True, if you're including Grant, Hayes, Arthur, etc. as Republicans (which they were, although the Republican party of the 1880s is a bit different than that of today). Also, you'd need to include Democratic-Republican Presidents like Madison and Monroe on that list.

Corporate personhood is NOT a new phenomenon - it's been a well-established principle since (for varying purposes) the 1880s or the 1810s.

I think you mean "there should have been, only one."

So can public schools. Not politically content-based (i.e. can't allow people to wear "Republicans Suck" t-shirts while prohibiting "Democrats Suck" t-shirts), but public schools can certainly place greater restrictions on speech than would be allowed for the public at large. The federal government can't ban Playboy, but a public school can certainly prohibit students from bringing it to class.

Um, why? The vast majority of cellsites deployed today cover areas with a radius of MUCH less than 15km...

It would be a huge leap, LTE Advanced (i.e. 4G) could, in theory, get to around 15 bits/Hz (currently LTE's around 4), but this is more like 10,000 bits/Hz.

You mean when BP bought ads on Google based on Deepwater Horizon-related search terms? The same ads that anybody could have purchased, and that were clearly marked as ads? Nobody was being "redirected," unless you think that the law firms that buy ads on "mesothelioma" looking for clients for asbestos lawsuits are somehow "redirecting" searchers from the mesothelioma web page?

If you say "we're doing it because of copyright," then you get everyone saying "hey, my material doesn't violate copyright," and Google's in a place it DEFINITELY doesn't want to be, which is proactively checking content for violations.

Agreed on the linens thing - I like Starwood's approach on that - if you don't want your room made up, they give you a discount or some extra points.

If you say "we're doing it because of copyright," then you get everyone saying "hey, my material doesn't violate copyright," and Google's in a place it DEFINITELY doesn't want to be, which is proactively checking content for violations.

I wonder if this isn't motivated at least in substantial part by copyright concerns. A huge portion of adult content posted is in violation of copyright, and if Google was seeing that they were getting DMCA notices for adult content on Blogger at rates that far exceed the overall average, and the cost/effort of responding to those notices was outstripping the ad revenue from the adult blogs, then maybe they just decided it's not worth it.

Purely speculation on my part, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Yup, there's that too. Still, however, if you get your health insurance without any subsidy, the IRS only need to know that you have it.

I'm aware of the one Gruber comment. Counterbalancing that is the weight of comments by all the key drafters and authors that this is not what they intended. It's poorly written, no doubt, but it's an incredible stretch to argue that the authors and backers of the law clearly intended to hide away a time bomb within it. Absent clear evidence that they did, the IRS's interpretation of the law looks entirely reasonable and in line with Congressional intent.

Definitely easier to launch an insurer now, given that you had multiple new entrants to the insurance marketplace when Obamacare was launched (often associated with local health care providers/hospital groups).

"The executive branch needs to learn they implement the law congress passes not the one they wish congress passes"

Except they ARE implementing the law congress passed. Nobody without a prior axe to grind, looking at the law as written, in the context of how and when it was passed, could reach the conclusion that the passage was designed to do what the plaintiffs claim it was. In cases of ambiguity in a specific phrase, the courts are obliged to look at the legislation as a whole and at the context in which it was passed in order to resolve the ambiguity.

It doesn't, but if you're going to get federal tax credits that subsidize your insurance, and those credits are income-based, then it does.

You could sign up at healthcare.gov without involving the IRS at all, but you'd have to forego the opportunity to get any subsidy.

Also, the government introduced the insurance mandate, thereby sharply reducing the adverse selection problem associated with the individual insurance market.