PDA

View Full Version : Rule of Law


Southpaw2012
01-01-2015, 11:03 PM
http://www.cato.org/blog/obamacare-rule-law?utm_content=buffer7c01a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Fantastic post by a brilliant man I happened to meet at law school. Hits the nail on the head.

GonzoTheGreat
01-02-2015, 03:16 AM
When your only tool is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.

Davian93
01-02-2015, 11:22 AM
It's well written at least...its not accurate and it misses several other precedents when it comes to the Executive Branch's discretionary powers on enforcing laws (pretty much zero restrictions there under our Constitutional system) but it's well-written I guess.

I believe another President made a comment along these lines in the distant past, "Mr. Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it".

Kinda cuts right to the point on judicial checks on executive power, eh?

Nazbaque
01-02-2015, 03:13 PM
Oh Dav you should show more pity. After all the main reason Southpaw is the way he is is that he still believes that the American political system isn't just a big steaming pile of crap.

Kimon
01-02-2015, 06:20 PM
Am I the only one who thinks the entire premise of this complaint is beyond ludicrous?

King focuses on tax credits—the subsidies that allow people to pay increased premiums—one of the key pillars of Obamacare that the administration has toppled. To assist those who lack employer-sponsored insurance, and because it couldn’t command states to establish exchanges, Congress authorized these credits for residents of states that do create the exchanges. The statute expresses this design in language that is clear as day: Individuals receive tax credits if they bought a qualifying health plan “through an Exchange established by the State.”

In other words, if a state failed to establish an exchange, its residents—who would end up buying plans through the federal HealthCare.gov—would not be eligible for the subsidies. (The ACA’s Medicaid expansion plan operated with a similar carrot-and-stick approach until the Supreme Court rewrote it.)

I've never understood why a concession was made that this phrasing was somehow a mistake rather than simply intended. Am I really the only one that would naturally read "the State", when capitalized and with the definite article, as meaning the federal government. The natural contrast in usage in the very next line of "a state" would seem the more natural way of referring to an individual state.

Nazbaque
01-02-2015, 08:11 PM
That's pretty much what I was referring to. The twisting of words and meanings would be the stench of the steaming pile of crap. The politicians who get elected for whatever position they campained for are either the ones going to the toilet on that pile or the worms feeding of it; not really sure which way I want to extend the metaphor.

Davian93
01-02-2015, 08:12 PM
Am I the only one who thinks the entire premise of this complaint is beyond ludicrous?



I've never understood why a concession was made that this phrasing was somehow a mistake rather than simply intended. Am I really the only one that would naturally read "the State", when capitalized and with the definite article, as meaning the federal government. The natural contrast in usage in the very next line of "a state" would seem the more natural way of referring to an individual state.

No, you are far from alone in that assessment. This entire lawsuit is beyond stupid and hopefully SCOTUS strikes it down along those lines as the intent of the wording is quite clear regardless of how idiots on the Right want to think. Everyone on earth knows that it wasn't meant to be interpreted that way and it shouldn't be but its not a surprise that the Right would make such a desperation play to get it struck down. God forbid people get access to affordable healthcare.

Nazbaque
01-03-2015, 03:52 AM
It's about freedom! The freedom not to care! The freedom to hoard a lot of money so you can buy happiness and bribe your way out of hell! And of course the freedom to not make any effort at not being colossally stupid!

GonzoTheGreat
01-03-2015, 05:31 AM
The "right to be stupid" is guaranteed by the First Amendment, which fairly explicitly says that Congress is not allowed to make any laws prohibiting the free exercise of stupidity (followed by some clauses about the freedom to share your stupidity with others and to bother the government with it too).

Frenzy
01-03-2015, 03:57 PM
i'm pretty sure i've said this before, but this entire problem would go away if those who oppose universal health care had the cojones to remove the requirement on medical providers to provide emergency medical care to everyone regardless of the ability to pay for it. If they could turn away potential debt holes, the Feds wouldn't have to dream up a scheme to reimburse for those poor saps who had the bad form of getting sick or injured.

They fact that they haven't either means they're either 1) not complete assholes, b) they're hypocrites, or c) they're too stupid or too bribed to realize the root problem they're trying to solve.

My money's on b & c.

Davian93
01-03-2015, 07:28 PM
A couple of things that would significantly help:

1. Divorce healthcare from employment completely. The companies would appreciate this and it would help out the average citizen too. Single payer was and is the answer.

2. Eliminate the artificial restrictions imposed against the gov't that prevent it from using its size in negotiations for medical services...this is a big part of what screws up Medicare costs and why other single-payer countries have cheaper healthcare.

yks 6nnetu hing
01-05-2015, 01:40 AM
You know, it's talking points like this that really drive home how wonderful Civil Law is as opposed to precedence-based law. I mean, sure, in any case you have asshats taking advantage of the system and lawyers twisting things about to suit themselves; but at least with Civil Law you have ONE premise.

Daekyras
01-05-2015, 06:25 AM
When your only tool is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.

My only tool is a sledgehammer......Wait, do you guys use tool as slang the way we do??

GonzoTheGreat
01-05-2015, 06:27 AM
Over here, "slang" is an animal. :D

Daekyras
01-05-2015, 06:32 AM
Over here, "slang" is an animal. :D

Well, My tool IS an ani....you get the picture!

Nazbaque
01-05-2015, 06:40 AM
Well, My tool IS an ani....you get the picture!

I'm confused. Am I now supposed to hit your tool with a sledgehammer?

Davian93
01-05-2015, 07:17 AM
You know, it's talking points like this that really drive home how wonderful Civil Law is as opposed to precedence-based law. I mean, sure, in any case you have asshats taking advantage of the system and lawyers twisting things about to suit themselves; but at least with Civil Law you have ONE premise.

A Precedent based legal system with a history going back 700-800 years (if you count English common law which is the basis of our system) like we have in the US can work pretty well...for one, common sense tends to win out eventually.

This lawsuit SHOULD be tossed out on its ear as a result of that history of precedent. If it is not, then it is due to an activist court that wants to do its own thing...something that could happen regardless of the system of laws it is based on.

yks 6nnetu hing
01-05-2015, 08:24 AM
A Precedent based legal system with a history going back 700-800 years (if you count English common law which is the basis of our system) like we have in the US can work pretty well...for one, common sense tends to win out eventually.

speaking of common sense...
http://refe99.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Common-Sense-Picture-Quote1.jpg


and I present to you, Exhibit A:
http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-common-sense-tells-us-that-the-government-s-attempts-to-solve-large-problems-more-often-create-new-sarah-palin-141097.jpg

Davian93
01-05-2015, 08:31 AM
I believe Churchill said it best about America...we eventually tend to do the right thing...only after trying everything else.

yks 6nnetu hing
01-05-2015, 08:34 AM
I believe Churchill said it best about America...we eventually tend to do the right thing...only after trying everything else.

well... it's like when you're desperately looking for something and eventually find it at the last possible place you can think of to look.


because it takes a special kind of stupid to keep looking after you've found whatever it was you were looking for. It also takes a special kind of stupid to look at that something (that everyone else says: hey, here it is! look, right here!) and go on looking.

Daekyras
01-05-2015, 09:06 AM
well... it's like when you're desperately looking for something and eventually find it at the last possible place you can think of to look.


because it takes a special kind of stupid to keep looking after you've found whatever it was you were looking for. It also takes a special kind of stupid to look at that something (that everyone else says: hey, here it is! look, right here!) and go on looking.

Yks to Americans: You're stupid.

Americans: That's mean!

Yks: It's ok, you're a special kind of stupid.

Americans: Awww, you think we're special.

Davian93
01-05-2015, 09:09 AM
Yks to Americans: You're stupid.

Americans: That's mean!

Yks: It's ok, you're a special kind of stupid.

Americans: Awww, you think we're special.

We're Exceptional...get it right.

yks 6nnetu hing
01-05-2015, 09:35 AM
Yks to Americans: You're stupid.

Americans: That's mean!

Yks: It's ok, you're a special kind of stupid.

Americans: Awww, you think we're special.

oh, no, not Americans as such. In this case I also include the British and any other nationality still hanging on to a legal system that's so rickety it's about to fall over under its own weight.

now, on a different note, I think it's actually not possible to build a legal system that is 1) robust, 2) does not contradict itself and 3) caters for every eventuality. I just think that a precedence-based system is much worse at being simultaneously 1 and 2 than a civil law system. It is better at 3, so that's something... but still, 2 out of 3 means civil law wins.

Davian93
01-05-2015, 09:37 AM
oh, no, not Americans as such. In this case I also include the British and any other nationality still hanging on to a legal system that's so rickety it's about to fall over under its own weight.

now, on a different note, I think it's actually not possible to build a legal system that is 1) robust, 2) does not contradict itself and 3) caters for every eventuality. I just think that a precedence-based system is much worse at being simultaneously 1 and 2 than a civil law system. It is better at 3, so that's something... but still, 2 out of 3 means civil law wins.

Its like using Imperial weights and measurements...at this point, we're simply used to it so we won't be changing it.

Nazbaque
01-05-2015, 10:51 AM
I believe Churchill said it best about America...we eventually tend to do the right thing...only after trying everything else.

Are we talking about the kind of eventually that is used to discribe the Sun burning out or whatever will happen to it?

GonzoTheGreat
01-05-2015, 11:16 AM
According to Americans, the Rapture will come long before that.

Nazbaque
01-05-2015, 11:22 AM
Before the Sun kicks the bucket or before they do the right thing?

GonzoTheGreat
01-05-2015, 12:00 PM
Before the Sun kicks the bucket or before they do the right thing?
If I were an American, then I think I would have to plead the Second on that one.

Ivhon
01-05-2015, 12:40 PM
If I were an American, then I think I would have to plead the Second on that one.

I have a visual of "pleading the Second," but Im not entirely sure that it is congruent with your intended meaning. Perhaps you could elucidate?

GonzoTheGreat
01-06-2015, 03:31 AM
I'm not an American, so I don't actually have any firearms of my own. Thus, all I can do is inform you that your imagination in this case is probably more reliable than mine.

Edited to add: Perhaps it clarifies things if I explain that I often have the impression that it is the Second Amendment which enshrines the "right to be stupid" in the US Constitution. It should be the First, of course, but many of those who use this right most vigorously don't seem to know the First anywhere as well as they know the Second.

Frenzy
01-06-2015, 11:36 PM
I'm confused. Am I now supposed to hit your tool with a sledgehammer?

Need to borrow mine? I keep it nice and sharp...

yks 6nnetu hing
01-07-2015, 01:20 AM
Need to borrow mine? I keep it nice and sharp...
Frenzy has the sharpest tool in the box.

Terez
01-07-2015, 03:08 AM
Edited to add: Perhaps it clarifies things if I explain that I often have the impression that it is the Second Amendment which enshrines the "right to be stupid" in the US Constitution. It should be the First, of course, but many of those who use this right most vigorously don't seem to know the First anywhere as well as they know the Second.
That becomes clear every time you have an event like the firing of Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty.

Davian93
01-07-2015, 06:29 AM
That becomes clear every time you have an event like the firing of Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty.

Fun story, I once had a debate with a Tea Tard where I asked him why he seemingly wasnt ever worried about the actual infringements of his 4th Amendment rights but would blather on and on about his 2nd Amendment rights being infringed (when its actually going in the opposite direction). His response was, "The 2nd is the only one that matters as that's the one we'll use to get back the others".

How does one debate that mindset?

GonzoTheGreat
01-07-2015, 07:08 AM
How does one debate that mindset?
Isn't that what the Second is for? :confused:

Nazbaque
01-07-2015, 07:23 AM
Fun story, I once had a debate with a Tea Tard where I asked him why he seemingly wasnt ever worried about the actual infringements of his 4th Amendment rights but would blather on and on about his 2nd Amendment rights being infringed (when its actually going in the opposite direction). His response was, "The 2nd is the only one that matters as that's the one we'll use to get back the others".

How does one debate that mindset?

Well assuming there can be any debate at all I'd ask him who is 'we'. Who is it that back's him up? Point out that with that mindset there won't eventually be anyone to build a system on. Strength can be used to protect but it won't build anything worth protecting. It's the kind, gentle and caring ones that make things better and hindering that is possibly the only real evil in the world.

Daekyras
01-07-2015, 07:49 AM
Need to borrow mine? I keep it nice and sharp...

Why would you sharpen a sledgehammer???? Sounds dangerous!

Nazbaque
01-07-2015, 08:04 AM
Need to borrow mine? I keep it nice and sharp...

Dull is more painful so I'll use mine thanks.

GonzoTheGreat
01-07-2015, 08:05 AM
Why would you sharpen a sledgehammer???? Sounds dangerous!
Useless, more like. A sharp sledgehammer (ie. a badly designed pickaxe) will get stuck in whatever you hit with it, and then how do you get it out again?

Southpaw2012
01-08-2015, 01:21 PM
Oh Dav you should show more pity. After all the main reason Southpaw is the way he is is that he still believes that the American political system isn't just a big steaming pile of crap.

The system isn't crap. It's the people running the system and the people getting these idiots into the White House who are crap. Look back at what the fear was with having an all powerful executive and see that that was one of many reasons we have a separation of powers; though Obama doesn't seem to care because he's going to do what he wants to further "his legacy."

Nazbaque
01-08-2015, 01:57 PM
The system isn't crap. It's the people running the system and the people getting these idiots into the White House who are crap. Look back at what the fear was with having an all powerful executive and see that that was one of many reasons we have a separation of powers; though Obama doesn't seem to care because he's going to do what he wants to further "his legacy."

And that proves my point.

Kimon
01-08-2015, 02:02 PM
The system isn't crap. It's the people running the system and the people getting these idiots into the White House who are crap. Look back at what the fear was with having an all powerful executive and see that that was one of many reasons we have a separation of powers; though Obama doesn't seem to care because he's going to do what he wants to further "his legacy."

The Affordable Care Act wasn't issued by Executive Order. It was legislation that went through Congress and was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court. How exactly then was it an infringement on the separation of powers? We get that you don't like him, but not liking him doesn't make him an evil tyrant.

GonzoTheGreat
01-09-2015, 04:12 AM
The system isn't crap. It's the people running the system and the people getting these idiots into the White House who are crap.
And what, pray tell me, is the difference?
If the system is good enough, then those people wouldn't be able to mess things up to such an extend unless the vast majority of Americans fully approved of that, in which case the system would work as intended: by letting the will of the people be done. Only if the system is not good enough would it be possible for a few to hijack it for their own purposes.

Of course, your statement could be salvaged by declaring "all Americans are crap". Is that what you want to say?

ShadowbaneX
01-09-2015, 06:22 AM
You could say the same for Communism...

GonzoTheGreat
01-09-2015, 06:43 AM
Well, duh!
I've actually often said that Communism is a good idea, but humanity is the wrong species for it.

So for humans, Communism is not good enough, and hence crap, precisely because those humans are too crappy to make it work.

Which brings up the obvious need to have a system that can work with the kind of humans that actually exist, rather than a system that would be very good if only humans weren't involved.

Davian93
01-09-2015, 07:45 AM
Well, duh!
I've actually often said that Communism is a good idea, but humanity is the wrong species for it.

So for humans, Communism is not good enough, and hence crap, precisely because those humans are too crappy to make it work.

Which brings up the obvious need to have a system that can work with the kind of humans that actually exist, rather than a system that would be very good if only humans weren't involved.

A benevolent dictator is the most efficient form of government...the trick is finding dictators that are benevolent. That part is tough.

GonzoTheGreat
01-09-2015, 09:46 AM
Another good trick (one that few ever seem to manage) is to keep that dictator benevolent. Somehow, most of them turn rather bad when they find out that not having any checks on their behavior means they can do whatever they like.

The Unreasoner
01-09-2015, 12:17 PM
Why not an AI benevolent dictator?

Of course, you'll still want some kind of human check on it, to allow for every eventuality. But if the administrators are all human, that might be enough.

GonzoTheGreat
01-09-2015, 12:26 PM
Why not an AI benevolent dictator?
A world under the full control of Clippy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Assistant)?
I think that the PC term for such ideas is "interesting".

Zombie Sammael
01-09-2015, 11:39 PM
A world under the full control of Clippy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Assistant)?
I think that the PC term for such ideas is "interesting".

It looks like you're writing a letter!

...I sure hope it's not a seditious letter.

Sarevok
01-10-2015, 09:44 AM
Why not an AI benevolent dictator?

Of course, you'll still want some kind of human check on it, to allow for every eventuality. But if the administrators are all human, that might be enough.

But who would check those administrators?

GonzoTheGreat
01-10-2015, 10:28 AM
But who would check those administrators?
I'm sure they can do that themselves. In their spare time, probably.

Frenzy
01-10-2015, 08:21 PM
Useless, more like. A sharp sledgehammer (ie. a badly designed pickaxe) will get stuck in whatever you hit with it, and then how do you get it out again?

Brace my boot alongside it for leverage and yank it out.

GonzoTheGreat
01-11-2015, 04:11 AM
Brace my boot alongside it for leverage and yank it out.
Makes it a rather slow weapon.
A proper sledgehammer can be used to strike down a second opponent in the back swing, if it bounces off the first flattened target, or the swing can be continued around you if it doesn't bounce off.

Nazbaque
01-11-2015, 04:48 AM
Makes it a rather slow weapon.
A proper sledgehammer can be used to strike down a second opponent in the back swing, if it bounces off the first flattened target, or the swing can be continued around you if it doesn't bounce off.

Gonzo a sledgehammer weighs too much for that kind of fighting. There is too much momentum. It's glancing blows that only redirect your flow that are the key. Upwards swing towards head and upper torso followed by a roundhouse swing to the legs if it was dodged. First one must always attack the opponents ballance and once they lose it go for the vitals.

GonzoTheGreat
01-11-2015, 05:51 AM
Gonzo a sledgehammer weighs too much for that kind of fighting. There is too much momentum. It's glancing blows that only redirect your flow that are the key. Upwards swing towards head and upper torso followed by a roundhouse swing to the legs if it was dodged. First one must always attack the opponents ballance and once they lose it go for the vitals.
Whatever. Still better than having the bloody thing get stuck in one zombie while the next ten shuffle threateningly in your direction. Not to mention having that problem during an attack by a velociraptor pack ...

Nazbaque
01-11-2015, 06:19 AM
Whatever. Still better than having the bloody thing get stuck in one zombie while the next ten shuffle threateningly in your direction. Not to mention having that problem during an attack by a velociraptor pack ...

Considering the fact that a velociraptor was actually pretty small, getting your sledgehammer stuck in one would be quite a feat. And zombies are a danger only in countries that are dumb enough to stop the worms from reducing corpses to skeletons.