Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: So this problem isn't new, or owned by either party 58
The arguments by which the Obama administration is countering lawsuits that seek to limit Obamacare subsidies to participants in "exchanges" established by states--a limit that is specified in the Obamacare law itself--have raised the outcome's stakes. Administration officials argue that the plain, unmistakable, uncontested language of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is less important than what they want the law to mean, and that hewing to its words would deprive millions of people of the subsidies that the administration had granted them regardless of those words. Therefore the courts should enforce what the administration wants rather than what the law says.
The Democratic Party, the bulk of its appointees in the judiciary, and the mainstream media echo these arguments.
America has moved away from the rule of law in recent decades, as more and more of the decisions by which we must live are made by administrative agencies in consultation with their favorite constituencies and judges rather than by the people's elected representatives. More and more, statutes passed by Congress are lengthy grants of power to administrative agencies, the content of which is determined by complex interactions between bureaucrats, special interests, and judges aligned with either. Hence House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's famous statement--that the ACA's meaning would be determined only after its passage--was true of it and most other modern legislation as well. This is the rule of men, not of law.
Obama is arguably more audacious about it, but look at the TSA.
Sarah Palin is arguing for impeachment, though that's really all about making damn_registrars foam at the mouth and driving subscriptions. We can impeach our way through the whole federal government, but if we are discussing systemic changes, then we're pissing in the wind, say I.
Rule of law (Score:2)
I've been saying for years, leftists generally hate the rule of law. They just do. The rule of law means they are restrained from doing what they think is best. Therefore, they hate it. There is infinite evidence of this. They openly question whether we should follow the law at every turn, from the top (Justice Breyer and President Obama) to the bottom (pretty much every "occupy" protestor).
We actually had a majority of the federal legislature decry a Supreme Court decision that merely said -- in refer
Re: (Score:1)
Putting it theologically, so much of the Left is an appeal to the flesh.
Re: (Score:2)
In a way, but don't forget the contempt that the left holds for large swaths of average slobs: those working just hard enough to not 'earn' public assistance.
They love the union. They don't love the union members.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
So, maybe now you can see why it's so difficult to distinguish the "left" from the "right"? Both are after the same thing, and both fuel the contempt that the lumpenproletariat has for itself, which is what keeps them in their place, and *them crazy baldheads* up on top...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Nope, the one I suggested is good enough, until you can think of something better...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Oh please! Those bunch of rednecks who want nothing more than to bring back Jim Crow? C'mon man, get over that crap.
You so funny! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I have, and they are. Stay, however you want to stay!
Re: (Score:1)
They're not for liberty...
Find somebody who is...
But you are right about one thing, rednecks are too dumb to feel the pain of the hook in their gills.
Re: (Score:2)
Impeachment is a stupid idea.
In the current situation, yes.
Right, that's what I meant.
It will likely give the country little benefit to shave a mere year or so off his presidency
No.
First of all, it will give the country no benefit at all.
Second of all, it won't shave a year off the presidency.
It could, obviously.
In fact it is pretty much certain at this point that even if your heroes ...
You're lying. No federal legislator is my hero.
... began impeachment tomorrow morning, they wouldn't be able to get the process all the way through to removal before January of 2017, it simply takes that long.
False. You're lying. The question is: why are you lying, when the evidence is so clear?
Clinton's impeachment -- which took longer than necessary -- took a mere five months from beginning of Starr's submission of data to the House (1998-09-08), to the Senate's acquittal (1999-02-12). We don't need to go through lots of information for Obama; most of his "crimes and misdemeanors" are well-known. It could very w
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you accusing the AC of lying when you dislike what they say?
You're a liar. I didn't say you were lying because I dislike what you say; I say you were lying because you lied. You either know it can take less than two years, or you said it with reckless disregard for truth or falsity (which is also lying).
If you knew anything at all you would know that even once the house and senate convict the president, a new process has to begin in order to remove the president.
And that can happen in mere days.
None of this is quick.
It might be; it might not be. You're lying. Again.
Furthermore, you very casually glossed over the "submission of data" part. Starr actually did an investigation, and interviewed meaningful witnesses.
You're lying. I explicitly addressed what makes this different in the Obama case: we don't need further investigation for Obama.
It's similar to the Clinton situation, in that when
Re: (Score:2)
There is absolutely no precedent for it having ever taken a short amount of time.
You're a liar. Clinton: five months. Johnson: 3.5 months. Yes, he was not removed, but that would not take an additional year or more.
Hence you need to look at the time between next February and January 2017, which is not enough time to impeach and remove the POTUS.
You're a liar. Even if we said it took a year to impeach Clinton (including investigations etc.), that would still leave about a year to remove him.
Anyone with even a slight grasp of reality knows this, which is why your dear representatives and senators have all but given up on it.
You're a liar. The length of time pretty much has nothing to do with why they won't impeach him, because a. it wouldn't take that long, and b. it's a bad idea regardless of the length of time.
It is an additional process and there is nothing quick about it.
You're a liar, on both counts. F
Re: (Score:2)
Which you already admitted, happened after an investigation.
And I also already proved no investigation here is necessary. There's nothing in the Constitution requiring it, obviously; and if the House feels that we know what we need to, then no investigation needs to be done. It's that simple.
No investigation will even start until the middle of 2015 at the earliest
You're a liar. Even if an investigation were done, it could start immediately in January. Actually, it could start this November, after the results of the Senate election are known. But it would likely begin in January.
Two, however, is the bigger problem you have. No president has ever been removed by impeachment.
That is not a problem with anything I said, no.
It is reasonable to expect it would take at least as long as the impeachment itself, if not longer.
You're a
Re: (Score:2)
You claimed it, you most certainly did not prove it.
Simply put: the Constitution doesn't require an investigation, therefore it isn't necessary. This is easy, even for you, to understand.
First of all, you are claiming to know the results of the upcoming elections
You're a liar, or you can't read. (I could go either way on that one.)
why would the house and senate just spontaneously decide to bend over?
I never implied they would. What are you blabbering about? (Note: this is a rhetorical question. I don't really care what you are blabbering about, because I am quite sure it won't make any sense, won't reflect reality, won't be honest, etc. As usual.)
You are operating in a land of pure fantasy and imagination when you pretend that somehow congress could get this done quickly.
You're a liar. I presented evidence: evidence th
Re: (Score:2)
If we don't need an investigation
The Constitution says we don't. Stop being stupid.
Your original statement ... indicated ... that you are certain of the outcome of the coming election
You're a liar.
... and that once your fantasy comes true that the rest of congress would bend to your will before the new class even shows up.
You're a liar. I implied no such thing. You appear to be under the impression that a. the House is not currently Republican, or b. that if the incoming House wants to impeach, the outgoing House would not, or c. the Senate has anything to do with impeachment before the House actually votes for impeachment. a. and c. are obviously false, and b. is nonsense. Stop being stupid.
So now, you admit to lying about proving it.
You're a liar. I said no such thing. I simply proved you were w
Re: (Score:2)
So, here's how this goes: nothing in your next comments matters until you back up or retract your claim that I have ever said impeachment of President Obama needs to happen, or in any way supported impeachment of President Obama. Anything else you say will be ignored until that happens. You need to learn to tell the truth, at least sometimes.
Re: (Score:2)
So now, you've tried to back up your claim, and you've failed. You did not show any evidence, at all, of me expressing support for impeachment. You're a liar, you know you're a liar, you have no regard for truth of any kind, and therefore nothing you have to say henceforth matters.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, this is just an academic exercise. The funny thing is that no federal legislators are publicly talking about actually impeaching Obama. None. The only people talking this up are a tiny number of non-legislators on the right ... and pretty much all of the Democrats.
It's sheer dishonesty (though not unusual, especially on the left).
How does that qualify for an argument? (Score:2)
However as I pointed out before, impeachment is pointless at this time. Impeachment cannot realistically remove a POTUS in less time than what President Lawnchair has left in his term. Hence indeed there is some
pissing in the wind
taking place or proposed here, bu
Re: (Score:1)
For that matter right now she isn't an elected member of anything, so her opinion on it is not any more valuable than yours, mine, or my dog's.
I don't know--depends upon the cash flow for the channel.
Re: (Score:2)
For that matter right now she isn't an elected member of anything, so her opinion on it is not any more valuable than yours, mine, or my dog's.
I don't know--depends upon the cash flow for the channel.
So then are you saying that between citizen A and citizen B, the opinion of A is more valuable because it has more money behind it? That has been a key mantra of the GOP (for several decades at least) and its tea party (since its inception).
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
the Tea Party is more accurately attacked for naiveté than anything else.
If you mean in regards to the actual effects that their spoon-fed ideals would have on >>99% of the country's population (including most of the people who have been duped into supporting the Tea Party) then I would agree with you.
Re: (Score:1)
So the issue is not merely one of education, but also participation.
No, the problem isn't new (Score:1)
nor unforeseen [thisnation.com]
And hey pudge, the law is like words, defined by common use, not written statute. I mean, with all this yammering about precedence and case law, I guess all this shit is pretty flexible, and the guy with the best presentation wins. Waddya gonna do, eh?
Re: (Score:1)
precedence
Yeah yeah yeah...
"Waddya gonna do, eh?" (Score:1)
Is that a one-way chemical reaction, though?
Re: (Score:1)
Aren't you one of those who go around proclaiming that "human nature" precludes anything else?
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's me. Or maybe Railgunner. For about half the Christians out there, Natural Law is a concept that went out of vogue with the Reformation.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, then, that would be an admission that we are slaves to our biology, wouldn't it? Because natural law is all you got.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, at least, our real biology- as opposed to a made up biology from a bunch of "sexual revolutionists". It is important to separate the sane from the insane, after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, at least, our real biology- as opposed to a made up biology from a bunch of "sexual revolutionists". It is important to separate the sane from the insane, after all.
While keeping those two groups separate, I suggest your reread (or review) "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest".
Re: (Score:1)
It is important to separate the sane from the insane, after all.
Yes, it is. Let's start with those who believe in ghosts...
Re: (Score:2)
Or that removing one's brain (getting high) is the best way to find truth....
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Far from me to leave it to a bunch of psychopaths and their lust for power to decide what is "hedonism".
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The brain, or the things that it filters? The brain is your biggest enemy, unless of course, you except what you are.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"The brain is your biggest enemy", exactly the problem with liberalism in general.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, an' dat too!
Re: (Score:1)
moof (Score:1)
> We can impeach our way through the whole federal government,
<drool>
<devil's advocate>
We don't like it when the Left tries to get technical with certain language, where we suggest that original intent should win out. Could it really have been the bill authors' intent to only sport subsidies in certain states?
</devil's advocate>
In any case, a part of me says the American idiot people voted for this guy, twice, and he gave us Obamacare, so that's what we should have. Attempted scratchi