US Politics Mega-thread - Page 802

Rules for equal coverage by employers remain elusive under health law

The Obama administration is delaying enforcement of another provision of the new health care law, one that prohibits employers from providing better health benefits to top executives than to other employees.

Tax officials said they would not enforce the provision this year because they had yet to issue regulations for employers to follow.

The Affordable Care Act, adopted nearly four years ago, says employer-sponsored health plans must not discriminate "in favor of highly compensated individuals" with respect to either eligibility or benefits. The government provides a substantial tax break for employer-sponsored insurance, and, as a matter of equity and fairness, lawmakers said employers should not provide more generous coverage to a select group of high-paid employees.

But translating that goal into reality has proved difficult. ...

On January 20 2014 08:11 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think this thread is very good. Sure if you have a degree in political science and have for years been paying attention to politics while actively debating stuff and expanding your political vocabulary and observing high level academic discussions pertaining most important subjects visited by the thread then the discussions might take form at a lower level than what you would ideally participate in, but maybe you should then just accept that this is a gaming forum mostly hitting people in their late teens and twenties, with many Europeans with an interest in american politics but not necessarily with advanced understanding of american politics, and try to compare it to other discussion forums with a similar demographic.

And then you should realize that the function this thread has is not to thread new political ground creating resolutions to long-lasting political problems (because that would be impossible in this type of environment), but rather to function as a tool of expanding political knowledge for people who are interested, and to function as a training ground for forming coherent arguments. We're not discussing to convince the people we are discussing with, as most of us have made up our minds and then our brains somehow seem to function in a way that requires far more evidence to make us change our minds than for it to form the initial impression, rather we are discussing to convince those who enter this thread without already being world champion of politics.

Additionally you can always try to make it better by actually posting elaborate explanations for your point of view that might be understandable for the common plebs rather than asserting that the discussion is below your level while espousing tidbits of knowledge that indeed make it obvious that you know a lot but without you actually stating anything about what you believe. If we, the common thread-viewer is too ignorant, then please educate us. American politics is a field of interest of mine - but it's absolutely not something I consider myself an expert on. Pedagogics however kind of is, and I can tell you that none of the people complaining about the level of posting in this thread are doing a good job enlightening the ignorant.

On January 20 2014 03:28 xDaunt wrote:
Just because a Supreme Court decision is 5-4, doesn't mean that it is any less "the law" than a decision that is 9-0. The Court does not reverse itself often.

On January 20 2014 09:56 itsjustatank wrote:

I'll agree that perhaps I have too high of a standard for argumentative discourse as a result of education and experience, but I feel like we can all make an intersection between constructive posts that attempt to engage the topics of this thread and those who are posting in the same manner and what this thread has devolved into: political name-calling and other ad hominem attacks, assumption of bad faith (or worse, assumption of a fellow poster's core values or platform), and straight-up shitposting (with the posting of meme-style pictures being a primary example, as well as making extremely wild claims with the intent of causing a flame war being another).

I have generally avoided posting in this thread throughout my tenure here on Teamliquid precisely because I see way too much of those aforementioned negative behaviors exhibited. However, in the those precious few cases in which I have intervened here, I have always attempted to bring the thread away from boring, skill-less, and tired political gamesmanship between adherents of the two diametrically-opposed (but, in actuality, quite similar) 'sides' of the American political spectrum.

That I have been confronted with still more terrible posting in response is pretty disconcerting, but I do take your words to heart. I don't think everyone posting in this thread is bad. I also don't think this thread should be closed or not exist. I just wish people could stop being so asinine and close-minded to each other in it. A simple mindfulness of having and expecting a higher standard of posting in this thread should do a lot to raising its educative value. As it stands right now, however, it functions as a definite low point area on this site in which people pride themselves on racing to the bottom so long as they engage in masturbatory political point sniping while doing so.

On January 20 2014 10:22 IgnE wrote:


This thread doesn't revolve around you. For all your complaining about other people's assumptions in this thread you seem to do the same thing. When I quoted your post in the last page I was responding to more than just you. Despite your offense when I lumped my response to you with my response to Introvert and others, a fair reading of my post only attributes to you the fact that you pasted a Scalia majority opinion at me, despite my clear familiarity with the case. I don't assume you are a gun-nut, I just assume you have missed the point and are irrelevant. For all your education and experience you don't seem capable of following the ebb and flow of a limited online discussion, but you blame the other posters for not being sophisticated enough. You can ride right out of here on your high pony and browse google news if you just want some sanitized news blurbs.

On January 20 2014 10:30 itsjustatank wrote:


My post was a statement of fact, and of legal interpretation and jurisprudence as it currently is. It also on-point attacks your claim that English common law and its analysis from both modern and contemporary sources is irrelevant and extraneous to the proper formulation of legal opinions in the American judicial system. You just assumed I'm a strict constructionist in an attempt to respond.

On January 20 2014 10:40 IgnE wrote:



Of course it's a statement of fact post-Heller. That is totally irrelevant to the meaning of the word pre-Heller before Scalia magisterially concluded that that is what it meant. How does a post-Heller statement of fact pertain to a discussion of the merits and demerits of the opinions in Heller? Your statement was irrelevant and missed the point. I understood entirely what you said. I don't think it was unfair of me to assume you were irrelevant or a conservative making a question begging argument. You are free to correct my assumption and admit how irrelevant your Scalia quote was though.

On January 20 2014 10:50 itsjustatank wrote:


Except, you are again assuming many things. Primarily that of Scalia's opinion being magisterial. An individual right within the Constitution to keep and bear arms can be seen regardless of your personal philosophy regarding the reading of the constitution. He might have taken a circuitous one, but it isn't illegitimate.

I find his interpretation of the Constitution, in this case, to be far more compelling than the sight-seeing of the minority opinion. As you said yourself, it should be a game of competing interpretations.

On January 20 2014 10:55 IgnE wrote:


I'm not assuming anything. I read the opinion. I'm not sure you even know what "assumptions" are. What do you think I'm saying? That Heller isn't law? Because that's not what I'm saying.

On January 20 2014 11:04 Introvert wrote:
Scalia has not claimed to be a strict constructionist. Actually, I believe he has said he is NOT one.

At 72, Justice Scalia is still a maverick, championing a philosophy known as "orginalism," which means interpreting the Constitution based on what it originally meant to the people who ratified it over 200 years ago.

Scalia has no patience with so-called activist judges, who create rights not in the Constitution - like a right to abortion - by interpreting the Constitution as a "living document" that adapts to changing values.

Asked what's wrong with the living Constitution, Scalia tells Stahl, "What's wrong with it is, it's wonderful imagery and it puts me on the defensive as defending presumably a dead Constitution."

"It is an enduring Constitution that I want to defend," he says.

"But what you're saying is, let's try to figure out the mindset of people back 200 years ago? Right?" Stahl asks.

"Well, it isn't the mindset. It's what did the words mean to the people who ratified the Bill of Rights or who ratified the Constitution," Scalia says.

"As opposed to what people today think it means," Stahl asks.

"As opposed to what people today would like," Scalia says.

"But you do admit that values change? We do adapt. We move," Stahl asks.

"That's fine. And so do laws change. Because values change, legislatures abolish the death penalty, permit same-sex marriage if they want, abolish laws against homosexual conduct. That's how the change in a society occurs. Society doesn't change through a Constitution," Scalia argues.

...

"These are people that don't understand what my interpretive philosophy is. I'm not saying no progress. I'm saying we should progress democratically," Scalia says.

On January 20 2014 11:04 Introvert wrote:
Scalia has not claimed to be a strict constructionist. Actually, I believe he has said he is NOT one.

On January 20 2014 07:01 xDaunt wrote:

Robotically posting stuff from TPM is useful?

In another controversy surrounding New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer said Sunday that Christie directly ordered the withholding of Superstorm Sandy recovery funds unless she backed a redevelopment plan he favored.

Appearing on CNN's "State of the Union," Zimmer said she was told by a member of Christie's administration that Sandy relief funds hinged on her support for a real estate development project and that the directive was coming directly from Christie.

TOKYO, Jan 20 (Reuters) - In an unusual move, U.S. ambassador to Japan Caroline Kennedy has expressed deep concern over the traditional dolphin hunt in western Japan, where local fisherman corral dolphins in a secluded bay before killing many for meat.

The annual dolphin hunt currently underway in Taiji in western Japan has long been a source of controversy and was the topic of "The Cove," an Oscar-winning documentary.

"(I am) deeply concerned by inhumanness of drive hunt dolphin killing," Kennedy tweeted at the weekend, adding that the U.S. government opposes drive hunt fishing.

Every year the fishermen of Taiji - a small fishing town in Japan's Wakayama prefecture - drive hundreds of dolphins into a cove, select some for sale to marine parks, release some back into the sea and kill the rest for meat.

Sea Shepherd, one of several animal protection groups that monitor fishermen in Taiji, said on Monday that more than 200 dolphins have been rounded up into the secluded bay by the shore off Taiji.

The organization is streaming live footage of Taiji's cove, showing fishermen on several fishing boats rounding up the dolphins inside the bay. The dolphins are cordoned off by large fishing nets.

On January 20 2014 14:35 darthfoley wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/18/politics/hoboken-mayor-christie-sandy-funds/index.html?hpt=hp_t1



Looks like even more bad news for Chris Christie's camp. Interesting to see how this all of this will play out for 2016.