I was going to say the same thing.
I was going to say the same thing.
Hope is the denial of reality
There's a difference between disagreeing with a ruling and saying the ruling itself is unconstitutional. He could have distinguished between the ruling and policy but he didn't.Originally Posted by Lewkowski
The reality is it's the highest court we have, and it's their job to interpret whether laws fit our constitutional framework. No idea how your bolded sentence makes any sense.
Then Romney is a liar, too. He's on record defending the MASS tax as a non-tax penalty, with an easy way to avoid paying it: be insured. He's also said he didn't raise taxes to pay for MassCare, he just raised "fees" by a couple billion. As Mitt says -- what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.And Obama is a liar - this is a tax. And its a "pledge" a good one at that too.
I think you're misinterpreting what someone said. I'm no longer sure just whose statement you're talking about anymore, since what you just claimed was said is so divorced from reality. All anyone's said is that SCOTUS is wrong, that they made the incorrect ruling. That's normal, there is almost always at least one side *sometimes more* that disagree with how the Court ruled. That's kinda the default in an adversarial legal system. Nothing mentioned so far in this thread has gone further than you did when the Court struck down rules on campaign donations in the name of free speech, or than others here did in the eminent domain case a few years back.There's a difference between disagreeing with a ruling and saying the ruling itself is unconstitutional. He could have distinguished between the ruling and policy but he didn't.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Fuzzy, I was referring to Rand Paul's statement (on the individual mandate falling under taxation):
http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-con...al-127574.html“Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional,” the freshman lawmaker said in a statement. “While the court may have erroneously come to the conclusion that the law is allowable, it certainly does nothing to make this mandate or government takeover of our health care right.”
and that something is constitutional if SCOTUS rules it so. That's different than disagreeing with the ruling, which I did for Citizens United and Kelo.
No. That's a matter of opinion and perspective. And you're holding two mutually exclusive positions. If the Court determines what is Constitutional as you allege here (a position which Rand Paul would plainly not agree with) then there is no room to disagree with a ruling as you do with Citizens or Kelo. Those decisions are right because they're the decisions the Court made. If the Court merely interprets constitutionality, if the rightness or wrongness of a ruling comes from something else like the objective reality of the text then of course there's room to disagree with the rulings, that's just a matter of holding a different interpretation of whatever actually determines constitutionality, but then the Court is only really declaring what the de facto reality for the government will be, until/unless it is challenged again either formally in another court case or by informal actions. Either perspective is valid but they can't be conflated the way you just tried to do.Fuzzy, I was referring to Rand Paul's statement (on the individual mandate falling under taxation):
http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-con...al-127574.html
and that something is constitutional if SCOTUS rules it so. That's different than disagreeing with the ruling, which I did for Citizens United and Kelo.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Uhm, seems to me you're the one making incorrect conclusions about my exchange with Lewk. I said it was stunning to read Rand Paul's (and some Tea Party groups') refusal to acknowledge the court's ruling as being constitutional....not that they simply disagreed with the ruling, but waving it away as something illegitimate. That's like saying we don't have to follow a law if we don't agree with the law. Of course there's always room to disagree with a law, or a SCOTUS ruling. But that's not how Paul et al were being portrayed in the news.
That blurb is less interesting or important than what's in the news now, dissecting when and why Roberts made his decision...with "leaks" coming from people close to the court.I'm surprised you haven't commented about that yet, since you follow SCOTUS closely.
I'm confused. Once the Supreme Court declares something constitutional, or unconstitutional, that is the end of the discussion? There can be no room for disagreement? The opinions of the other justices, liberal, conservative, or other no longer have merit?Uhm, seems to me you're the one making incorrect conclusions about my exchange with Lewk. I said it was stunning to read Rand Paul's (and some Tea Party groups') refusal to acknowledge the court's ruling as being constitutional....not that they simply disagreed with the ruling, but waving it away as something illegitimate. That's like saying we don't have to follow a law if we don't agree with the law. Of course there's always room to disagree with a law, or a SCOTUS ruling. But that's not how Paul et al were being portrayed in the news.
That blurb is less interesting or important than what's in the news now, dissecting when and why Roberts made his decision...with "leaks" coming from people close to the court.
If the Supreme Court tomorrow decided that slavery could be considered constitutional by a 5 to 4 vote, would slavery then become constitutional, or would you argue that it was still unconstitutional regardless of an obviously bad, and clearly unconstitutional ruling?
Is that really the position you want to take, or is that the position that you find most appealing to fit your agenda in this instance?
Ugh. You and Fuzzy are taking my comment (about Rand Paul's comment, as portrayed by news outlets) out of context. Nothing is ever the end of the discussion, and there's always room for disagreement and dissent. The justices' opinions even include that dissent.
If you want to argue about whether or not political news sources painted Tea Party and/or Rand Paul's reaction in an accurate manner, then go ahead, convince me, make your case. After reading four or five sources I was left with the impression (interpretation, perspective, opinion) they were basically nullifying or de-legitimizing the court itself, because ALL components of the ACA wasn't declared "unconstitutional".
Mixed in there were accusations that Roberts 'caved to liberals, caved to the liberal media, became a turncoat traitor to conservatives', and, therefore, SCOTUS is yet another example of illegitimate government. Theirs wasn't just an effort to side with the minority opinion/dissent, or simply disagree, but to sow discontent among Tea Party Patriots, and encourage distrust of the Supreme Court.
Never mind that the Commerce Clause was restricted, or that states retained the right to refuse (or opt-out of) Medicaid expansion --- which should have made any 'conservative' happy --- instead, there was a vocal right-wing faction trying to gin up emotion and visceral hatred of anything teh gummint does that isn't to their liking.
Of course you were left with the impression that the people you disagree with were advocating the wholesale breakdown of law and order, if not surreptitiously sowing the seeds of the destruction of the United States as we know it. I don't think that surprises anyone here. Just as though I'm sure you find nuance and reason in the very vocal dissent about Citizens United. That you read and read-into views that primarily support what you want to see isn't news.
I decided to break down your post in pieces, Fuzzy. I'll use "Rand Paul" as a known name for ideological context only.
That's not quite what I've said. Those determinations are only made after state legislatures have made laws, been challenged in lower courts, and cases find their way through the system (upward) to SCOTUS. The Court is the last stop-at-the-top, and their rulings then apply (downward) to states. Rand Paul can disagree all he wants as a member of the legislative branch, but by definition Senators and Congressmen aren't members of the judicial branch.
And the Court is a last resort reactive entity, only interpreting or determining things already litigated in lower courts. It's presumed that states aren't enacting crazy laws (like indentured servitude or slavery) that have already been litigated and deemed to be unconstitutional. Precedent upon precedent. Rand Paul can also disagree on the interpretation of the constitution, and previous precedents, as made by the justices, but he can't ignore the de facto reality that his branch of government can enact a penalty or surcharge (aka tax). Even if it's tied to a policy he doesn't like.If the Court merely interprets constitutionality, if the rightness or wrongness of a ruling comes from something else like the objective reality of the text then of course there's room to disagree with the rulings, that's just a matter of holding a different interpretation of whatever actually *determines* constitutionality, but then the Court is only really declaring what the de facto reality for the government will be, until/unless it is challenged again either formally in another court case or by informal actions.
Indeed, it's done all the time in our fubar tax code that gives preferential deductions to some and not others. Every tax deduction to one is a hidden tax to another. IMO that should be laid directly at the feet of our legislative branch, not the judiciary. Everything else is just political sour grapes.
I think I agree with GGT here. There is a distinction between saying a decision is right or wrong, and saying something is still unconstitutional when the SCOTUS have deemed it constitutional.
Step away from the constitution/SCOTUS for a second and think of a law that Congress could make. Ie say legalising prostitution. If Congress legalises that then you can dispute whether that was the right or wrong decision, but if you hold it should be made illegal again it doesn't mean it IS illegal.
Same with SCOTUS. Saying it shouldn't be constitutional is not the same as saying it isn't. The US Constitution is de facto such that if Congress passes a law that the President signs, then SCOTUS deems that law (un)constitutional then it IS (un)constitutional. Unless and until SCOTUS reverses its decision, or an Amemdment changes the Constitution (eg 13th Amendment and Dred Scott).
WTF? I've never used the terminology of "wholesale breakdown of law and order", or "destroying the US as we know it". Those are terms used by politically-motivated groups, using fear and loathing to get votes. Sorry to break the news to you, but the Tea Party Patriots, and plenty of individuals within the right-wing of the Republican party are the ones honking that out of tune horn.
Don't lecture me about "what I want to see" until you can actually read what I write, without bringing your pre-conceived ideas along as baggage. I'm happy to read any link you share that would discount or dissolve my impression of Rand Paul and/or the Tea Party and/or factions of the conservative right-wing that's been portrayed in the news. Or even on their own websites.
Why is your post black on blue and the font different from other posts? Are my settings wrong?
Brave man, you are, possibly agreeing with GGT. Guilt by association, prevalent lately, it's become. /yoda
It's almost a political strategy in the US --- to enact laws that practically beg for judicial scrutiny, buying real time in the meantime, knowing the wheels of justice move very slowly. One pointed area: abortion, birth control, and womens' healthcare services. Defunding Planned Parenthood on the basis of non-factual data. Insurance underwriters lumping hormonal medical treatments in with birth control and abortion services. Religious-affiliated employers imposing their moral beliefs onto all employees. Mississippi "regulating" their sole clinic providing abortion services into illegal status, regardless of the constitutionality of abortion services as part of womens' medical care.
Those debates always devolved into complicated topics of religion, morality, sexuality, medicine, privacy, etc. and it usually goes to hell pretty fast. This forum has better debates about Rights surrounding contracts or property, and which agency has authority to regulate. At least that's my impression after all these years.
Ironically, US public pensions haven't been defined as contracts or property, or litigated that way. Contract rights are re-negotiated all the time, property rights not so much.
No idea on font I have not copied/pasted anything there just typed it myself on my iPad.
I'm curious ---what do you see when you quote your own post?
Sort of a test. I'm hoping that what I see is what's being seen *by others*.
Strange, maybe you've eaten something funny??
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Your post is brown or black. Barely visible on my settings.
Does anyone else see a different font and text color in Rand's post....besides me? I changed color to white:
(eg 13th Amendment and Dred Scott).
Maybe you are crazy?
Nah, I see it too. I think Rand's using a different theme, so he probably doesn't notice.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Of course I'm crazy! Everyone here says so. How could they be wrong?
Why would Rand's "theme" affect what we see? very
It doesn't, but it affects what he sees. If he has a light background, and his text is always black, he won't notice if it will also be black in other themes, or not.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
yeah, okay, but why aren't his posts automatically made in colors that transfer to MY theme, so I can read them? His posts are the only ones that come out that way (except for jokers like minx)...but not always. It's only periodically, which makes me think it's related to HIS platform and not mine.
This has only ever happened before when I've copied/pasted using Google Chrome on the PC and it's copied the font across. I use white background with black text so wouldn't notice. On this occasion I've only typed it in the reply field, maybe tapped a font button or something and not noticed but definitely not deliberate.
I actually quoted his post and saw the [color]-tag in it and pasted that into mine
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Maybe Rand just didn't want to wholeheartedly admit he's agreeablehence the font change as a reluctant response
No. That is exactly what they're saying, what their word choice means. Again, they adhere to the second perspective I outlined. They're saying the decision made is unconstitutional but that's exactly the same as saying the ruling is not in accordance with the actual text i.e. they disagree with the decision. It is in no way a comment on the process of the Court making rulings on Constitutionality. They may be saying a decision is illegitimate but every wrong decision the Court makes is illegitimate for the second perspective. Legitimacy is granted by the text, not its interpreters. Doesn't prevent the ruling from having the force of law.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
[QUOTE=GGT;116460]I decided to break down your post in pieces, Fuzzy. I'll use "Rand Paul" as a known name for ideological context only.
That's not quite what I've said. Those determinations are only made after state legislatures have made laws, been challenged in lower courts, and cases find their way through the system (upward) to SCOTUS. The Court is the last stop-at-the-top, and their rulings then apply (downward) to states. Rand Paul can disagree all he wants as a member of the legislative branch, but by definition Senators and Congressmen aren't members of the judicial branch. [/qupte]
And that has nothing to do with the price of potatoes in Poughkeepsie. The process by which a case makes it to SCOTUS is completely irrelevant to just what the Court is doing vis a vis constitutionality when it makes a ruling. The fact that it is the last word is also meaningless in this case since both perspectives I've outlined *and other legitimate perspectives which have not yet come up* acknowledge this. They just place different degrees of emphasis on it. Paul's job also has no relevance.
No he can't. And none of the comments I've seen attributed to him suggest he's trying to. That's you radically misinterpreting those comments, which is what brought me into this particular tangent in the first place.And the Court is a last resort reactive entity, only interpreting or determining things already litigated in lower courts. It's presumed that states aren't enacting crazy laws (like indentured servitude or slavery) that have already been litigated and deemed to be unconstitutional. Precedent upon precedent. Rand Paul can also disagree on the interpretation of the constitution, and previous precedents, as made by the justices, but he can't ignore the de facto reality that his branch of government can enact a penalty or surcharge (aka tax). Even if it's tied to a policy he doesn't like.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
As I said to GGT, considering the Court as the determiner of what is Constitutional is a perfectly valid perspective. I don't really share it outside a few rare issues that arise before the court that my reading of the Constitution considers more or less completely unaddressed but I'm not about to argue that it's wrong. It's just not the only valid perspective. But Rand, if the Court determines constitutionality, how can it be wrong? It can make decisions that have consequences that you don't like but the Court's task isn't to address those issues, it's solely to address constitutionality. So you can say you dislike the consequences of a decision, or the tenor of an opinion but how can you say it is wrong? Rightness and wrongness is exactly the same thing as constitutional and unconstitutional in this context and by the act of making a ruling, the Court's position IS constitutional. It IS right. There's no room to say right or wrong after the Court has ruled.
*For the record, at least officially the Court considers this perspective to be bunk. Their stated position has always been that they interpret to arbitrate disagreement, that the text is the determiner. It's the PC position, it just doesn't necessarily reflect reality accurately*
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
No, you were just stunned - stunned - that someone could disagree with the ruling of the Supreme Court. Of course, you weren't stunned when people were getting their panties twisted into knots over Citizens United, or any number of other rulings that you disagreed with. Instead you chose to read woe and danger into an otherwise innocuous comment because of the letter that followed the name of the politician who made them.
Are you stunned that someone might call you out for using the same tactics you've so vocally disagree with? After several readings of your posts, I can't help but get the impression, perspective, and opinion that you believe the Tea Party is advocating the destruction of the American way.
Until you post compelling evidence to the contrary that will would discount or dissolve my impression of what you wrote, I see no reason to change my mind.
That they very strongly disagree with the ruling of the Supreme Court? That they believe it doesn't fall within their perspective of what is constitutionally sound? Had the ruling swung the other way, don't you think there would have been similar rhetoric from the Left? Rhetoric I have little doubt you'd be parroting or ignoring.Don't lecture me about "what I want to see" until you can actually read what I write, without bringing your pre-conceived ideas along as baggage. I'm happy to read any link you share that would discount or dissolve my impression of Rand Paul and/or the Tea Party and/or factions of the conservative right-wing that's been portrayed in the news. Or even on their own websites.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote