Scalia's death already having positive outcomes: Court lets NC ruling stand

[nickqt]

lol

Isn't that kind of a necessary evil though? If we make insurance companies cover everyone, then we have to have features to force people to buy their products before they get seriously ill. Hey, I'd love nothing better than to go free market, I just don't see any way it can work given the sometimes extremely high cost of medical care and intrinsic human nature.

The mandate was almost universally supported until it became a key component of the ACA. Then it became the devil.

If you want to dissuade healthcare freeloaders, there has to be some sort of punishment/tax that swats someone into getting health insurance. That said, there are still plenty of ways to avoid it. Private health insurance through an employer, having your own health insurance without going through the Marketplace, having Medicaid in a state the provides it, being too poor to qualify for a Marketplace subsidy, health insurance itself costing more than 8% (I think, top of head) of your total income, etc.

As far as punishments go, the ACA Mandate tax is pretty tame, considering almost 90% of Americans either don't need to worry about it because they have insurance/Medicaid, or because they meet the criteria to not have to pay the tax.

And, there will be people who will literally not die, or go bankrupt, because that evil tyrant Obama made them buy health insurance instead of paying a small tax/fine. That's the fun part of it.

 

[SP33Demon]

Which applies to the financial elite in only a superficial way given much lower tax rates on the way they earn their incomes.

Nobody has suggested raising taxes on earned income.

What do you mean? Sanders would most certainly raise our income taxes.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-bernie-sanders-s-tax-plan

Key Findings:
-Senator Sanders (I-VT) would enact a number of policies that would raise payroll taxes and individual income taxes, especially on high-income households.
-Senator Sanders’s plan would raise tax revenue by $13.6 trillion over the next decade on a static basis. However, the plan would end up collecting $9.8 trillion over the next decade when accounting for decreased economic output in the long run.
-A majority of the revenue raised by the Sanders plan would come from a new 6.2 percent employer-side payroll tax, a new 2.2 percent broad-based income tax, and the elimination of tax expenditures relating to healthcare.
-According to the Tax Foundation’s Taxes and Growth Model, the plan would significantly increase marginal tax rates and the cost of capital, which would lead to 9.5 percent lower GDP over the long term.
-On a static basis, the plan would lead to 10.56 percent lower after-tax income for all taxpayers and 17.91 percent lower after-tax income for the top 1 percent. When accounting for reduced GDP, after-tax incomes of all taxpayers would fall by at least 12.84 percent.

Fuck that and F Bernie.

 

[JEDI]

What do you mean? Sanders would most certainly raise our income taxes.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-bernie-sanders-s-tax-plan



Fuck that and F Bernie.

lol.. sanders aint going to win the nomination.
he doesn't have the black vote.

they love bill Clinton.
and ALL the southern states are 50%+ blacks voting in the dem primary

 

[Jhhnn]

What do you mean? Sanders would most certainly raise our income taxes.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-bernie-sanders-s-tax-plan



Fuck that and F Bernie.

I meant nobody in this thread. I should have been specific.

 

[ivwshane]

Here is another case impacted by scalias death.

http://gawker.com/dow-chemicals-would-rather-pay-out-835-million-than-fa-1761588041

Dow was challenging a 2013 order that required it to pay $1.06 billion as part of an antitrust suit concerning the sale of urethanes. (The company was accused of price fixing with four other companies but refused to admit liability; the other companies settled for a collective $135 million.)

But Dow, which was set to argue before the Supreme Court once the Court had decided a similar case, dropped its appeal today and settled with the plaintiffs in the case for $835 million. What inspired this change of heart? According to Bloomberg, it was the death of Scalia.

 

[Moonbeam]

In other news Dow Chemical settles price-fixing case after Justice Scalia's death to the tune of 835 billion.

https://research.tdwaterhouse.ca/research/public/Markets/NewsArticle/1664-L3N1655JI-1

 

[ivwshane]

In other news Dow Chemical settles price-fixing case after Justice Scalia's death to the tune of 835 billion.

https://research.tdwaterhouse.ca/research/public/Markets/NewsArticle/1664-L3N1655JI-1

A little late

 

[zinfamous]

In other news Dow Chemical settles price-fixing case after Justice Scalia's death to the tune of 835 billion.

https://research.tdwaterhouse.ca/research/public/Markets/NewsArticle/1664-L3N1655JI-1

A little late

well Moon is reporting a slightly different figure.

 

[Moonbeam]

well Moon is reporting a slightly different figure.

I heard the news on radio first and they included two reports about it, one using 800 million and one rounding to a billion, but the actual fact is that while I looked to see if the suit had been mentioned, I somehow managed to not see his post even though it was in the most logical place it would be, near or at the end of the thread. On the one hand, I don't mind making mistakes and on the other, I can't read words very well by scanning. I need ten or fifteen signs to figure out the hours for the diamond lanes. Letters only make words when I carefully look at them one at a time. What I see when I look at a printed page are the patterns made by the spaces.

 

[ivwshane]

I heard the news on radio first and they included two reports about it, one using 800 million and one rounding to a billion, but the actual fact is that while I looked to see if the suit had been mentioned, I somehow managed to not see his post even though it was in the most logical place it would be, near or at the end of the thread. On the one hand, I don't mind making mistakes and on the other, I can't read words very well by scanning. I need ten or fifteen signs to figure out the hours for the diamond lanes. Letters only make words when I carefully look at them one at a time. What I see when I look at a printed page are the patterns made by the spaces.

It's not a big deal moonbeam, I just thought it was funny considering one of my recent posts was about no one reading the links I post.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

And another:

“The main difference that it makes that Scalia is gone is that it takes the worst case scenario for the plaintiffs off the table,” said Jessie Hill, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, who filed an amicus brief supporting the clinics.

The worst case scenario for the challengers would have been a nationally-applicable ruling that would have given states limitless discretion to restrict abortion access. That kind of decision may not have explicitly overturned Roe v. Wade, but instead make it toothless in states led by anti-abortion legislators. It is unthinkable that any of the four liberal justices would sign on to a decision like that, so abortion rights, at least in some states, will remain intact no matter what the court ultimately decides.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/abortion-rights-supreme-court-preview

This sort of settles whether God is OK with abortion or not doesn't it?

 

[glenn1]

And another:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/abortion-rights-supreme-court-preview

This sort of settles whether God is OK with abortion or not doesn't it?

God's provision of free will isn't under judicial review; people will still have the right and abilitiy to choose selfish things and rationalize them afterwards no matter what happens with abortion or any other subject that comes before the Supreme Court. Ultimately his judgment matters more than nine people in black robes.

Not to mention that abortion is working the miracle of less leeches in this world for those that don't make irresponsible and selfish choices.

 

[theeedude]

Abortion case is going to be pretty fantastic for alienating women from Republicans if it goes 4:4.
My wife just got her citizenship and I showed her the John Oliver piece.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRauXXz6t0Y
She was in complete disbelief that Republicans could be so anti-women's health. I have a good feeling she will be a lifelong Democrat voter now

 

[JEDI]

SCOTUS 4-4 decision hands public sector unions a victory:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/29/polit...nds-public-sector-unions-a-victory/index.html

Before oral arguments, the high court seemed poised to deal a major blow to unions, and overrule precedent. But with Scalia's death there were no longer five justices available to do so.

:thumbsup:


edit:
public-sector employees could be required to pay a so-called fair-share fee to the union that represents them.

 

[Jaskalas]

...

That's terrible, but has a VERY simple solution. Change the law so Districts, as drawn, may only have 8 sides. Nothing more than Octagons. Maybe less.

 

[HomerJS]

And another:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/abortion-rights-supreme-court-preview

This sort of settles whether God is OK with abortion or not doesn't it?

Doesn't the existence of spontaneous abortions answer that question also?

 

[shira]

Edit: Wrong thread

 

[HomerJS]

Do guns owned for self-defense actually save more lives than they cost? Do they prevent more injuries than they cause? I believe they don't. I believe an increasingly-well-firearmed citizenry will result in more deaths and injuries. The following is just one example:



Now, imagine that Seul Kim (the wife) hadn't possessed a gun. In all likelihood, the robber would have taken the money and fled. She wouldn't have been shot.

And if Min Sik Kim (the husband) hadn't possessed a gun, the robber would have fled with the pack of cigarettes. He would be alive and unharmed and Min Sik Kim wouldn't be facing murder charges.

Gun suicides outpace gun homicides, although there are many ways to commit both.

 

[Jeff7]

Doesn't the existence of spontaneous abortions answer that question also?

Nah. It still just means that God can always decide whether to blink out a person or fetus, and we get to praise his good decisions either way.

 

[Jhhnn]

SCOTUS 4-4 decision hands public sector unions a victory:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/29/polit...nds-public-sector-unions-a-victory/index.html

Before oral arguments, the high court seemed poised to deal a major blow to unions, and overrule precedent. But with Scalia's death there were no longer five justices available to do so.

:thumbsup:


edit:
public-sector employees could be required to pay a so-called fair-share fee to the union that represents them.

Good.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

And today two Republican Senators met with the nominee.
I guess after the 4-4 ruling they may think this guy is a good idea...

 

[Paratus]

Here's an interesting thought. Maybe Obamas nominee simply shows up to work later this year as the lack of a vote by the senate could constitutionally be considered implied consent.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/03/how_merrick_garland_can_outfox_republican_obstructionists.html

abstract. It is generally assumed that the Constitution requires the Senate to vote to confirm the President’s nominees to principal federal offices. This Essay argues, to the contrary, that when the President nominates an individual to a principal executive branch position, the Senate’s failure to act on the nomination within a reasonable period of time can and should be construed as providing the Senate’s tacit or implied advice and consent to the appointment. On this understanding, although the Senate can always withhold its constitutionally required consent by voting against a nominee, the Senate cannot withhold its consent indefinitely through the expedient of failing to vote on the nominee one way or the other. Although this proposal seems radical, and certainly would upset longstanding assumptions, the Essay argues that this reading of the Appointments Clause would not contravene the constitutional text, structure, or history. The Essay further argues that, at least under some circumstances, reading the Constitution to construe Senate inaction as implied consent to an appointment would have desirable consequences in light of deteriorating norms of Senate collegiality and of prompt action on presidential nominations.

Obviously wouldn't happen but it would be hilarious if it did.

 

[HomerJS]

Here's an interesting thought. Maybe Obamas nominee simply shows up to work later this year as the lack of a vote by the senate could constitutionally be considered implied consent.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/03/how_merrick_garland_can_outfox_republican_obstructionists.html


Obviously wouldn't happen but it would be hilarious if it did.

Obama could still do a recess appointment.

 

[glenn1]

Obama could still do a recess appointment.

I believe if he did that recess appointment would only be effective until the convening of the next session of Congress in January post-election.

I've supported the "negative consent" idea here before as well, but think it would precipitate a Constitutional crisis if done given current circumstances. Realistically for both sides to agree it would need to be effective sometime in the future so the "veil of ignorance" feature would be in play for both sides. Until then zero-sum game theory moves are going to be the game for the GOP and perhaps Democrats as well depending on events.

 

[JEDI]

Obama could still do a recess appointment.

not anymore..
the repubs have found a way such that there is no 'recess' of the senate.
a repub shows up to the senate everyday for a few min.

the supreme court said it was legal.

I don't disagree w/the verdict.
if the senate doesn't go in recess, then you cant make a recess appointment.

but its a double edged sword.
the dems can do it as well when (if ever again in my lifetime) a repub becomes prez