|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
you are psychologizing here in a way that distracts from the central point. yes, of course, there are a multitude of reasons that you might play poorly, and worrying about your loss is one of those reasons. that isnt really relevant though to a hypothetical guy who has a justifiable belief that he has +eV opportunities and is capable of identifying +eV opportunities into the future being limited by his total available capital, because if he is wiped out completely he will have no way of taking advantage of those opportunities.
you keep bringing up these situations that are simple misreadings of what is really going on. in a sense a poker player (you bring up isildur) who is recognized as a great player but totally busts out is trading reputational capital for further financial capital (or you might make a credit analogy: staking his credit score on a loan). if he continues to bust out people will eventually stop staking him, he will have "lost it." obviously markets are a little more obscure than poker plays, which can be judged on a "more objective" basis, but ive already acknowledged poker is an imperfect analogy, and im relying on your ability to abstract out the relevant features
|
Trump's DOJ labels the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional, placing healthcare for 133 million at risk
In what may be the Trump administration’s most dishonest and cowardly attack yet on the Affordable Care Act, the Department of Justice late Thursday asserted that key provisions of the law are unconstitutional and refused to defend it against a legal challenge brought by 20 red states.
The move, disclosed in a federal court filing, left healthcare and legal experts aghast. The administration’s argument takes aim at the ACA’s protections for Americans with preexisting medical conditions, who are guaranteed access to health insurance at standard premium rates by the law.
Three DOJ attorneys who had been working on the case withdrew the day before the filing in what was widely assumed in the legal community to be a protest against the agency’s position.
The Justice Department’s abandonment of the ACA leaves the defense of the law in the hands of 16 state attorneys general, including California’s Xavier Becerra, whom the court granted standing on May 16 to intervene in the case. They responded promptly to the filing late Thursday by calling the government’s position “profoundly undemocratic” and asserting that its attack on the ACA’s constitutionality would “cause catastrophic harm to tens of millions of Americans.”
What concerned legal experts even more was the administration’s refusal to defend the law against what’s widely viewed as a hopelessly frivolous legal claim. The government’s refusal to defend the law “represents an enormous blow to the integrity of the Justice Department,” wrote Nicholas Bagley of the University of Michigan law school.
“The laws that Congress passes and the President signs are the laws of the land,” Bagley wrote. “They aren’t negotiable; they’re not up for further debate. If the Justice Department can just throw in the towel whenever a law is challenged in court, it can effectively pick and choose which laws should remain on the books. That’s as flagrant a violation of the President’s constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed as you can imagine.”
source
This is some next level bullshit and an affront to the rule of law in the country. The Trump’s DOJ is refusing to Defendant the ACA in court again state lawsuits brought to challenge it, again. The lawsuits are seen as frivolously and likely to prevail, but Trump’s DOJ decided to agree with them and withdraw from the case at the last minute. The case is bullshit, saying that the mandate now has no penalty, so it isn’t a tax and other aspects of the law unconstitutional, like pre-existing conditions.
These garbage humans can’t just stand to lose. They need to subvert every rule and aspect good faith to try and destroy this healthcare bill and fuck over half the country. If this prevails, one day people will just wake up and be denied for their previously accepted health insurance. No vote in congress, no laws passed. Just the Trump admin choosing to not defend the laws of the Federal government because they don’t agree with them.
|
United States42255 Posts
On June 08 2018 22:50 farvacola wrote:
A tax on buybacks and similar transactions sounds great to me.
They're taxable to the individual at LTCG rates in excess of basis. It wouldn't really make much sense for it to be taxable to the issuing company.
|
United States42255 Posts
On June 09 2018 02:12 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 02:01 IgnE wrote:
Staking is just a form of bankroll management but thanks for pointing out that relatively unimportant detail. It's still someone's [two's three's] bankroll. In any case my point wasn't a broad comparison between poker and investment. It was confined to the proposition that smart people who make bets (investments, poker bets, whatever) play where they have odds and to not get wiped out, so that even if they lose a bet, they can continue to play. The problem with playing outside of your bankroll management is that you end up playing poorly, or worse than your typical level. It's not that you might get wiped out. Having the idea that you might get wiped out in your head while you're playing is the main reason why you're likely to play worse when playing outside of your bankroll level (most likely will lead you to play worse even if you're playing within your bankroll). If you're one of the best players and you get wiped out or close to wiped out, that doesn't really matter as much. It would be ridiculous for Isildur, after getting wiped out on that famous night, to start playing microstakes or something. His EV dictates that he should try and play higher, and that's what he does.
Bankroll management is a product of variance. Downswings happen at all skill levels simply due to intrinsic variance within the game. Let's say that X is the buyin for a table and Y is the downswing factor that outputs Z, the expected loss in the most brutal downswing you might expect over, say, a million hands.
If you have $Z then it would be foolish to play at any buyin over X. Sure, you might be plusEV at 100X, but you're not just looking at one hand, you're looking at a career. If you're 75/25 ahead and you put in all of your money then 25% of the time you're finished. If you're 75/25 ahead and you put in 10% of your money then you can get 75/25 ahead and put in 10% of your money over and over again, pretty much forever.
It's sheering a sheep vs slaughtering one.
|
On June 09 2018 04:41 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +Trump's DOJ labels the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional, placing healthcare for 133 million at risk
In what may be the Trump administration’s most dishonest and cowardly attack yet on the Affordable Care Act, the Department of Justice late Thursday asserted that key provisions of the law are unconstitutional and refused to defend it against a legal challenge brought by 20 red states.
The move, disclosed in a federal court filing, left healthcare and legal experts aghast. The administration’s argument takes aim at the ACA’s protections for Americans with preexisting medical conditions, who are guaranteed access to health insurance at standard premium rates by the law.
Three DOJ attorneys who had been working on the case withdrew the day before the filing in what was widely assumed in the legal community to be a protest against the agency’s position.
The Justice Department’s abandonment of the ACA leaves the defense of the law in the hands of 16 state attorneys general, including California’s Xavier Becerra, whom the court granted standing on May 16 to intervene in the case. They responded promptly to the filing late Thursday by calling the government’s position “profoundly undemocratic” and asserting that its attack on the ACA’s constitutionality would “cause catastrophic harm to tens of millions of Americans.”
What concerned legal experts even more was the administration’s refusal to defend the law against what’s widely viewed as a hopelessly frivolous legal claim. The government’s refusal to defend the law “represents an enormous blow to the integrity of the Justice Department,” wrote Nicholas Bagley of the University of Michigan law school.
“The laws that Congress passes and the President signs are the laws of the land,” Bagley wrote. “They aren’t negotiable; they’re not up for further debate. If the Justice Department can just throw in the towel whenever a law is challenged in court, it can effectively pick and choose which laws should remain on the books. That’s as flagrant a violation of the President’s constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed as you can imagine.” sourceThis is some next level bullshit and an affront to the rule of law in the country. The Trump’s DOJ is refusing to Defendant the ACA in court again state lawsuits brought to challenge it, again. The lawsuits are seen as frivolously and likely to prevail, but Trump’s DOJ decided to agree with them and withdraw from the case at the last minute. The case is bullshit, saying that the mandate now has no penalty, so it isn’t a tax and other aspects of the law unconstitutional, like pre-existing conditions. These garbage humans can’t just stand to lose. They need to subvert every rule and aspect good faith to try and destroy this healthcare bill and fuck over half the country. If this prevails, one day people will just wake up and be denied for their previously accepted health insurance. No vote in congress, no laws passed. Just the Trump admin choosing to not defend the laws of the Federal government because they don’t agree with them.
The Obama administration with Holder as the Attorney General shredded the norms when they refused to defend DOMA in court. I thought it was an incredibly shitty thing to do, and keeping the norms in place would redound to everybody's satisfaction, but they didn't.
Behold, the logical consequence. Without norms, somebody you hate will take it to something you love. And they'll do it bigly. The chickens are really coming home to roost in that respect. So next time, defend section 3 of DOMA in court even if you disagree with it.
We're no longer willing to play nice with rules when you refuse to apply them to yourselves. In other words, sorry, but you did this to yourselves.
|
On June 09 2018 05:09 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 04:41 Plansix wrote:Trump's DOJ labels the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional, placing healthcare for 133 million at risk
In what may be the Trump administration’s most dishonest and cowardly attack yet on the Affordable Care Act, the Department of Justice late Thursday asserted that key provisions of the law are unconstitutional and refused to defend it against a legal challenge brought by 20 red states.
The move, disclosed in a federal court filing, left healthcare and legal experts aghast. The administration’s argument takes aim at the ACA’s protections for Americans with preexisting medical conditions, who are guaranteed access to health insurance at standard premium rates by the law.
Three DOJ attorneys who had been working on the case withdrew the day before the filing in what was widely assumed in the legal community to be a protest against the agency’s position.
The Justice Department’s abandonment of the ACA leaves the defense of the law in the hands of 16 state attorneys general, including California’s Xavier Becerra, whom the court granted standing on May 16 to intervene in the case. They responded promptly to the filing late Thursday by calling the government’s position “profoundly undemocratic” and asserting that its attack on the ACA’s constitutionality would “cause catastrophic harm to tens of millions of Americans.”
What concerned legal experts even more was the administration’s refusal to defend the law against what’s widely viewed as a hopelessly frivolous legal claim. The government’s refusal to defend the law “represents an enormous blow to the integrity of the Justice Department,” wrote Nicholas Bagley of the University of Michigan law school.
“The laws that Congress passes and the President signs are the laws of the land,” Bagley wrote. “They aren’t negotiable; they’re not up for further debate. If the Justice Department can just throw in the towel whenever a law is challenged in court, it can effectively pick and choose which laws should remain on the books. That’s as flagrant a violation of the President’s constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed as you can imagine.” sourceThis is some next level bullshit and an affront to the rule of law in the country. The Trump’s DOJ is refusing to Defendant the ACA in court again state lawsuits brought to challenge it, again. The lawsuits are seen as frivolously and likely to prevail, but Trump’s DOJ decided to agree with them and withdraw from the case at the last minute. The case is bullshit, saying that the mandate now has no penalty, so it isn’t a tax and other aspects of the law unconstitutional, like pre-existing conditions. These garbage humans can’t just stand to lose. They need to subvert every rule and aspect good faith to try and destroy this healthcare bill and fuck over half the country. If this prevails, one day people will just wake up and be denied for their previously accepted health insurance. No vote in congress, no laws passed. Just the Trump admin choosing to not defend the laws of the Federal government because they don’t agree with them. The Obama administration with Holder as the Attorney General shredded the norms when they refused to defend DOMA in court. I thought it was an incredibly shitty thing to do, and keeping the norms in place would redound to everybody's satisfaction, but they didn't. Behold, the logical consequence. Without norms, somebody you hate will take it to something you love. And they'll do it bigly. The chickens are really coming home to roost in that respect. So next time, defend section 3 of DOMA in court even if you disagree with it. We're no longer willing to play nice with rules when you refuse to apply them to yourselves. In other words, sorry, but you did this to yourselves.
Is the "chickens coming home to roost" a reference to and tacit admission that Rev. Wright was right, his language appropriate, and the outrage about it hollow or was the use just coincidental?
|
United States42255 Posts
It's never entirely made clear what the policy stances of GH's proposed new Democratic party are. Do they end agricultural subsidies? Do they put greenhouse gas taxes on cattle? How do they feel about nuclear power? Education? Are the big banks going to be broken up? Are guns being banned? Are private prisons being shut down?
You can very easily get a consensus by pointing at the centre and saying "it's not left enough, it needs to be more left' but that means something different to everyone. There are wedge issues to me, like socialized healthcare, where I'm super left. There are leftist stances like gun control that I have an opinion about but don't really care either way. Then there are leftist issues like nuclear power, where I'm opposed to the sandal wearing, pot smoking hippies. And it's never really made clear what exactly I'm going to get from the new progressive platform.
People imagine it'll be all the things that they want and none of the things that they don't want, and because it doesn't exist that's pretty easy to imagine. But I expect that in reality we'll be disappointed.
|
On June 09 2018 05:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 05:09 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 04:41 Plansix wrote:Trump's DOJ labels the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional, placing healthcare for 133 million at risk
In what may be the Trump administration’s most dishonest and cowardly attack yet on the Affordable Care Act, the Department of Justice late Thursday asserted that key provisions of the law are unconstitutional and refused to defend it against a legal challenge brought by 20 red states.
The move, disclosed in a federal court filing, left healthcare and legal experts aghast. The administration’s argument takes aim at the ACA’s protections for Americans with preexisting medical conditions, who are guaranteed access to health insurance at standard premium rates by the law.
Three DOJ attorneys who had been working on the case withdrew the day before the filing in what was widely assumed in the legal community to be a protest against the agency’s position.
The Justice Department’s abandonment of the ACA leaves the defense of the law in the hands of 16 state attorneys general, including California’s Xavier Becerra, whom the court granted standing on May 16 to intervene in the case. They responded promptly to the filing late Thursday by calling the government’s position “profoundly undemocratic” and asserting that its attack on the ACA’s constitutionality would “cause catastrophic harm to tens of millions of Americans.”
What concerned legal experts even more was the administration’s refusal to defend the law against what’s widely viewed as a hopelessly frivolous legal claim. The government’s refusal to defend the law “represents an enormous blow to the integrity of the Justice Department,” wrote Nicholas Bagley of the University of Michigan law school.
“The laws that Congress passes and the President signs are the laws of the land,” Bagley wrote. “They aren’t negotiable; they’re not up for further debate. If the Justice Department can just throw in the towel whenever a law is challenged in court, it can effectively pick and choose which laws should remain on the books. That’s as flagrant a violation of the President’s constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed as you can imagine.” sourceThis is some next level bullshit and an affront to the rule of law in the country. The Trump’s DOJ is refusing to Defendant the ACA in court again state lawsuits brought to challenge it, again. The lawsuits are seen as frivolously and likely to prevail, but Trump’s DOJ decided to agree with them and withdraw from the case at the last minute. The case is bullshit, saying that the mandate now has no penalty, so it isn’t a tax and other aspects of the law unconstitutional, like pre-existing conditions. These garbage humans can’t just stand to lose. They need to subvert every rule and aspect good faith to try and destroy this healthcare bill and fuck over half the country. If this prevails, one day people will just wake up and be denied for their previously accepted health insurance. No vote in congress, no laws passed. Just the Trump admin choosing to not defend the laws of the Federal government because they don’t agree with them. The Obama administration with Holder as the Attorney General shredded the norms when they refused to defend DOMA in court. I thought it was an incredibly shitty thing to do, and keeping the norms in place would redound to everybody's satisfaction, but they didn't. Behold, the logical consequence. Without norms, somebody you hate will take it to something you love. And they'll do it bigly. The chickens are really coming home to roost in that respect. So next time, defend section 3 of DOMA in court even if you disagree with it. We're no longer willing to play nice with rules when you refuse to apply them to yourselves. In other words, sorry, but you did this to yourselves. Is the "chickens coming home to roost" a reference to and tacit admission that Rev. Wright was right, his language appropriate, and the outrage about it hollow or was the use just coincidental?
Hehe Rev Wright thought the 9/11 attacks were America’s chickens coming home to roost. If you really think America’s actions abroad justified or brought about the terrorist attacks, then certainly use whatever verbiage you want. He didn’t invent the phrase.
|
On June 09 2018 05:27 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 05:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 09 2018 05:09 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 04:41 Plansix wrote:Trump's DOJ labels the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional, placing healthcare for 133 million at risk
In what may be the Trump administration’s most dishonest and cowardly attack yet on the Affordable Care Act, the Department of Justice late Thursday asserted that key provisions of the law are unconstitutional and refused to defend it against a legal challenge brought by 20 red states.
The move, disclosed in a federal court filing, left healthcare and legal experts aghast. The administration’s argument takes aim at the ACA’s protections for Americans with preexisting medical conditions, who are guaranteed access to health insurance at standard premium rates by the law.
Three DOJ attorneys who had been working on the case withdrew the day before the filing in what was widely assumed in the legal community to be a protest against the agency’s position.
The Justice Department’s abandonment of the ACA leaves the defense of the law in the hands of 16 state attorneys general, including California’s Xavier Becerra, whom the court granted standing on May 16 to intervene in the case. They responded promptly to the filing late Thursday by calling the government’s position “profoundly undemocratic” and asserting that its attack on the ACA’s constitutionality would “cause catastrophic harm to tens of millions of Americans.”
What concerned legal experts even more was the administration’s refusal to defend the law against what’s widely viewed as a hopelessly frivolous legal claim. The government’s refusal to defend the law “represents an enormous blow to the integrity of the Justice Department,” wrote Nicholas Bagley of the University of Michigan law school.
“The laws that Congress passes and the President signs are the laws of the land,” Bagley wrote. “They aren’t negotiable; they’re not up for further debate. If the Justice Department can just throw in the towel whenever a law is challenged in court, it can effectively pick and choose which laws should remain on the books. That’s as flagrant a violation of the President’s constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed as you can imagine.” sourceThis is some next level bullshit and an affront to the rule of law in the country. The Trump’s DOJ is refusing to Defendant the ACA in court again state lawsuits brought to challenge it, again. The lawsuits are seen as frivolously and likely to prevail, but Trump’s DOJ decided to agree with them and withdraw from the case at the last minute. The case is bullshit, saying that the mandate now has no penalty, so it isn’t a tax and other aspects of the law unconstitutional, like pre-existing conditions. These garbage humans can’t just stand to lose. They need to subvert every rule and aspect good faith to try and destroy this healthcare bill and fuck over half the country. If this prevails, one day people will just wake up and be denied for their previously accepted health insurance. No vote in congress, no laws passed. Just the Trump admin choosing to not defend the laws of the Federal government because they don’t agree with them. The Obama administration with Holder as the Attorney General shredded the norms when they refused to defend DOMA in court. I thought it was an incredibly shitty thing to do, and keeping the norms in place would redound to everybody's satisfaction, but they didn't. Behold, the logical consequence. Without norms, somebody you hate will take it to something you love. And they'll do it bigly. The chickens are really coming home to roost in that respect. So next time, defend section 3 of DOMA in court even if you disagree with it. We're no longer willing to play nice with rules when you refuse to apply them to yourselves. In other words, sorry, but you did this to yourselves. Is the "chickens coming home to roost" a reference to and tacit admission that Rev. Wright was right, his language appropriate, and the outrage about it hollow or was the use just coincidental? Hehe Rev Wright thought the 9/11 attacks were America’s chickens coming home to roost. If you really think America’s actions abroad justified or brought about the terrorist attacks, then certainly use whatever verbiage you want. He didn’t invent the phrase.
Which argument are you making with it? That Obama's/Democrats actions justified Trumps, or merely brought them about? Or are you instead arguing that the terrorists or in this case Trump/Republicans are operating with agency and 2 wrongs don't make a right? Or some combination of them that can rightfully be interpreted many different ways until you clarify?
|
On June 09 2018 05:09 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 04:41 Plansix wrote:Trump's DOJ labels the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional, placing healthcare for 133 million at risk
In what may be the Trump administration’s most dishonest and cowardly attack yet on the Affordable Care Act, the Department of Justice late Thursday asserted that key provisions of the law are unconstitutional and refused to defend it against a legal challenge brought by 20 red states.
The move, disclosed in a federal court filing, left healthcare and legal experts aghast. The administration’s argument takes aim at the ACA’s protections for Americans with preexisting medical conditions, who are guaranteed access to health insurance at standard premium rates by the law.
Three DOJ attorneys who had been working on the case withdrew the day before the filing in what was widely assumed in the legal community to be a protest against the agency’s position.
The Justice Department’s abandonment of the ACA leaves the defense of the law in the hands of 16 state attorneys general, including California’s Xavier Becerra, whom the court granted standing on May 16 to intervene in the case. They responded promptly to the filing late Thursday by calling the government’s position “profoundly undemocratic” and asserting that its attack on the ACA’s constitutionality would “cause catastrophic harm to tens of millions of Americans.”
What concerned legal experts even more was the administration’s refusal to defend the law against what’s widely viewed as a hopelessly frivolous legal claim. The government’s refusal to defend the law “represents an enormous blow to the integrity of the Justice Department,” wrote Nicholas Bagley of the University of Michigan law school.
“The laws that Congress passes and the President signs are the laws of the land,” Bagley wrote. “They aren’t negotiable; they’re not up for further debate. If the Justice Department can just throw in the towel whenever a law is challenged in court, it can effectively pick and choose which laws should remain on the books. That’s as flagrant a violation of the President’s constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed as you can imagine.” sourceThis is some next level bullshit and an affront to the rule of law in the country. The Trump’s DOJ is refusing to Defendant the ACA in court again state lawsuits brought to challenge it, again. The lawsuits are seen as frivolously and likely to prevail, but Trump’s DOJ decided to agree with them and withdraw from the case at the last minute. The case is bullshit, saying that the mandate now has no penalty, so it isn’t a tax and other aspects of the law unconstitutional, like pre-existing conditions. These garbage humans can’t just stand to lose. They need to subvert every rule and aspect good faith to try and destroy this healthcare bill and fuck over half the country. If this prevails, one day people will just wake up and be denied for their previously accepted health insurance. No vote in congress, no laws passed. Just the Trump admin choosing to not defend the laws of the Federal government because they don’t agree with them. The Obama administration with Holder as the Attorney General shredded the norms when they refused to defend DOMA in court. I thought it was an incredibly shitty thing to do, and keeping the norms in place would redound to everybody's satisfaction, but they didn't. Behold, the logical consequence. Without norms, somebody you hate will take it to something you love. And they'll do it bigly. The chickens are really coming home to roost in that respect. So next time, defend section 3 of DOMA in court even if you disagree with it. We're no longer willing to play nice with rules when you refuse to apply them to yourselves. In other words, sorry, but you did this to yourselves.
Article 3 of the DOMA was a provision that denied the benefit of marriage to any couple that wasn't one man and one woman. Are you suggesting that challenging a law which hurt gay couples across the country is in fact comparable to the Trump administration refusing to uphold a critical law for people who need healthcare? That somehow one begets the other?
|
On June 09 2018 05:46 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 05:09 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 04:41 Plansix wrote:Trump's DOJ labels the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional, placing healthcare for 133 million at risk
In what may be the Trump administration’s most dishonest and cowardly attack yet on the Affordable Care Act, the Department of Justice late Thursday asserted that key provisions of the law are unconstitutional and refused to defend it against a legal challenge brought by 20 red states.
The move, disclosed in a federal court filing, left healthcare and legal experts aghast. The administration’s argument takes aim at the ACA’s protections for Americans with preexisting medical conditions, who are guaranteed access to health insurance at standard premium rates by the law.
Three DOJ attorneys who had been working on the case withdrew the day before the filing in what was widely assumed in the legal community to be a protest against the agency’s position.
The Justice Department’s abandonment of the ACA leaves the defense of the law in the hands of 16 state attorneys general, including California’s Xavier Becerra, whom the court granted standing on May 16 to intervene in the case. They responded promptly to the filing late Thursday by calling the government’s position “profoundly undemocratic” and asserting that its attack on the ACA’s constitutionality would “cause catastrophic harm to tens of millions of Americans.”
What concerned legal experts even more was the administration’s refusal to defend the law against what’s widely viewed as a hopelessly frivolous legal claim. The government’s refusal to defend the law “represents an enormous blow to the integrity of the Justice Department,” wrote Nicholas Bagley of the University of Michigan law school.
“The laws that Congress passes and the President signs are the laws of the land,” Bagley wrote. “They aren’t negotiable; they’re not up for further debate. If the Justice Department can just throw in the towel whenever a law is challenged in court, it can effectively pick and choose which laws should remain on the books. That’s as flagrant a violation of the President’s constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed as you can imagine.” sourceThis is some next level bullshit and an affront to the rule of law in the country. The Trump’s DOJ is refusing to Defendant the ACA in court again state lawsuits brought to challenge it, again. The lawsuits are seen as frivolously and likely to prevail, but Trump’s DOJ decided to agree with them and withdraw from the case at the last minute. The case is bullshit, saying that the mandate now has no penalty, so it isn’t a tax and other aspects of the law unconstitutional, like pre-existing conditions. These garbage humans can’t just stand to lose. They need to subvert every rule and aspect good faith to try and destroy this healthcare bill and fuck over half the country. If this prevails, one day people will just wake up and be denied for their previously accepted health insurance. No vote in congress, no laws passed. Just the Trump admin choosing to not defend the laws of the Federal government because they don’t agree with them. The Obama administration with Holder as the Attorney General shredded the norms when they refused to defend DOMA in court. I thought it was an incredibly shitty thing to do, and keeping the norms in place would redound to everybody's satisfaction, but they didn't. Behold, the logical consequence. Without norms, somebody you hate will take it to something you love. And they'll do it bigly. The chickens are really coming home to roost in that respect. So next time, defend section 3 of DOMA in court even if you disagree with it. We're no longer willing to play nice with rules when you refuse to apply them to yourselves. In other words, sorry, but you did this to yourselves. Article 3 of the DOMA was a provision that denied the benefit of marriage to any couple that wasn't one man and one woman. Are you suggesting that challenging a law which hurt gay couples across the country is in fact comparable to the Trump administration refusing to uphold a critical law for people who need healthcare? That somehow one begets the other?
Article 3 of DOMA was a duly passed and signed Federal statute, that was obliged to be defended by the Executive Branch in their capacity of executing the laws of the United States. The Obama justice department under Holder declined to do it. It’s very rich that today everybody is outraged that the Trump administration is refusing to defend a legal challenge to PPACA. You either believe it’s the governments responsibility to defend its laws in court, or you don’t. You earn your own partisanship if you suggest norms only apply to laws you like. Period.
|
On June 09 2018 05:55 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 05:46 NewSunshine wrote:On June 09 2018 05:09 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 04:41 Plansix wrote:Trump's DOJ labels the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional, placing healthcare for 133 million at risk
In what may be the Trump administration’s most dishonest and cowardly attack yet on the Affordable Care Act, the Department of Justice late Thursday asserted that key provisions of the law are unconstitutional and refused to defend it against a legal challenge brought by 20 red states.
The move, disclosed in a federal court filing, left healthcare and legal experts aghast. The administration’s argument takes aim at the ACA’s protections for Americans with preexisting medical conditions, who are guaranteed access to health insurance at standard premium rates by the law.
Three DOJ attorneys who had been working on the case withdrew the day before the filing in what was widely assumed in the legal community to be a protest against the agency’s position.
The Justice Department’s abandonment of the ACA leaves the defense of the law in the hands of 16 state attorneys general, including California’s Xavier Becerra, whom the court granted standing on May 16 to intervene in the case. They responded promptly to the filing late Thursday by calling the government’s position “profoundly undemocratic” and asserting that its attack on the ACA’s constitutionality would “cause catastrophic harm to tens of millions of Americans.”
What concerned legal experts even more was the administration’s refusal to defend the law against what’s widely viewed as a hopelessly frivolous legal claim. The government’s refusal to defend the law “represents an enormous blow to the integrity of the Justice Department,” wrote Nicholas Bagley of the University of Michigan law school.
“The laws that Congress passes and the President signs are the laws of the land,” Bagley wrote. “They aren’t negotiable; they’re not up for further debate. If the Justice Department can just throw in the towel whenever a law is challenged in court, it can effectively pick and choose which laws should remain on the books. That’s as flagrant a violation of the President’s constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed as you can imagine.” sourceThis is some next level bullshit and an affront to the rule of law in the country. The Trump’s DOJ is refusing to Defendant the ACA in court again state lawsuits brought to challenge it, again. The lawsuits are seen as frivolously and likely to prevail, but Trump’s DOJ decided to agree with them and withdraw from the case at the last minute. The case is bullshit, saying that the mandate now has no penalty, so it isn’t a tax and other aspects of the law unconstitutional, like pre-existing conditions. These garbage humans can’t just stand to lose. They need to subvert every rule and aspect good faith to try and destroy this healthcare bill and fuck over half the country. If this prevails, one day people will just wake up and be denied for their previously accepted health insurance. No vote in congress, no laws passed. Just the Trump admin choosing to not defend the laws of the Federal government because they don’t agree with them. The Obama administration with Holder as the Attorney General shredded the norms when they refused to defend DOMA in court. I thought it was an incredibly shitty thing to do, and keeping the norms in place would redound to everybody's satisfaction, but they didn't. Behold, the logical consequence. Without norms, somebody you hate will take it to something you love. And they'll do it bigly. The chickens are really coming home to roost in that respect. So next time, defend section 3 of DOMA in court even if you disagree with it. We're no longer willing to play nice with rules when you refuse to apply them to yourselves. In other words, sorry, but you did this to yourselves. Article 3 of the DOMA was a provision that denied the benefit of marriage to any couple that wasn't one man and one woman. Are you suggesting that challenging a law which hurt gay couples across the country is in fact comparable to the Trump administration refusing to uphold a critical law for people who need healthcare? That somehow one begets the other? Article 3 of DOMA was a duly passed and signed Federal statute, that was obliged to be defended by the Executive Branch in their capacity of executing the laws of the United States. The Obama justice department under Holder declined to do it. It’s very rich that today everybody is outraged that the Trump administration is refusing to defend a legal challenge to PPACA. You either believe it’s the governments responsibility to defend its laws in court, or you don’t. You earn your own partisanship if you suggest norms only apply to laws you like. Period.
I'm not suggesting that. I think Article 3 was overdue to be thrown out, but process is what it is. Two wrongs don't make a right, especially when the second wrong is exponentially more harmful. You act like this is a defensible move, it just isn't. Laws exist for a reason, and if you're going to say that no law should ever be upheld again because one of them was dropped in the past then you might as well live in anarchy. And this is a big one that will hurt millions.
|
On June 09 2018 05:09 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 04:41 Plansix wrote:Trump's DOJ labels the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional, placing healthcare for 133 million at risk
In what may be the Trump administration’s most dishonest and cowardly attack yet on the Affordable Care Act, the Department of Justice late Thursday asserted that key provisions of the law are unconstitutional and refused to defend it against a legal challenge brought by 20 red states.
The move, disclosed in a federal court filing, left healthcare and legal experts aghast. The administration’s argument takes aim at the ACA’s protections for Americans with preexisting medical conditions, who are guaranteed access to health insurance at standard premium rates by the law.
Three DOJ attorneys who had been working on the case withdrew the day before the filing in what was widely assumed in the legal community to be a protest against the agency’s position.
The Justice Department’s abandonment of the ACA leaves the defense of the law in the hands of 16 state attorneys general, including California’s Xavier Becerra, whom the court granted standing on May 16 to intervene in the case. They responded promptly to the filing late Thursday by calling the government’s position “profoundly undemocratic” and asserting that its attack on the ACA’s constitutionality would “cause catastrophic harm to tens of millions of Americans.”
What concerned legal experts even more was the administration’s refusal to defend the law against what’s widely viewed as a hopelessly frivolous legal claim. The government’s refusal to defend the law “represents an enormous blow to the integrity of the Justice Department,” wrote Nicholas Bagley of the University of Michigan law school.
“The laws that Congress passes and the President signs are the laws of the land,” Bagley wrote. “They aren’t negotiable; they’re not up for further debate. If the Justice Department can just throw in the towel whenever a law is challenged in court, it can effectively pick and choose which laws should remain on the books. That’s as flagrant a violation of the President’s constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed as you can imagine.” sourceThis is some next level bullshit and an affront to the rule of law in the country. The Trump’s DOJ is refusing to Defendant the ACA in court again state lawsuits brought to challenge it, again. The lawsuits are seen as frivolously and likely to prevail, but Trump’s DOJ decided to agree with them and withdraw from the case at the last minute. The case is bullshit, saying that the mandate now has no penalty, so it isn’t a tax and other aspects of the law unconstitutional, like pre-existing conditions. These garbage humans can’t just stand to lose. They need to subvert every rule and aspect good faith to try and destroy this healthcare bill and fuck over half the country. If this prevails, one day people will just wake up and be denied for their previously accepted health insurance. No vote in congress, no laws passed. Just the Trump admin choosing to not defend the laws of the Federal government because they don’t agree with them. The Obama administration with Holder as the Attorney General shredded the norms when they refused to defend DOMA in court. I thought it was an incredibly shitty thing to do, and keeping the norms in place would redound to everybody's satisfaction, but they didn't. Behold, the logical consequence. Without norms, somebody you hate will take it to something you love. And they'll do it bigly. The chickens are really coming home to roost in that respect. So next time, defend section 3 of DOMA in court even if you disagree with it. We're no longer willing to play nice with rules when you refuse to apply them to yourselves. In other words, sorry, but you did this to yourselves.
The difference is that Obama and the DOJ wrote a letter to congress and announced it, they stood by it and took question. The Trump administration just filed a withdrawal and just hoped no one would notice on a Friday, like a coward. When Obama and Holder did it, they signed their name to the decision.
And if this is the route the conservatives want to do, I'm all about it. Whine about it when the Democrats do it, throw a fit and then do the exact same thing once they are in power. Hypocrisy all around, but at least we are honest with ourselves. I feel good about the odds of how the 130 million Americans who will be impacted by this case will feel about the decision.
|
On June 09 2018 06:03 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 05:55 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 05:46 NewSunshine wrote:On June 09 2018 05:09 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 04:41 Plansix wrote:Trump's DOJ labels the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional, placing healthcare for 133 million at risk
In what may be the Trump administration’s most dishonest and cowardly attack yet on the Affordable Care Act, the Department of Justice late Thursday asserted that key provisions of the law are unconstitutional and refused to defend it against a legal challenge brought by 20 red states.
The move, disclosed in a federal court filing, left healthcare and legal experts aghast. The administration’s argument takes aim at the ACA’s protections for Americans with preexisting medical conditions, who are guaranteed access to health insurance at standard premium rates by the law.
Three DOJ attorneys who had been working on the case withdrew the day before the filing in what was widely assumed in the legal community to be a protest against the agency’s position.
The Justice Department’s abandonment of the ACA leaves the defense of the law in the hands of 16 state attorneys general, including California’s Xavier Becerra, whom the court granted standing on May 16 to intervene in the case. They responded promptly to the filing late Thursday by calling the government’s position “profoundly undemocratic” and asserting that its attack on the ACA’s constitutionality would “cause catastrophic harm to tens of millions of Americans.”
What concerned legal experts even more was the administration’s refusal to defend the law against what’s widely viewed as a hopelessly frivolous legal claim. The government’s refusal to defend the law “represents an enormous blow to the integrity of the Justice Department,” wrote Nicholas Bagley of the University of Michigan law school.
“The laws that Congress passes and the President signs are the laws of the land,” Bagley wrote. “They aren’t negotiable; they’re not up for further debate. If the Justice Department can just throw in the towel whenever a law is challenged in court, it can effectively pick and choose which laws should remain on the books. That’s as flagrant a violation of the President’s constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed as you can imagine.” sourceThis is some next level bullshit and an affront to the rule of law in the country. The Trump’s DOJ is refusing to Defendant the ACA in court again state lawsuits brought to challenge it, again. The lawsuits are seen as frivolously and likely to prevail, but Trump’s DOJ decided to agree with them and withdraw from the case at the last minute. The case is bullshit, saying that the mandate now has no penalty, so it isn’t a tax and other aspects of the law unconstitutional, like pre-existing conditions. These garbage humans can’t just stand to lose. They need to subvert every rule and aspect good faith to try and destroy this healthcare bill and fuck over half the country. If this prevails, one day people will just wake up and be denied for their previously accepted health insurance. No vote in congress, no laws passed. Just the Trump admin choosing to not defend the laws of the Federal government because they don’t agree with them. The Obama administration with Holder as the Attorney General shredded the norms when they refused to defend DOMA in court. I thought it was an incredibly shitty thing to do, and keeping the norms in place would redound to everybody's satisfaction, but they didn't. Behold, the logical consequence. Without norms, somebody you hate will take it to something you love. And they'll do it bigly. The chickens are really coming home to roost in that respect. So next time, defend section 3 of DOMA in court even if you disagree with it. We're no longer willing to play nice with rules when you refuse to apply them to yourselves. In other words, sorry, but you did this to yourselves. Article 3 of the DOMA was a provision that denied the benefit of marriage to any couple that wasn't one man and one woman. Are you suggesting that challenging a law which hurt gay couples across the country is in fact comparable to the Trump administration refusing to uphold a critical law for people who need healthcare? That somehow one begets the other? Article 3 of DOMA was a duly passed and signed Federal statute, that was obliged to be defended by the Executive Branch in their capacity of executing the laws of the United States. The Obama justice department under Holder declined to do it. It’s very rich that today everybody is outraged that the Trump administration is refusing to defend a legal challenge to PPACA. You either believe it’s the governments responsibility to defend its laws in court, or you don’t. You earn your own partisanship if you suggest norms only apply to laws you like. Period. I'm not suggesting that. I think Article 3 was overdue to be thrown out, but process is what it is. Two wrongs don't make a right, especially when the second wrong is exponentially more harmful. You act like this is a defensible move, it just isn't. Laws exist for a reason, and if you're going to say that no law should ever be upheld again because one of them was dropped in the past then you might as well live in anarchy. And this is a big one that will hurt millions.
Still you don’t describe a principle that can be applied for the justice system at the nations highest court. If you reject the governments responsibility to defend its laws, there is no exemptive “unless I determine the impact to be nasty, then there’s absolutely a responsibility to defend its laws.” It’s really plain and simple. Either it selects for itself or not. I’d like to put the cat back in the bag and pretend that subsequent administrations will faithfully defend passed laws, but it’s abundantly clear that the norm is extinguished.
|
On June 09 2018 06:12 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 05:09 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 04:41 Plansix wrote:Trump's DOJ labels the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional, placing healthcare for 133 million at risk
In what may be the Trump administration’s most dishonest and cowardly attack yet on the Affordable Care Act, the Department of Justice late Thursday asserted that key provisions of the law are unconstitutional and refused to defend it against a legal challenge brought by 20 red states.
The move, disclosed in a federal court filing, left healthcare and legal experts aghast. The administration’s argument takes aim at the ACA’s protections for Americans with preexisting medical conditions, who are guaranteed access to health insurance at standard premium rates by the law.
Three DOJ attorneys who had been working on the case withdrew the day before the filing in what was widely assumed in the legal community to be a protest against the agency’s position.
The Justice Department’s abandonment of the ACA leaves the defense of the law in the hands of 16 state attorneys general, including California’s Xavier Becerra, whom the court granted standing on May 16 to intervene in the case. They responded promptly to the filing late Thursday by calling the government’s position “profoundly undemocratic” and asserting that its attack on the ACA’s constitutionality would “cause catastrophic harm to tens of millions of Americans.”
What concerned legal experts even more was the administration’s refusal to defend the law against what’s widely viewed as a hopelessly frivolous legal claim. The government’s refusal to defend the law “represents an enormous blow to the integrity of the Justice Department,” wrote Nicholas Bagley of the University of Michigan law school.
“The laws that Congress passes and the President signs are the laws of the land,” Bagley wrote. “They aren’t negotiable; they’re not up for further debate. If the Justice Department can just throw in the towel whenever a law is challenged in court, it can effectively pick and choose which laws should remain on the books. That’s as flagrant a violation of the President’s constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed as you can imagine.” sourceThis is some next level bullshit and an affront to the rule of law in the country. The Trump’s DOJ is refusing to Defendant the ACA in court again state lawsuits brought to challenge it, again. The lawsuits are seen as frivolously and likely to prevail, but Trump’s DOJ decided to agree with them and withdraw from the case at the last minute. The case is bullshit, saying that the mandate now has no penalty, so it isn’t a tax and other aspects of the law unconstitutional, like pre-existing conditions. These garbage humans can’t just stand to lose. They need to subvert every rule and aspect good faith to try and destroy this healthcare bill and fuck over half the country. If this prevails, one day people will just wake up and be denied for their previously accepted health insurance. No vote in congress, no laws passed. Just the Trump admin choosing to not defend the laws of the Federal government because they don’t agree with them. The Obama administration with Holder as the Attorney General shredded the norms when they refused to defend DOMA in court. I thought it was an incredibly shitty thing to do, and keeping the norms in place would redound to everybody's satisfaction, but they didn't. Behold, the logical consequence. Without norms, somebody you hate will take it to something you love. And they'll do it bigly. The chickens are really coming home to roost in that respect. So next time, defend section 3 of DOMA in court even if you disagree with it. We're no longer willing to play nice with rules when you refuse to apply them to yourselves. In other words, sorry, but you did this to yourselves. The difference is that Obama and the DOJ wrote a letter to congress and announced it, they stood by it and took question. The Trump administration just filed a withdrawal and just hoped no one would notice on a Friday, like a coward. When Obama and Holder did it, they signed their name to the decision. And if this is the route the conservatives want to do, I'm all about it. Whine about it when the Democrats do it, throw a fit and then do the exact same thing once they are in power. Hypocrisy all around, but at least we are honest with ourselves. I feel good about the odds of how the 130 million Americans who will be impacted by this case will feel about the decision.
There’s no constitutional exemption forcing you to defend laws, unless you send a nicely written letter to Congress displaying your intention. That is foolishness.
The question is whether to hold your administration to a higher standard than Obama did with his, or show that the new rules will be used against your favorite things and not just your disfavored things and see how you like it. That’s one point in favor of upholding norms in the first place, for fear your political opponents turn it back in your face when you’re out of power.
If Obama & his subordinate Holder reversed and had listened to conservative opinion pieces back in the day and (say) fought a losing battle in court, we could’ve avoided all this.
|
On June 09 2018 06:13 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 06:03 NewSunshine wrote:On June 09 2018 05:55 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 05:46 NewSunshine wrote:On June 09 2018 05:09 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 04:41 Plansix wrote:Trump's DOJ labels the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional, placing healthcare for 133 million at risk
In what may be the Trump administration’s most dishonest and cowardly attack yet on the Affordable Care Act, the Department of Justice late Thursday asserted that key provisions of the law are unconstitutional and refused to defend it against a legal challenge brought by 20 red states.
The move, disclosed in a federal court filing, left healthcare and legal experts aghast. The administration’s argument takes aim at the ACA’s protections for Americans with preexisting medical conditions, who are guaranteed access to health insurance at standard premium rates by the law.
Three DOJ attorneys who had been working on the case withdrew the day before the filing in what was widely assumed in the legal community to be a protest against the agency’s position.
The Justice Department’s abandonment of the ACA leaves the defense of the law in the hands of 16 state attorneys general, including California’s Xavier Becerra, whom the court granted standing on May 16 to intervene in the case. They responded promptly to the filing late Thursday by calling the government’s position “profoundly undemocratic” and asserting that its attack on the ACA’s constitutionality would “cause catastrophic harm to tens of millions of Americans.”
What concerned legal experts even more was the administration’s refusal to defend the law against what’s widely viewed as a hopelessly frivolous legal claim. The government’s refusal to defend the law “represents an enormous blow to the integrity of the Justice Department,” wrote Nicholas Bagley of the University of Michigan law school.
“The laws that Congress passes and the President signs are the laws of the land,” Bagley wrote. “They aren’t negotiable; they’re not up for further debate. If the Justice Department can just throw in the towel whenever a law is challenged in court, it can effectively pick and choose which laws should remain on the books. That’s as flagrant a violation of the President’s constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed as you can imagine.” sourceThis is some next level bullshit and an affront to the rule of law in the country. The Trump’s DOJ is refusing to Defendant the ACA in court again state lawsuits brought to challenge it, again. The lawsuits are seen as frivolously and likely to prevail, but Trump’s DOJ decided to agree with them and withdraw from the case at the last minute. The case is bullshit, saying that the mandate now has no penalty, so it isn’t a tax and other aspects of the law unconstitutional, like pre-existing conditions. These garbage humans can’t just stand to lose. They need to subvert every rule and aspect good faith to try and destroy this healthcare bill and fuck over half the country. If this prevails, one day people will just wake up and be denied for their previously accepted health insurance. No vote in congress, no laws passed. Just the Trump admin choosing to not defend the laws of the Federal government because they don’t agree with them. The Obama administration with Holder as the Attorney General shredded the norms when they refused to defend DOMA in court. I thought it was an incredibly shitty thing to do, and keeping the norms in place would redound to everybody's satisfaction, but they didn't. Behold, the logical consequence. Without norms, somebody you hate will take it to something you love. And they'll do it bigly. The chickens are really coming home to roost in that respect. So next time, defend section 3 of DOMA in court even if you disagree with it. We're no longer willing to play nice with rules when you refuse to apply them to yourselves. In other words, sorry, but you did this to yourselves. Article 3 of the DOMA was a provision that denied the benefit of marriage to any couple that wasn't one man and one woman. Are you suggesting that challenging a law which hurt gay couples across the country is in fact comparable to the Trump administration refusing to uphold a critical law for people who need healthcare? That somehow one begets the other? Article 3 of DOMA was a duly passed and signed Federal statute, that was obliged to be defended by the Executive Branch in their capacity of executing the laws of the United States. The Obama justice department under Holder declined to do it. It’s very rich that today everybody is outraged that the Trump administration is refusing to defend a legal challenge to PPACA. You either believe it’s the governments responsibility to defend its laws in court, or you don’t. You earn your own partisanship if you suggest norms only apply to laws you like. Period. I'm not suggesting that. I think Article 3 was overdue to be thrown out, but process is what it is. Two wrongs don't make a right, especially when the second wrong is exponentially more harmful. You act like this is a defensible move, it just isn't. Laws exist for a reason, and if you're going to say that no law should ever be upheld again because one of them was dropped in the past then you might as well live in anarchy. And this is a big one that will hurt millions. Still you don’t describe a principle that can be applied for the justice system at the nations highest court. If you reject the governments responsibility to defend its laws, there is no exemptive “unless I determine the impact to be nasty, then there’s absolutely a responsibility to defend its laws.” It’s really plain and simple. Either it selects for itself or not. I’d like to put the cat back in the bag and pretend that subsequent administrations will faithfully defend passed laws, but it’s abundantly clear that the norm is extinguished.
I'm talking about my interpretation of the laws as a layperson. I don't know who you're arguing with, but it sure isn't me. I didn't come out in support of anything. If the norms are extinguished, it's because people like you are eager to defend the downward spiral. And when it comes time to vote, I expect the voters to appreciate the impact of this behavior you seem to encourage. Won't be difficult to notice that their insurance disappeared overnight, because Trump and his cronies couldn't stand even the first whiff of criticism for their decision.
|
On June 09 2018 06:12 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 05:09 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 04:41 Plansix wrote:Trump's DOJ labels the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional, placing healthcare for 133 million at risk
In what may be the Trump administration’s most dishonest and cowardly attack yet on the Affordable Care Act, the Department of Justice late Thursday asserted that key provisions of the law are unconstitutional and refused to defend it against a legal challenge brought by 20 red states.
The move, disclosed in a federal court filing, left healthcare and legal experts aghast. The administration’s argument takes aim at the ACA’s protections for Americans with preexisting medical conditions, who are guaranteed access to health insurance at standard premium rates by the law.
Three DOJ attorneys who had been working on the case withdrew the day before the filing in what was widely assumed in the legal community to be a protest against the agency’s position.
The Justice Department’s abandonment of the ACA leaves the defense of the law in the hands of 16 state attorneys general, including California’s Xavier Becerra, whom the court granted standing on May 16 to intervene in the case. They responded promptly to the filing late Thursday by calling the government’s position “profoundly undemocratic” and asserting that its attack on the ACA’s constitutionality would “cause catastrophic harm to tens of millions of Americans.”
What concerned legal experts even more was the administration’s refusal to defend the law against what’s widely viewed as a hopelessly frivolous legal claim. The government’s refusal to defend the law “represents an enormous blow to the integrity of the Justice Department,” wrote Nicholas Bagley of the University of Michigan law school.
“The laws that Congress passes and the President signs are the laws of the land,” Bagley wrote. “They aren’t negotiable; they’re not up for further debate. If the Justice Department can just throw in the towel whenever a law is challenged in court, it can effectively pick and choose which laws should remain on the books. That’s as flagrant a violation of the President’s constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed as you can imagine.” sourceThis is some next level bullshit and an affront to the rule of law in the country. The Trump’s DOJ is refusing to Defendant the ACA in court again state lawsuits brought to challenge it, again. The lawsuits are seen as frivolously and likely to prevail, but Trump’s DOJ decided to agree with them and withdraw from the case at the last minute. The case is bullshit, saying that the mandate now has no penalty, so it isn’t a tax and other aspects of the law unconstitutional, like pre-existing conditions. These garbage humans can’t just stand to lose. They need to subvert every rule and aspect good faith to try and destroy this healthcare bill and fuck over half the country. If this prevails, one day people will just wake up and be denied for their previously accepted health insurance. No vote in congress, no laws passed. Just the Trump admin choosing to not defend the laws of the Federal government because they don’t agree with them. The Obama administration with Holder as the Attorney General shredded the norms when they refused to defend DOMA in court. I thought it was an incredibly shitty thing to do, and keeping the norms in place would redound to everybody's satisfaction, but they didn't. Behold, the logical consequence. Without norms, somebody you hate will take it to something you love. And they'll do it bigly. The chickens are really coming home to roost in that respect. So next time, defend section 3 of DOMA in court even if you disagree with it. We're no longer willing to play nice with rules when you refuse to apply them to yourselves. In other words, sorry, but you did this to yourselves. The difference is that Obama and the DOJ wrote a letter to congress and announced it, they stood by it and took question. The Trump administration just filed a withdrawal and just hoped no one would notice on a Friday, like a coward. When Obama and Holder did it, they signed their name to the decision. And if this is the route the conservatives want to do, I'm all about it. Whine about it when the Democrats do it, throw a fit and then do the exact same thing once they are in power. Hypocrisy all around, but at least we are honest with ourselves. I feel good about the odds of how the 130 million Americans who will be impacted by this case will feel about the decision.
not like the republicans can claim the dems started it much; as on the whole, when it comes to ignoring the constitution for their own benefit, the Reps have been doing that far more heavily and first for some time.
No basis to claim tit for tat when they're the ones who've been starting it, and they're the ones who've been breaking the rules and norms.
also laughable to claim republicans definitely wouldn't have done this if not for holder's actions back then. It's very clear that Trump and the Republicans don't care about the rule of law.
|
On June 09 2018 06:18 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 06:12 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 05:09 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 04:41 Plansix wrote:Trump's DOJ labels the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional, placing healthcare for 133 million at risk
In what may be the Trump administration’s most dishonest and cowardly attack yet on the Affordable Care Act, the Department of Justice late Thursday asserted that key provisions of the law are unconstitutional and refused to defend it against a legal challenge brought by 20 red states.
The move, disclosed in a federal court filing, left healthcare and legal experts aghast. The administration’s argument takes aim at the ACA’s protections for Americans with preexisting medical conditions, who are guaranteed access to health insurance at standard premium rates by the law.
Three DOJ attorneys who had been working on the case withdrew the day before the filing in what was widely assumed in the legal community to be a protest against the agency’s position.
The Justice Department’s abandonment of the ACA leaves the defense of the law in the hands of 16 state attorneys general, including California’s Xavier Becerra, whom the court granted standing on May 16 to intervene in the case. They responded promptly to the filing late Thursday by calling the government’s position “profoundly undemocratic” and asserting that its attack on the ACA’s constitutionality would “cause catastrophic harm to tens of millions of Americans.”
What concerned legal experts even more was the administration’s refusal to defend the law against what’s widely viewed as a hopelessly frivolous legal claim. The government’s refusal to defend the law “represents an enormous blow to the integrity of the Justice Department,” wrote Nicholas Bagley of the University of Michigan law school.
“The laws that Congress passes and the President signs are the laws of the land,” Bagley wrote. “They aren’t negotiable; they’re not up for further debate. If the Justice Department can just throw in the towel whenever a law is challenged in court, it can effectively pick and choose which laws should remain on the books. That’s as flagrant a violation of the President’s constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed as you can imagine.” sourceThis is some next level bullshit and an affront to the rule of law in the country. The Trump’s DOJ is refusing to Defendant the ACA in court again state lawsuits brought to challenge it, again. The lawsuits are seen as frivolously and likely to prevail, but Trump’s DOJ decided to agree with them and withdraw from the case at the last minute. The case is bullshit, saying that the mandate now has no penalty, so it isn’t a tax and other aspects of the law unconstitutional, like pre-existing conditions. These garbage humans can’t just stand to lose. They need to subvert every rule and aspect good faith to try and destroy this healthcare bill and fuck over half the country. If this prevails, one day people will just wake up and be denied for their previously accepted health insurance. No vote in congress, no laws passed. Just the Trump admin choosing to not defend the laws of the Federal government because they don’t agree with them. The Obama administration with Holder as the Attorney General shredded the norms when they refused to defend DOMA in court. I thought it was an incredibly shitty thing to do, and keeping the norms in place would redound to everybody's satisfaction, but they didn't. Behold, the logical consequence. Without norms, somebody you hate will take it to something you love. And they'll do it bigly. The chickens are really coming home to roost in that respect. So next time, defend section 3 of DOMA in court even if you disagree with it. We're no longer willing to play nice with rules when you refuse to apply them to yourselves. In other words, sorry, but you did this to yourselves. The difference is that Obama and the DOJ wrote a letter to congress and announced it, they stood by it and took question. The Trump administration just filed a withdrawal and just hoped no one would notice on a Friday, like a coward. When Obama and Holder did it, they signed their name to the decision. And if this is the route the conservatives want to do, I'm all about it. Whine about it when the Democrats do it, throw a fit and then do the exact same thing once they are in power. Hypocrisy all around, but at least we are honest with ourselves. I feel good about the odds of how the 130 million Americans who will be impacted by this case will feel about the decision. There’s no constitutional exemption forcing you to defend laws, unless you send a nicely written letter to Congress displaying your intention. That is foolishness. The question is whether to hold your administration to a higher standard than Obama did with his, or show that the new rules will be used against your favorite things and not just your disfavored things and see how you like it. That’s one point in favor of upholding norms in the first place, for fear your political opponents turn it back in your face when you’re out of power. If Obama & his subordinate Holder reversed and had listened to conservative opinion pieces back in the day and (say) fought a losing battle in court, we could’ve avoided all this.
What I am saying is that Jeff Sessions is a hypocrite, since he objected to the move back in 2011. I might be willing to say the Obama was wrong at the time too, but I'm not seeing a lot to gain from that. And gain is what this is all about. The key tactic for me it to be outraged now, claim the that this is an erosion of norms and the rule of law. Then break norms again to get what I want politically. Because its clear that its winner take all and none of these rules or norms matters. So time to get outraged and win an election.
But I will encourage my representatives to sign a letter and announce the intent to erode the norms. Because I do think people should sign their names to their work, rather than doing it under the radar like cowards.
|
On June 09 2018 06:18 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 06:12 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 05:09 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 04:41 Plansix wrote:Trump's DOJ labels the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional, placing healthcare for 133 million at risk
In what may be the Trump administration’s most dishonest and cowardly attack yet on the Affordable Care Act, the Department of Justice late Thursday asserted that key provisions of the law are unconstitutional and refused to defend it against a legal challenge brought by 20 red states.
The move, disclosed in a federal court filing, left healthcare and legal experts aghast. The administration’s argument takes aim at the ACA’s protections for Americans with preexisting medical conditions, who are guaranteed access to health insurance at standard premium rates by the law.
Three DOJ attorneys who had been working on the case withdrew the day before the filing in what was widely assumed in the legal community to be a protest against the agency’s position.
The Justice Department’s abandonment of the ACA leaves the defense of the law in the hands of 16 state attorneys general, including California’s Xavier Becerra, whom the court granted standing on May 16 to intervene in the case. They responded promptly to the filing late Thursday by calling the government’s position “profoundly undemocratic” and asserting that its attack on the ACA’s constitutionality would “cause catastrophic harm to tens of millions of Americans.”
What concerned legal experts even more was the administration’s refusal to defend the law against what’s widely viewed as a hopelessly frivolous legal claim. The government’s refusal to defend the law “represents an enormous blow to the integrity of the Justice Department,” wrote Nicholas Bagley of the University of Michigan law school.
“The laws that Congress passes and the President signs are the laws of the land,” Bagley wrote. “They aren’t negotiable; they’re not up for further debate. If the Justice Department can just throw in the towel whenever a law is challenged in court, it can effectively pick and choose which laws should remain on the books. That’s as flagrant a violation of the President’s constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed as you can imagine.” sourceThis is some next level bullshit and an affront to the rule of law in the country. The Trump’s DOJ is refusing to Defendant the ACA in court again state lawsuits brought to challenge it, again. The lawsuits are seen as frivolously and likely to prevail, but Trump’s DOJ decided to agree with them and withdraw from the case at the last minute. The case is bullshit, saying that the mandate now has no penalty, so it isn’t a tax and other aspects of the law unconstitutional, like pre-existing conditions. These garbage humans can’t just stand to lose. They need to subvert every rule and aspect good faith to try and destroy this healthcare bill and fuck over half the country. If this prevails, one day people will just wake up and be denied for their previously accepted health insurance. No vote in congress, no laws passed. Just the Trump admin choosing to not defend the laws of the Federal government because they don’t agree with them. The Obama administration with Holder as the Attorney General shredded the norms when they refused to defend DOMA in court. I thought it was an incredibly shitty thing to do, and keeping the norms in place would redound to everybody's satisfaction, but they didn't. Behold, the logical consequence. Without norms, somebody you hate will take it to something you love. And they'll do it bigly. The chickens are really coming home to roost in that respect. So next time, defend section 3 of DOMA in court even if you disagree with it. We're no longer willing to play nice with rules when you refuse to apply them to yourselves. In other words, sorry, but you did this to yourselves. The difference is that Obama and the DOJ wrote a letter to congress and announced it, they stood by it and took question. The Trump administration just filed a withdrawal and just hoped no one would notice on a Friday, like a coward. When Obama and Holder did it, they signed their name to the decision. And if this is the route the conservatives want to do, I'm all about it. Whine about it when the Democrats do it, throw a fit and then do the exact same thing once they are in power. Hypocrisy all around, but at least we are honest with ourselves. I feel good about the odds of how the 130 million Americans who will be impacted by this case will feel about the decision. There’s no constitutional exemption forcing you to defend laws, unless you send a nicely written letter to Congress displaying your intention. That is foolishness. The question is whether to hold your administration to a higher standard than Obama did with his, or show that the new rules will be used against your favorite things and not just your disfavored things and see how you like it. That’s one point in favor of upholding norms in the first place, for fear your political opponents turn it back in your face when you’re out of power. If Obama & his subordinate Holder reversed and had listened to conservative opinion pieces back in the day and (say) fought a losing battle in court, we could’ve avoided all this.
So your argument is that it's actually impossible for Republicans to take the high road and that they will instantly and inevitably sink to the lowest level possible, and anything the Democrats do that is a challenge to the social and legal political norms must be carried out by the Republicans?
I mean, fine, that's more or less what everyone knew anyway but it's nice for you to admit your side are moral-less pond scum, and the only hope for your government's future is for Democrats to get into power and lead the way in terms of proper behaviour as apparently the Republicans are simply unable to figure it out themselves. And before you say 'but I said no such thing and you are making assumptions' you're making a pretty grand assumption that if Obama had done what you claim that Trump wouldn't have done it. He's sure as hell flouted a bunch of other norms that nobody else has up to this point, so I see no reason why he wouldn't have taken this exact action regardless. And I'm sure you'd have come up with some way to defend it nonetheless.
As things are, there is still a difference between publically announcing a controversial decision and just quietly hoping nobody will notice that you did it (or in this case, didn't do it). I should have thought that was obvious. One is at least openly standing up and acknowledging what you've done, allowing for proper discussion (and outrage, of course), the other is just cowardly.
Not weighing in on the specifics of the DOMA case, I know very little about it. I shall take it as read that it's functionally the same broad situation as this one with the ACA.
|
On June 09 2018 06:33 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 06:18 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 06:12 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 05:09 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 04:41 Plansix wrote:Trump's DOJ labels the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional, placing healthcare for 133 million at risk
In what may be the Trump administration’s most dishonest and cowardly attack yet on the Affordable Care Act, the Department of Justice late Thursday asserted that key provisions of the law are unconstitutional and refused to defend it against a legal challenge brought by 20 red states.
The move, disclosed in a federal court filing, left healthcare and legal experts aghast. The administration’s argument takes aim at the ACA’s protections for Americans with preexisting medical conditions, who are guaranteed access to health insurance at standard premium rates by the law.
Three DOJ attorneys who had been working on the case withdrew the day before the filing in what was widely assumed in the legal community to be a protest against the agency’s position.
The Justice Department’s abandonment of the ACA leaves the defense of the law in the hands of 16 state attorneys general, including California’s Xavier Becerra, whom the court granted standing on May 16 to intervene in the case. They responded promptly to the filing late Thursday by calling the government’s position “profoundly undemocratic” and asserting that its attack on the ACA’s constitutionality would “cause catastrophic harm to tens of millions of Americans.”
What concerned legal experts even more was the administration’s refusal to defend the law against what’s widely viewed as a hopelessly frivolous legal claim. The government’s refusal to defend the law “represents an enormous blow to the integrity of the Justice Department,” wrote Nicholas Bagley of the University of Michigan law school.
“The laws that Congress passes and the President signs are the laws of the land,” Bagley wrote. “They aren’t negotiable; they’re not up for further debate. If the Justice Department can just throw in the towel whenever a law is challenged in court, it can effectively pick and choose which laws should remain on the books. That’s as flagrant a violation of the President’s constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed as you can imagine.” sourceThis is some next level bullshit and an affront to the rule of law in the country. The Trump’s DOJ is refusing to Defendant the ACA in court again state lawsuits brought to challenge it, again. The lawsuits are seen as frivolously and likely to prevail, but Trump’s DOJ decided to agree with them and withdraw from the case at the last minute. The case is bullshit, saying that the mandate now has no penalty, so it isn’t a tax and other aspects of the law unconstitutional, like pre-existing conditions. These garbage humans can’t just stand to lose. They need to subvert every rule and aspect good faith to try and destroy this healthcare bill and fuck over half the country. If this prevails, one day people will just wake up and be denied for their previously accepted health insurance. No vote in congress, no laws passed. Just the Trump admin choosing to not defend the laws of the Federal government because they don’t agree with them. The Obama administration with Holder as the Attorney General shredded the norms when they refused to defend DOMA in court. I thought it was an incredibly shitty thing to do, and keeping the norms in place would redound to everybody's satisfaction, but they didn't. Behold, the logical consequence. Without norms, somebody you hate will take it to something you love. And they'll do it bigly. The chickens are really coming home to roost in that respect. So next time, defend section 3 of DOMA in court even if you disagree with it. We're no longer willing to play nice with rules when you refuse to apply them to yourselves. In other words, sorry, but you did this to yourselves. The difference is that Obama and the DOJ wrote a letter to congress and announced it, they stood by it and took question. The Trump administration just filed a withdrawal and just hoped no one would notice on a Friday, like a coward. When Obama and Holder did it, they signed their name to the decision. And if this is the route the conservatives want to do, I'm all about it. Whine about it when the Democrats do it, throw a fit and then do the exact same thing once they are in power. Hypocrisy all around, but at least we are honest with ourselves. I feel good about the odds of how the 130 million Americans who will be impacted by this case will feel about the decision. There’s no constitutional exemption forcing you to defend laws, unless you send a nicely written letter to Congress displaying your intention. That is foolishness. The question is whether to hold your administration to a higher standard than Obama did with his, or show that the new rules will be used against your favorite things and not just your disfavored things and see how you like it. That’s one point in favor of upholding norms in the first place, for fear your political opponents turn it back in your face when you’re out of power. If Obama & his subordinate Holder reversed and had listened to conservative opinion pieces back in the day and (say) fought a losing battle in court, we could’ve avoided all this. So your argument is that it's actually impossible for Republicans to take the high road and that they will instantly and inevitably sink to the lowest level possible, and anything the Democrats do that is a challenge to the social and legal political norms must be carried out by the Republicans? I mean, fine, that's more or less what everyone knew anyway but it's nice for you to admit your side are moral-less pond scum. There is still a difference between publically announcing a controversial decision and just quietly hoping nobody will notice that you did it (or in this case, didn't do it). Not weighing in on the specifics of the DOMA case, I know very little about it. I shall take it as read that it's functionally the same broad situation as this one with the ACA.
functionally it's somewhat similar; thoug hthere are some marked differences from what I've heard/read/remember.
In this case; it's an easy win vs a frivolous case.
The DOMA case was more of a loser case; which likely would've been lost and would've been a waste of money to defend. It'd also require some odd claims to defend; rather than being straightforward.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
