In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
NJ Gov. Chris Christie To Announce Presidential Run Next Week
NEWARK, N.J. (CBSNewYork/AP) — New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie will announce next week that he is running for president in 2016, CBS2 has confirmed.
Christie will make an official announcement Tuesday at his old high school, two people familiar with his plans told The Associated Press.
The Republican governor has been laying the groundwork for months. Christie considered a bid in 2012 before deciding to pass on a campaign.
He joins a field of more than a dozen major candidates for the GOP nomination. Once considered an early front-runner, Christie has yet to build momentum in the early days of the race.
The people spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to pre-empt Christie’s formal announcement.
Christie is likely to be one of four current governors in the 2016 race, joining Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal, who announced his candidacy this week, and expected candidates Scott Walker of Wisconsin and John Kasich of Ohio.
lol. No shot. As a resident of NJ, I can tell you that even we hate him as our governor, and we're accustomed to speaking/ being spoken to in a dismissive, arrogant manner. He has zero tact, he hasn't helped job growth, and he's marginalized public servants (especially teachers and police officers) with his behavior and actions.
As someone from MA, that won't change anything. We had Mit and the whole time the entire state was like "What are you all doing!?!?!?!?!" during the last election.
Good point, although Romney was mild-mannered and not a douchebag like Christie. Christie will make enemies every time he opens his mouth, just because he belittles people.
Roberts summed it up nicely: "Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter."
This doesn't seem to make any sense. The judiciary is not involved in policy. They do not help implement policy, they only make sure that the policy makers act within the rules of the law. Their decisions should be "this acted within the scope of the law" or "it did not". This quotation sounds like "we will enforce the result however it comes about".
The Court's job is to decide what the law is. They do this by interpreting the language drafted by the legislature. It's not possible to interpret language without considering its context. In this case, the context was Congress passed a bill with the express purpose of improving the health insurance market. It would be nonsensical for the Court to adopt an interpretation of the ACA which would accomplish the opposite effect.
Again, it's not the Court's job to write the law. If the bill has clauses that later turn out to be untenable, then it's up to the bill writers to fix it. What they are LITERALLY doing is saying that the Bill doesn't fall within the law, so they are changing the law. How idiotic is that?!
The sad thing is that they are preventing Congress from any possible fix. Remember, this case started because the IRS was writing regulations that went against the statute. This is government by bureaucracy and judicial fiat. This isn't even a case of the SCOTUS overriding Congress- they are doing Congress's job, never mind the hollering that "clearly they must have meant this".
""Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. "
Inb4, taken out of context. She has complex ideas, etc.
She addressed it and said she was talking about population growth and the zero population movement back when that was a thing. I was alive and remember when that was a concern. It was not about eugenics. Her quote is not perfect, but the idea that someone is suddenly in support of eugenics because of one gaff is pretty silly. Also indicative of modern media coverage now that I think about it.
I didn't hear it from Glenn Beck. You mock Glenn Beck then rush to Slate? Of course they are going to
The question is who the "we" is. Is she describing other people's views? Is she summarizing her own views? The country as a whole? Was the "we" a slip of the tongue? Do we all not want some populations but some people actively want them to be removed while others only passively give them the means to do so?
It's just not the one quote; she's made several comments to the effect that it's better to reduce the population of poor people. Maybe the problem is that some people don't find the idea that it's better that people not be born than be poor objectionable.
And, Plansix, you spend a lot of time accusing everyone who disagrees with you of just ignoring all evidence against them. I'm sorry I couldn't steal RBG's secret manifesto that reveals her hatred of poor people. I don't know what else you want.
I mean, when their arguments are straight up garbage in line with one made by Glen Fucking Beck, what do you expect me to do? I don't' get in rational arguments about Peta either. I posted a response from Ginsburg with a direct quote from her addressing it. You don't even need to read the parts from Slate if they bother you so much.
And its not my fault you were not alive or paying attention during the population scare, but it was a real thing. People were concerned we were going to run out of food. It was a real thing so much so that countries like China passed laws about how many children people could have.
""Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. "
Inb4, taken out of context. She has complex ideas, etc.
She addressed it and said she was talking about population growth and the zero population movement back when that was a thing. I was alive and remember when that was a concern. It was not about eugenics. Her quote is not perfect, but the idea that someone is suddenly in support of eugenics because of one gaff is pretty silly. Also indicative of modern media coverage now that I think about it.
I didn't hear it from Glenn Beck. You mock Glenn Beck then rush to Slate? Of course they are going to
The question is who the "we" is. Is she describing other people's views? Is she summarizing her own views? The country as a whole? Was the "we" a slip of the tongue? Do we all not want some populations but some people actively want them to be removed while others only passively give them the means to do so?
It's just not the one quote; she's made several comments to the effect that it's better to reduce the population of poor people. Maybe the problem is that some people don't find the idea that it's better that people not be born than be poor objectionable.
And, Plansix, you spend a lot of time accusing everyone who disagrees with you of just ignoring all evidence against them. I'm sorry I couldn't steal RBG's secret manifesto that reveals her hatred of poor people. I don't know what else you want.
The "we" was clearly not her own views, which is obvious when the quote is not taken out-of-context. If you can't see that, perhaps you should start wondering whether you have conservative blinders on.
Please, do show us where else she is supposed to have been arguing in favor of eugenics.
Roberts summed it up nicely: "Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter."
This doesn't seem to make any sense. The judiciary is not involved in policy. They do not help implement policy, they only make sure that the policy makers act within the rules of the law. Their decisions should be "this acted within the scope of the law" or "it did not". This quotation sounds like "we will enforce the result however it comes about".
The Court's job is to decide what the law is. They do this by interpreting the language drafted by the legislature. It's not possible to interpret language without considering its context. In this case, the context was Congress passed a bill with the express purpose of improving the health insurance market. It would be nonsensical for the Court to adopt an interpretation of the ACA which would accomplish the opposite effect.
Again, it's not the Court's job to write the law. If the bill has clauses that later turn out to be untenable, then it's up to the bill writers to fix it. What they are LITERALLY doing is saying that the Bill doesn't fall within the law, so they are changing the law. How idiotic is that?!
The sad thing is that they are preventing Congress from any possible fix. Remember, this case started because the IRS was writing regulations that went against the statute. This is government by bureaucracy and judicial fiat. This isn't even a case of the SCOTUS overriding Congress- they are doing Congress's job, never mind the hollering that "clearly they must have meant this".
Interpreting the meaning of language isn't as simple as you and Introvert make it out to be. There's a reason we have very smart people on SCOTUS.
On June 26 2015 03:58 Mercy13 wrote: What's your point? I don't understand the obsession with Gruber. He didn't write the bill, and if he had it would look nothing like what was eventually passed into law.
Gruber was the 'smoking gun' for some GOP claims. It didn't help Dems that they tried to pretend they didn't know who Gruber was after the fact. That only made them look more dishonest.
On June 26 2015 02:59 Introvert wrote: Interesting facts you have there, considering the words of one of the primary architects. Their stick didn't work, so they ran to the Court to save it. And the Court did save it. For the good of the people.
Edit: yeah a lawsuit was brought, as only recourse.
Quite sure it was for the good of the conservatives too, unless you assume that the only people voting conservative are the ones who already have money and don't need obamacare.
On June 26 2015 04:34 Plansix wrote: [ I mean, when their arguments are straight up garbage in line with one made by Glen Fucking Beck, what do you expect me to do? I don't' get in rational arguments about Peta either. I posted a response from Ginsburg with a direct quote from her addressing it. You don't even need to read the parts from Slate if they bother you so much.
And its not my fault you were not alive or paying attention during the population scare, but it was a real thing. People were concerned we were going to run out of food. It was a real thing so much so that countries like China passed laws about how many children people could have.
Maybe the world isn't divided into two camps? And which population scare? Progressivism, population scares and birth control have been walking hand in hand since Malthus. You don't have to be Nazi to believe in this. You just have to be a Progressive, not a monster with a big sign on your head. I think if you had a more honest Progressive in here, they'd gladly admit that abortion and birth control are great for population control.
@kzivatch- Could we not invoke the ol' Cognitive Dissonance every post? It does get a bit tiresome.
@Mercy- I'll take Scalia over the lot every time. He even said in his first dissent that ACA would likely be untenable without the federal exchange.
Entire political careers have started, peaked, and ended without the right coming up and passing an alternative to the ACA. If they had a plan they should of passed it. Still talking about repealing the ACA without a passed alternative has already flew by the pathetic pub and is parked squarely in desperation depot.
What's going to be the big accomplishment of the Republican Congress between 2014 and 2016. What are we going to look at and say wow that was an impressive accomplishment?
On June 26 2015 05:17 GreenHorizons wrote: Entire political careers have started, peaked, and ended without the right coming up and passing an alternative to the ACA. If they had a plan they should of passed it. Still talking about repealing the ACA without a passed alternative has already flew by the pathetic pub and is parked squarely in desperation depot.
What's going to be the big accomplishment of the Republican Congress between 2014 and 2016. What are we going to look at and say wow that was an impressive accomplishment?
Why must a Congress do something impressive?
They just need to do their job (which has been hard enough these last few years).
""Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. "
Inb4, taken out of context. She has complex ideas, etc.
She addressed it and said she was talking about population growth and the zero population movement back when that was a thing. I was alive and remember when that was a concern. It was not about eugenics. Her quote is not perfect, but the idea that someone is suddenly in support of eugenics because of one gaff is pretty silly. Also indicative of modern media coverage now that I think about it.
I didn't hear it from Glenn Beck. You mock Glenn Beck then rush to Slate? Of course they are going to
The question is who the "we" is. Is she describing other people's views? Is she summarizing her own views? The country as a whole? Was the "we" a slip of the tongue? Do we all not want some populations but some people actively want them to be removed while others only passively give them the means to do so?
It's just not the one quote; she's made several comments to the effect that it's better to reduce the population of poor people. Maybe the problem is that some people don't find the idea that it's better that people not be born than be poor objectionable.
And, Plansix, you spend a lot of time accusing everyone who disagrees with you of just ignoring all evidence against them. I'm sorry I couldn't steal RBG's secret manifesto that reveals her hatred of poor people. I don't know what else you want.
The "we" was clearly not her own views, which is obvious when the quote is not taken out-of-context. If you can't see that, perhaps you should start wondering whether you have conservative blinders on.
Please, do show us where else she is supposed to have been arguing in favor of eugenics.
I would think he was more talking about you can trace her judicial roots, to Oliver Wendell Holmes who notably dissented in Lochner, but also was the major voice in Buck v. Bell. He is one of the leading critics of originalism, and of attacks on "economic rights" that belong to individuals.
On June 26 2015 04:34 Plansix wrote: [ I mean, when their arguments are straight up garbage in line with one made by Glen Fucking Beck, what do you expect me to do? I don't' get in rational arguments about Peta either. I posted a response from Ginsburg with a direct quote from her addressing it. You don't even need to read the parts from Slate if they bother you so much.
And its not my fault you were not alive or paying attention during the population scare, but it was a real thing. People were concerned we were going to run out of food. It was a real thing so much so that countries like China passed laws about how many children people could have.
@kzivatch- Could we not invoke the ol' Cognitive Dissonance every post? It does get a bit tiresome.
Don't post out-of-context quotes to distort what she was saying if you don't want to get called out on it.
""Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. "
Inb4, taken out of context. She has complex ideas, etc.
She addressed it and said she was talking about population growth and the zero population movement back when that was a thing. I was alive and remember when that was a concern. It was not about eugenics. Her quote is not perfect, but the idea that someone is suddenly in support of eugenics because of one gaff is pretty silly. Also indicative of modern media coverage now that I think about it.
I didn't hear it from Glenn Beck. You mock Glenn Beck then rush to Slate? Of course they are going to
The question is who the "we" is. Is she describing other people's views? Is she summarizing her own views? The country as a whole? Was the "we" a slip of the tongue? Do we all not want some populations but some people actively want them to be removed while others only passively give them the means to do so?
It's just not the one quote; she's made several comments to the effect that it's better to reduce the population of poor people. Maybe the problem is that some people don't find the idea that it's better that people not be born than be poor objectionable.
And, Plansix, you spend a lot of time accusing everyone who disagrees with you of just ignoring all evidence against them. I'm sorry I couldn't steal RBG's secret manifesto that reveals her hatred of poor people. I don't know what else you want.
The "we" was clearly not her own views, which is obvious when the quote is not taken out-of-context. If you can't see that, perhaps you should start wondering whether you have conservative blinders on.
Please, do show us where else she is supposed to have been arguing in favor of eugenics.
I would think he was more talking about you can trace her judicial roots, to Oliver Wendell Holmes who notably dissented in Lochner, but also was the major voice in Buck v. Bell. He is one of the leading critics of originalism, and of attacks on "economic rights" that belong to individuals.
Is any of this supposed to be evidence that she favors eugenics?
On June 26 2015 05:17 GreenHorizons wrote: Entire political careers have started, peaked, and ended without the right coming up and passing an alternative to the ACA. If they had a plan they should of passed it. Still talking about repealing the ACA without a passed alternative has already flew by the pathetic pub and is parked squarely in desperation depot.
What's going to be the big accomplishment of the Republican Congress between 2014 and 2016. What are we going to look at and say wow that was an impressive accomplishment?
Why must a Congress do something impressive?
They just need to do their job (which has been hard enough these last few years).
They were elected by their Republican constituencies based on their claims of impressive accomplishments in the coming years prior to Obama's departure. Repeal of Obamacare, executive amnesty, gay marriage, yadayadayada. The November 2014 elections were supposed to be some sort of mandate that the American people hated Obama's policies but the Republican congress isn't working very hard to defeat them and the SCOTUS isn't being much help either.
I would hope that, Republican or Democrat, Congress achieves something "impressive" over a 2-year period, because there is always work to be done and these guys and gals are getting paid a lot of money to sit in DC presiding over us. Fighting lamely against policies you have no hope of overturning (and putting no real effort into it) does not qualify.
On June 26 2015 04:09 RCMDVA wrote: Re: Christie. Is there anyplace I can bet on him winning the nomination....as a Democrat?
I'm uncertain as to why you think he'd be a good Democrat, let alone be more popular than Hillary?
If Christie was governor in a sate in the south he's probably be considered a blue-dog Dem. Compared to all the other southern governors. It would be a hard sell, and quite a stretch...but it's about winning delegates and getting the nomination. 1v1 Hillary is a lot better odds than 15vFFA.
On June 26 2015 04:09 RCMDVA wrote: Re: Christie. Is there anyplace I can bet on him winning the nomination....as a Democrat?
I'm uncertain as to why you think he'd be a good Democrat, let alone be more popular than Hillary?
If Christie was governor in a sate in the south he's probably be considered a blue-dog Dem. Compared to all the other southern governors. It would be a hard sell, and quite a stretch...but it's about winning delegates and getting the nomination. 1v1 Hillary is a lot better odds than 15vFFA.
Someone testing how burning bath salts taste again? Though I agree Christie isn't Republican enough to have even the slightest chance in a primary all the other candidates could die in a plane crash on the day before the first primaries and he still wouldn't win a state for weeks.
EPT
