristotle quote as a pithy comeback like three times! Surely that is a sign of genius, no?

Good Solid B-Plus on February 9, 2011 at 2:44 PM

Surely that is a sign of genius, no?

Good Solid B-Plus on February 9, 2011 at 2:44 PM

I agree.
I should try this.
Tacitus!
Arugula!
My body my choice!
Aristotle!
Democritus!
Locke!
Blackstone!
WTH I feel smarter already.

Badger40 on February 9, 2011 at 2:56 PM

But, uh, he’s used the same Aristotle quote as a pithy comeback like three times! Surely that is a sign of genius, no?
Good Solid B-Plus on February 9, 2011 at 2:44 PM

As every propagandist will tell you: endless repetition is the soul of wit.

logis on February 9, 2011 at 3:04 PM

That’d solve the economic problem, but I don’t think our country is comfortable doing that from a moral standpoint.

crr6 on February 9, 2011 at 2:29 PM

Kinda ironic, considering how many other moral standpoints we’ve thrown overboard.

Dark-Star on February 9, 2011 at 3:09 PM

endless repetition is the soul of wit.

logis on February 9, 2011 at 3:04 PM

This is why BO tells us the same boring lies over & over again.
You know when you throw enough $hit on a wall, you will eventually get some to stick.

Badger40 on February 9, 2011 at 3:10 PM

OK, everyone has medical insurance ………………. from where are the new doctors going to come? We already have a shortage.

SC.Charlie
a great number of qualified people try to secure a place in medical school each year.

it’s a relatively simple matter to increase the number of students under training.
we also have little problem in attracting doctors trained overseas.

audiculous on February 9, 2011 at 1:19 PM

With this statement you demonstrate that you have no understanding of how we get doctors. You just can’t run over to WalMart and order up a few. Assuming every medical school doubled its enrollment spaces today, it still takes a mimimum of 7 years from date of entry to train just a basic internist or family practice doctor. Specialists take longer. So starting in August 2011 it will be August 2018 before you have double the output of basic generalists. That is 4 years after this law takes effect. That does not account for the voluntary early retirement of experienced doctors in their 50s who just say they don’t want to put up with the BS any longer. So that pool of knowledge and expertise will be replaced with what? Dr. Hazeem from whereeveristan? Right.

txmomof6 on February 9, 2011 at 3:16 PM

So that pool of knowledge and expertise will be replaced with what? Dr. Hazeem from whereeveristan? Right.

txmomof6 on February 9, 2011 at 3:16 PM

Hey, it works for the British NHS, right?

Oh, wait….

dmh0667 on February 9, 2011 at 3:37 PM

If they can legislate and mandate any purchase at any time; and then grant “waivers” to people or groups… what is the limit?

First we legislate everyone must buy items X, Y, Z, etc. until they’ve spent your entire income. Then we grant a waiver to everyone but you… then we take all your money either for the purchases you didn’t want or fines for not making them. Where have we crossed the line?

We’ve got the mandated purchases? We’ve got the hundreds/thousands of waivers so the laws aren’t applied equally? We’ve determined that by not buying something you’re still engaged in interstate commerce that can be legislated… I think we can do this.

So I guess this would be perfectly legal, it’s fully covered under the “The Government legally owns all your sh*t” clause of the Constitution.

Weird that I don’t remember that clause; but apparently I need to reread the Constitution more carefully.

gekkobear on February 9, 2011 at 3:45 PM

So that pool of knowledge and expertise will be replaced with what? Dr. Hazeem from whereeveristan? Right.

txmomof6 on February 9, 2011 at 3:16 PM
Hey, it works for the British NHS, right?

Oh, wait….

dmh0667 on February 9, 2011 at 3:37 PM

Yeah, worked great with that guy that tried to use a truck bomb at the Glasgow airport a few years ago. He was a foreign doctor that was hired due to the chronic shortage of local doctors resulting from, you guessed it, government run healthcare.

txmomof6 on February 9, 2011 at 3:50 PM

Weird that I don’t remember that clause; but apparently I need to reread the Constitution more carefully.

gekkobear on February 9, 2011 at 3:45 PM

It’s apparently in some sort of code that only liberals are smart enough to understand. But yeah, there’s been more than one prominent leftie recently claiming that all income belongs to the government.

malclave on February 9, 2011 at 3:59 PM

I generally post about things I know about. If I don’t know about it, I won’t claim to or act as if I do.

crr6 on February 9, 2011 at 2:23 PM

Like yesterday, I suppose, when you posted about the head of the NAACP?

In that post, you automatically assumed that it was a woman, just because the person’s name was “Hilary”.

Del Dolemonte on February 9, 2011 at 4:18 PM

Like yesterday, I suppose, when you posted about the head of the NAACP?

In that post, you automatically assumed that it was a woman, just because the person’s name was “Hilary”.

Del Dolemonte on February 9, 2011 at 4:18 PM

How dare you, sir!

Crr is an NAACP scholar, and would never make such a simple mistake.

Good Solid B-Plus on February 9, 2011 at 4:23 PM

I generally post about things I know about. If I don’t know about it, I won’t claim to or act as if I do.

crr6 on February 9, 2011 at 2:23 PM

Like yesterday, I suppose, when you posted about the head of the NAACP?

In that post, you automatically assumed that it was a woman, just because the person’s name was “Hilary”.

Del Dolemonte on February 9, 2011 at 4:18 PM

crr6 also claimed that I said I went to Cornell.

I did not go to Cornell, and I have no reason to lie about that… unlike crr6, who apparently has reason to routinely lie.

malclave on February 9, 2011 at 4:31 PM

txmomof6 on February 9, 2011 at 3:16 PM

Fear not, Bammie will call up his buddy Fidel, and Cuba will send in a shipment of doctors.

slickwillie2001 on February 9, 2011 at 4:40 PM

crr6 also claimed that I said I went to Cornell.
malclave on February 9, 2011 at 4:31 PM

A close personal friend of the ‘Nard Dog.

Akzed on February 9, 2011 at 4:50 PM

Dr. Hazeem from whereeveristan? Right.

txmomof6 on February 9, 2011 at 3:16 PM

Those are the Drs that we are getting in rural ND.
Indians, mostly.
I don’t have a problem with that.
What I do have a problem with is that the govt has made a particular profession so undesirable bcs of its encroaching power that US citizens forgo getting into such fields.
They have done this to agriculture, as well as other professions.
It needs to stop before nobody will do anything bcs they cannot make a living at it.
And no, I do not want fries with that!

I did not go to Cornell, and I have no reason to lie about that… unlike crr6, who apparently has reason to routinely lie.

malclave on February 9, 2011 at 4:31 PM

That is extremely bizarre. WTF?!

Badger40 on February 9, 2011 at 4:51 PM

Those are the Drs that we are getting in rural ND.
Indians, mostly.
I don’t have a problem with that.
What I do have a problem with is that the govt has made a particular profession so undesirable bcs of its encroaching power that US citizens forgo getting into such fields.

Agreed. My point was primarily that the problems associated with the supply of doctors is complex and a simple solution of well we will just get some foreign doctors in here to address the shortage is not a solution. It is a bandaid on a gaping chest wound.

txmomof6 on February 9, 2011 at 5:09 PM

It is a bandaid on a gaping chest wound.

txmomof6 on February 9, 2011 at 5:09 PM

LOL! Did you read my mind? Or were you stalking me?:

More Band Aids for a sucking chest wound.

Badger40 on December 2, 2010 at 11:50 AM

Badger40 on February 9, 2011 at 5:14 PM

It is a bandaid on a gaping chest wound.

txmomof6 on February 9, 2011 at 5:09 PM

LOL! Did you read my mind? Or were you stalking me?:

More Band Aids for a sucking chest wound.

Badger40 on December 2, 2010 at 11:50 AM

Badger40 on February 9, 2011 at 5:14 PM

Ha, no I didn’t see that. Great minds and all that, I guess.

txmomof6 on February 9, 2011 at 5:30 PM

I did not go to Cornell, and I have no reason to lie about that…

malclave on February 9, 2011 at 4:31 PM

Yeah but isn’t that exactly what someone who went to Cornell would say?

I have actually always found it fascinating that curr6 thinks he/she is some kind of mental genius.

Badger40 on February 9, 2011 at 2:42 PM

Where have I said that?

ITT crr finally admits that he knows nothing about non-legal American politics.

Good Solid B-Plus on February 9, 2011 at 2:43 PM

It’s not that really, it’s just that I find most of the politically-oriented discussions boring and empty. The endless guessing about which way SCOTUS will vote is a perfect example. It’s a completely pointless, meaningless topic and it doesn’t get to the merits of the issue at all, it’s pretty much just guess-work based on uninformed hunches.

A great deal of political discussion is like that. Heck, entire political science departments at major universities are like that, which is why I think it’s a dumb major. No one asks or answers any useful questions, it’s just an excuse for people who like to argue to get together and and snipe at each other about superficial policy disagreements.

crr6 on February 9, 2011 at 5:34 PM

I’ll go further – if they don’t provide payment confirmation upfront, they don’t get treatment.

Hiya Ciska

might be interesting if you’re ever in a serious auto crash and your mangled old butt is wedged into the wreck and there’s no way to get you out other than ripping the car apart.
how happy you gonna be when they ask you for billing info before starting?

audiculous on February 9, 2011 at 5:36 PM

crr6 also claimed that I said I went to Cornell.

malclave on February 9, 2011 at 4:31 PM

For the record, I didn’t claim that. I asked you if you’ve claimed that. There’s another poster here with a similar username who’s a freshman at Cornell, I must have mixed you up.

crr6 on February 9, 2011 at 5:36 PM

I have actually always found it fascinating that curr6 thinks he/she is some kind of mental genius.

Badger40 on February 9, 2011 at 2:42 PM

Where have I said that?

you implied it by knowing too much more than the Beaver.
knowledge is arrogance.

audiculous on February 9, 2011 at 5:39 PM

you implied it by knowing too much more than the Beaver.
knowledge is arrogance.

audiculous on February 9, 2011 at 5:39 PM

Yes. Facts are elitist.

crr6 on February 9, 2011 at 5:44 PM

It’s not that really, it’s just that I find most of the politically-oriented discussions boring and empty. The endless guessing about which way SCOTUS will vote is a perfect example. It’s a completely pointless, meaningless topic and it doesn’t get to the merits of the issue at all, it’s pretty much just guess-work based on uninformed hunches.

A great deal of political discussion is like that. Heck, entire political science departments at major universities are like that, which is why I think it’s a dumb major. No one asks or answers any useful questions, it’s just an excuse for people who like to argue to get together and and snipe at each other about superficial policy disagreements.

crr6 on February 9, 2011 at 5:34 PM

Maybe that’s because you go into every discussion here with the attitude that you’re talking down to a bunch of sub-humans who can’t possibly contribute to sophisticated political discourse?

The site has been a bit lacking lately, but I think there were a lot of very interesting conversations about the future of the Republican party during primary season. Some of it boiled down into O-Donnell/Angle pro-con food fights, but there was a lot of insightful debate about the importance of consolidating the SoCon base, how to broaden the ‘big tent’ without diluting the brand, the merits of ideological rigidity versus pragmatic political reality, etc.

The better question is, if you find politically-oriented discussion so boring and empty….why do you spend so much time on a conservative political blog?

If you participated more in some of those dreaded topics where you don’t ooze expertise, maybe you’d no longer mischaracterize HA as a primative echo-chamber.

I will say that lately, most topics seem to break along very predictable fault lines. Every “SoCon vs. Big Tent” post tends to degenerate into a shouting match about the “gay agenda,” and every topic that is even tangentially related to Palin becomes 500 posts from the usual “Palin is the messiah” or “Palin is unelectable garbage” batallions.

Good Solid B-Plus on February 9, 2011 at 5:46 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4