|
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 |
On June 09 2018 06:19 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 06:13 Danglars wrote: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.
And when you say I’m the one standing in defense of a downward spiral, I’m thinking you’re the one happy to abuse power knowing the other side will never do it back. It’s a shitty situation, I know. I only hope for enough examples to make the next Democratic administration think twice at whatever new norm they’re thinking of undoing. Imagine now the most disgusting and abhorrent successor doing what you just did, except against something you really really like.
And maybe the mechanisms for constitutional challenges aren’t well known or understandable by the layperson where impact is everything. I’m all for it on legislation considerations and administrative agencies and all that, weighed against all considerations.
|
On June 09 2018 06:25 Plansix 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. 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.
You see what their objections go them. First, try to see if your objections will help the executive think better of their actions. If not, second, make sure they have reason to fear the consequences of breaking them. Not for straightforward realpolitik use of power, but that less may be broken in future. Men are not hanged for stealing horses, but that less horses might be stolen in the future.
|
United States41989 Posts
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.
Surely you don’t really believe that this wouldn’t have been done anyway. Trump hasn’t restrained himself to precedent.
|
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.
"The other guys did a similar thing" isn't a defense of the behavior, it's a deflection. Conservatives claim to hold rule of law as one of their core principles. This contradicts that principle, just about as overtly as possible. You can't just say "ah well, all's fair in love and politics" and still claim to support that principle. A true conservative response would be "we're still going to uphold rule of law even when the other guys won't, this is why you should support conservatives," or upon seeing the Trump administration make this move, "I condemn this in the same way that I condemned it when Obama did something similar."
Otherwise, I guess "conservatives" will have to join the liberals in pissing on Hayek's grave, and quietly try to forget they ever pretended to serve higher principles.
|
On June 09 2018 06:40 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 06:19 NewSunshine wrote:On June 09 2018 06:13 Danglars wrote: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. And when you say I’m the one standing in defense of a downward spiral, I’m thinking you’re the one happy to abuse power knowing the other side will never do it back. It’s a shitty situation, I know. I only hope for enough examples to make the next Democratic administration think twice at whatever new norm they’re thinking of undoing. Imagine now the most disgusting and abhorrent successor doing what you just did, except against something you really really like. And maybe the mechanisms for constitutional challenges aren’t well known or understandable by the layperson where impact is everything. I’m all for it on legislation considerations and administrative agencies and all that, weighed against all considerations.
I'm glad that at least you're openly admitting your position, that the Republicans will look for the first excuse they can find to abuse and disregard laws, and then just do it. And that you're okay with that. After all, you're correct, nothing matters when you don't choose to uphold the law anymore. Just don't start thinking this absolves your camp of any wrongdoing.
|
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, 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.
It matters that the specifics of the DOMA case mirrored enough specifics of this case. Obama established the precedent. Maybe you and others thought it was pure win, because the opponents who disagreed would certainly hold themselves to higher standards than the low ones set by the Obama administration in this case. Well, that’s just the way you get more abuse of authority—by unilateral disarmament.
I really have to flip this one back on you as well. You more or less admit to being moral-less pond scum on principle, and take solace that your opponents will do the same. I’ll say forced to do the same, but you wouldn’t agree. Your side taught proper behavior, we’ll follow it. But now you have recriminizations at following the lead? Don’t make me laugh. You’re observing a second set of rules hoping that nobody notices, so it never bites you in the butt. Then you have the gall to turn back around and claim Trump’s administration might’ve done it if Obama hadn’t done it first.
I don’t think you have even good footing for criticizing Trump’s departure from norms, since you are so recalcitrant when he follows the new norms. Why should I ever accept this criticism of Trump, if you wont accept similar criticism of Obama? You care about these things, but will turn a blind eye to them for partisan motives? If you’re okay with Obama doing it, at least hold yourself in high enough esteem to extend the same to Trump.
|
On June 09 2018 06:56 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 06:40 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 06:19 NewSunshine wrote:On June 09 2018 06:13 Danglars wrote: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. And when you say I’m the one standing in defense of a downward spiral, I’m thinking you’re the one happy to abuse power knowing the other side will never do it back. It’s a shitty situation, I know. I only hope for enough examples to make the next Democratic administration think twice at whatever new norm they’re thinking of undoing. Imagine now the most disgusting and abhorrent successor doing what you just did, except against something you really really like. And maybe the mechanisms for constitutional challenges aren’t well known or understandable by the layperson where impact is everything. I’m all for it on legislation considerations and administrative agencies and all that, weighed against all considerations. I'm glad that at least you're openly admitting your position, that the Republicans will look for the first excuse they can find to abuse and disregard laws, and then just do it. And that you're okay with that. After all, you're correct, nothing matters when you don't choose to uphold the law anymore.
I’m similarly glad in your final observation here.
|
On June 09 2018 05:07 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 02:12 Nebuchad wrote: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 $Z then it would be foolish to play at any buyin over X. Sure, you might be plusEV at 100X, but you're not just looking at one hand, you're looking at a career. If you're 75/25 ahead and you put in all of your money then 25% of the time you're finished. If you're 75/25 ahead and you put in 10% of your money then you can get 75/25 ahead and put in 10% of your money over and over again, pretty much forever. It's sheering a sheep vs slaughtering one.
I'm aware of what bankroll management is; thanks though.
We're going to start from a single hand: you've established a range for your opponent, and against that range you're going to have 30% equity. Your opponent has bet pot which translates to 33% equity (for simplicity I'll assume we're playing with equity rather than frequency here but that works in frequency play too obviously). You don't have the odds. Let's add a million blinds to your bankroll: you still don't have the odds. The profitability of the call doesn't change because you have more money behind.
This can and should be extrapolated to a whole game. If you have a massive edge in a game, but you aren't properly rolled for it, you should find a way to play it anyway. If you're marginally losing in a game, but you have the roll for it, you're still making an equity mistake playing in it. What typically happens is that people glorify their edge, and think that they're much better than their opponents when they're actually marginally better. There having a small bankroll hurts you a lot. If it's true that your edge is that massive, you're going to be fine.
This is most obvious if you play online and live. I have a massive roll for NL200 online, but I can't play there. The average regular is better than me. I'm going to need to progress before I get to play, regardless of how much I have behind. Drop me in Vegas, and I play 2/5 with 1000$ buy-in, having brought like 5 or 6k$ with me. I could go for smaller games, but given the level of the 2/5 it would be a very big mistake.
The main problem translating this to business is that in business you're not going to have one right play, you'll have a bunch of different ev+ opportunities. Some are going to be more risky than others, but not necessarily ev-, it's going to be hard to quantify. But of course, you'll always have the super safe, clearly +ev alternatives; and those are the ones that will always be chosen. A poker player makes a mistake if he passes on a risky +ev situation, a businessman generally doesn't.
The second problem is of course that supply side provides some money to these players with struggling BRs as an afterthought, after it has given the main thrust of the money to the people who already have the seemingly bottomless BRs, so it's kind of weird to create arguments in defense of it that are from the point of view of the struggling BR player. But of course, I don't think anyone I'm talking to here is really on the side of that theory so there's that.
|
On June 09 2018 06:44 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 06:25 Plansix wrote: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. 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. You see what their objections go them. First, try to see if your objections will help the executive think better of their actions. If not, second, make sure they have reason to fear the consequences of breaking them. Not for straightforward realpolitik use of power, but that less may be broken in future. Men are not hanged for stealing horses, but that less horses might be stolen in the future.
Their objections were like yours, hollow. Meaningless. The thing that you expressed outraged about in 2011 in now totally sweet revenge in 2018. The only thing I learned today was Obama made the right move in 2011 and it just got a little riskier for me and my wife to move out of MA.
|
On June 09 2018 06:54 ChristianS 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. "The other guys did a similar thing" isn't a defense of the behavior, it's a deflection. Conservatives claim to hold rule of law as one of their core principles. This contradicts that principle, just about as overtly as possible. You can't just say "ah well, all's fair in love and politics" and still claim to support that principle. A true conservative response would be "we're still going to uphold rule of law even when the other guys won't, this is why you should support conservatives," or upon seeing the Trump administration make this move, "I condemn this in the same way that I condemned it when Obama did something similar." Otherwise, I guess "conservatives" will have to join the liberals in pissing on Hayek's grave, and quietly try to forget they ever pretended to serve higher principles.
We tried a couple decades of it, but then that didn’t take. Too many abuses of power taken against an unarmed opponent. The next line is showing that we will observe the standards you set, and apply them with just as much fervor. It won’t be as principled as rejecting it with no actual change, the ruling class against the ruled. But at least it will give reason to fear the next exercise of federal power against the less wanted citizens. You might not like your opponents following the same rules you set. I’m waiting for the Dem politician that condemns the Obama administration for their actions in cases like this, and tells their base that it’s unprincipled and will lead to further abuses once more Americans realize the rules don’t apply to people of ChristianS’s ilk. They might be a little angry. First stage: see how Democrats like the new standards. Next stage: see if they’re willing to compromise and restrain the executive and judicial branches now that they see a little of the pain they inflicted on others.
|
On June 09 2018 07:00 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 06:44 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 06:25 Plansix wrote: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. 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. You see what their objections go them. First, try to see if your objections will help the executive think better of their actions. If not, second, make sure they have reason to fear the consequences of breaking them. Not for straightforward realpolitik use of power, but that less may be broken in future. Men are not hanged for stealing horses, but that less horses might be stolen in the future. Their objections were like yours, hollow. Meaningless. The thing that you expressed outraged about in 2011 in now totally sweet revenge in 2018. The only thing I learned today was Obama made the right move in 2011 and it just got a little riskier for me and my wife to move out of MA.
Same justification can be used for Trump. “Oh, does Plansix say Obama did the right thing choosing to let partisan motives fuel his justice department, even as Trump uses that principle back against his allies? Okay, fine. Trump did the right thing today and tomorrow, because the next Democratic administration will always show they’re unprincipled and they’re whining about what Trump does because they wish they were the ones in power doing it. Oh well.” I’m not with you.
|
Why would Dems in this thread condemn what Obama did when it is abundantly clear you don't hold your own politicians to the same standards? Why would they meet half way when it is clear you won't show up?
As far as I am concerned, Sessions would have done this anyways, even without DOMA to use as an excuse. Just like holding up the Supreme Court nomination until after the election. It has never been a question of if they should, it is always can the Democrats stop them and will it cost them an election.
On June 09 2018 07:08 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 07:00 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 06:44 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 06:25 Plansix wrote: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. 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. You see what their objections go them. First, try to see if your objections will help the executive think better of their actions. If not, second, make sure they have reason to fear the consequences of breaking them. Not for straightforward realpolitik use of power, but that less may be broken in future. Men are not hanged for stealing horses, but that less horses might be stolen in the future. Their objections were like yours, hollow. Meaningless. The thing that you expressed outraged about in 2011 in now totally sweet revenge in 2018. The only thing I learned today was Obama made the right move in 2011 and it just got a little riskier for me and my wife to move out of MA. Same justification can be used for Trump. “Oh, does Plansix say Obama did the right thing choosing to let partisan motives fuel his justice department, even as Trump uses that principle back against his allies? Okay, fine. Trump did the right thing today and tomorrow, because the next Democratic administration will always show they’re unprincipled and they’re whining about what Trump does because they wish they were the ones in power doing it. Oh well.” I’m not with you.
No, Danlgars. I've joined you. You were always here. I just been reminded that any bipartisan future for congress and politics is years away. Fire has to be fought with fire until everyone is so burned they don't want to do it any more.
|
On June 09 2018 07:12 Plansix wrote:Why would Dems in this thread condemn what Obama did when it is abundantly clear you don't hold your own politicians to the same standards? Why would they meet half way when it is clear you won't show up? As far as I am concerned, Sessions would have done this anyways, even without DOMA to use as an excuse. Just like holding up the Supreme Court nomination until after the election. It has never been a question of if they should, it is always can the Democrats stop them and will it cost them an election. Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 07:08 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 07:00 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 06:44 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 06:25 Plansix wrote: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. 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. You see what their objections go them. First, try to see if your objections will help the executive think better of their actions. If not, second, make sure they have reason to fear the consequences of breaking them. Not for straightforward realpolitik use of power, but that less may be broken in future. Men are not hanged for stealing horses, but that less horses might be stolen in the future. Their objections were like yours, hollow. Meaningless. The thing that you expressed outraged about in 2011 in now totally sweet revenge in 2018. The only thing I learned today was Obama made the right move in 2011 and it just got a little riskier for me and my wife to move out of MA. Same justification can be used for Trump. “Oh, does Plansix say Obama did the right thing choosing to let partisan motives fuel his justice department, even as Trump uses that principle back against his allies? Okay, fine. Trump did the right thing today and tomorrow, because the next Democratic administration will always show they’re unprincipled and they’re whining about what Trump does because they wish they were the ones in power doing it. Oh well.” I’m not with you. No, Danlgars. I've joined you. You were always here. I just been reminded that any bipartisan future for congress and politics is years away. Fire has to be fought with fire until everyone is so burned they don't want to do it any more.
See, I’ll reverse the roles a little here, but end in almost the same place. I opposed Clinton on abuses, I opposed Bush on abuses, I opposed Obama on abused, and look just how far that got me. Liberals will still say I started it and they’re justified in this response. Turns out, I find little common ground when people that stood idly by when Obama did something suddenly react in outrage when Trump does it. So it’s tough to care. I don’t know who will lay down the gloves first, and if there’s an acceptable road back to make America great again. I know I have to see a little more respect for the rights of religious Americans, and much more respect for the division of powers in general. It’s tough to see that future, but I at least know an electoral majority in 2016 put their foot down in the face of a Clinton presidency. That was a incredibly good thing that I’m thankful for. At least now the left recognizes, albeit imperfectly, something about where we are as a country.
|
United States41989 Posts
You can’t blame the other side for a precedent when you’d have always done it anyway. At a certain point Danglars you can no longer blame Obama for Trump’s decisions.
|
On June 09 2018 07:29 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 07:12 Plansix wrote:Why would Dems in this thread condemn what Obama did when it is abundantly clear you don't hold your own politicians to the same standards? Why would they meet half way when it is clear you won't show up? As far as I am concerned, Sessions would have done this anyways, even without DOMA to use as an excuse. Just like holding up the Supreme Court nomination until after the election. It has never been a question of if they should, it is always can the Democrats stop them and will it cost them an election. On June 09 2018 07:08 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 07:00 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 06:44 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 06:25 Plansix wrote: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:[quote] 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. You see what their objections go them. First, try to see if your objections will help the executive think better of their actions. If not, second, make sure they have reason to fear the consequences of breaking them. Not for straightforward realpolitik use of power, but that less may be broken in future. Men are not hanged for stealing horses, but that less horses might be stolen in the future. Their objections were like yours, hollow. Meaningless. The thing that you expressed outraged about in 2011 in now totally sweet revenge in 2018. The only thing I learned today was Obama made the right move in 2011 and it just got a little riskier for me and my wife to move out of MA. Same justification can be used for Trump. “Oh, does Plansix say Obama did the right thing choosing to let partisan motives fuel his justice department, even as Trump uses that principle back against his allies? Okay, fine. Trump did the right thing today and tomorrow, because the next Democratic administration will always show they’re unprincipled and they’re whining about what Trump does because they wish they were the ones in power doing it. Oh well.” I’m not with you. No, Danlgars. I've joined you. You were always here. I just been reminded that any bipartisan future for congress and politics is years away. Fire has to be fought with fire until everyone is so burned they don't want to do it any more. See, I’ll reverse the roles a little here, but end in almost the same place. I opposed Clinton on abuses, I opposed Bush on abuses, I opposed Obama on abused, and look just how far that got me. Liberals will still say I started it and they’re justified in this response. Turns out, I find little common ground when people that stood idly by when Obama did something suddenly react in outrage when Trump does it. So it’s tough to care. I don’t know who will lay down the gloves first, and if there’s an acceptable road back to make America great again. I know I have to see a little more respect for the rights of religious Americans, and much more respect for the division of powers in general. It’s tough to see that future, but I at least know an electoral majority in 2016 put their foot down in the face of a Clinton presidency. That was a incredibly good thing that I’m thankful for. At least now the left recognizes, albeit imperfectly, something about where we are as a country.
Allow me to change the terms of the discussion. Or don't allow me, I'm doing it anyway. You talk about high minded points, or respect for people who are definitely not the least respected demographic in America.
You cheer Trump refusing to defend the ACA as a way to chalk up petty points against Democrats.
You who talk about religious freedom to discriminate against minorities, or freedom of Nazis to have platforms on college campuses. And you vote for Republicans who work to undermine the ACA most basic, unarguable elements, such as guaranteeing people with serious health issues can get medical coverage that actually covers those issues.
You, and people like you, are a threat to my life. You are a threat to my life in the same way that Germans who voted for Nazis during the 1920s and early 1930s were a threat to the lives of Jews living in Germany.
You have put my life and the lives of people like me on a scale and weighed them against the moral outrage of a subset of the population who did not want to see people of the same sex marry, and found those things to be of equal weight. You are a threat to my life, and you are a threat to the lives of countless people like me. We are not people to you, we are just statistics. But for us, you and people like you are attempting to pull the trigger to kill us on a regular basis, every time you walk into a polling station and vote for a Republican who has sworn to repeal the ACA.
You may feel that America is not on a good path, but for me, every time you and people like you become less comfortable voicing your opinions, every time an idea that helps Republicans get elected has to crawl back into the darkness, I live with a little less fear that I will die a miserable death so that a bunch of people I have never met can celebrate something like "free markets," or "standing up to liberals."
In case you didn't catch it, you're voting for people who would see me dead not because they actively hate me, but because promising to see people like me dead makes people like you happy, and actually managing to follow through with it would make people like you even happier. You, collectively, are exactly the Germans in the 1930s who voted for people blaming Jews for all of the nation's ills because whatever they do to Jews is fine with you as long as they do make your nation "great" again.
User was warned for this post.
|
Does it really matter what Obama did at this point? Does every US president base his decision in the decisions of the previous ones? Are you still going back to 1820, see what they did back then and act the same way? Society is evolving and with it so should it's government and it's laws, and it's evolving ever so faster, in pace with technological progress, like it has been for the previous ten thousand years.
As a person with conservative values, are you happy with this particular decision and it's outcome on you personally and your fellow statesmen? Was it hurting you before, and what benefits will you get out of it?
|
To interrupt this thrilling moral high ground fight briefly.
Do I understand this situation correctly?
With the DoJ's withdrawal its now up the presiding judge of this case to decide if he agrees with Texas or not.
And if he does, can the case get throw up to the Supreme Court or is that also up to the DoJ to file for?
Just how close is the death of the ACA and how sick in their stomach are Republicans at the thought of having to draft a viable replacement in an election year?
|
+ Show Spoiler +On June 09 2018 08:06 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 07:29 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 07:12 Plansix wrote:Why would Dems in this thread condemn what Obama did when it is abundantly clear you don't hold your own politicians to the same standards? Why would they meet half way when it is clear you won't show up? As far as I am concerned, Sessions would have done this anyways, even without DOMA to use as an excuse. Just like holding up the Supreme Court nomination until after the election. It has never been a question of if they should, it is always can the Democrats stop them and will it cost them an election. On June 09 2018 07:08 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 07:00 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 06:44 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 06:25 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 06:18 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 06:12 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 05:09 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
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. You see what their objections go them. First, try to see if your objections will help the executive think better of their actions. If not, second, make sure they have reason to fear the consequences of breaking them. Not for straightforward realpolitik use of power, but that less may be broken in future. Men are not hanged for stealing horses, but that less horses might be stolen in the future. Their objections were like yours, hollow. Meaningless. The thing that you expressed outraged about in 2011 in now totally sweet revenge in 2018. The only thing I learned today was Obama made the right move in 2011 and it just got a little riskier for me and my wife to move out of MA. Same justification can be used for Trump. “Oh, does Plansix say Obama did the right thing choosing to let partisan motives fuel his justice department, even as Trump uses that principle back against his allies? Okay, fine. Trump did the right thing today and tomorrow, because the next Democratic administration will always show they’re unprincipled and they’re whining about what Trump does because they wish they were the ones in power doing it. Oh well.” I’m not with you. No, Danlgars. I've joined you. You were always here. I just been reminded that any bipartisan future for congress and politics is years away. Fire has to be fought with fire until everyone is so burned they don't want to do it any more. See, I’ll reverse the roles a little here, but end in almost the same place. I opposed Clinton on abuses, I opposed Bush on abuses, I opposed Obama on abused, and look just how far that got me. Liberals will still say I started it and they’re justified in this response. Turns out, I find little common ground when people that stood idly by when Obama did something suddenly react in outrage when Trump does it. So it’s tough to care. I don’t know who will lay down the gloves first, and if there’s an acceptable road back to make America great again. I know I have to see a little more respect for the rights of religious Americans, and much more respect for the division of powers in general. It’s tough to see that future, but I at least know an electoral majority in 2016 put their foot down in the face of a Clinton presidency. That was a incredibly good thing that I’m thankful for. At least now the left recognizes, albeit imperfectly, something about where we are as a country. Allow me to change the terms of the discussion. Or don't allow me, I'm doing it anyway. You talk about high minded points, or respect for people who are definitely not the least respected demographic in America. You cheer Trump refusing to defend the ACA as a way to chalk up petty points against Democrats. You who talk about religious freedom to discriminate against minorities, or freedom of Nazis to have platforms on college campuses. And you vote for Republicans who work to undermine the ACA most basic, unarguable elements, such as guaranteeing people with serious health issues can get medical coverage that actually covers those issues. You, and people like you, are a threat to my life. You are a threat to my life in the same way that Germans who voted for Nazis during the 1920s and early 1930s were a threat to the lives of Jews living in Germany. You have put my life and the lives of people like me on a scale and weighed them against the moral outrage of a subset of the population who did not want to see people of the same sex marry, and found those things to be of equal weight. You are a threat to my life, and you are a threat to the lives of countless people like me. We are not people to you, we are just statistics. But for us, you and people like you are attempting to pull the trigger to kill us on a regular basis, every time you walk into a polling station and vote for a Republican who has sworn to repeal the ACA. You may feel that America is not on a good path, but for me, every time you and people like you become less comfortable voicing your opinions, every time an idea that helps Republicans get elected has to crawl back into the darkness, I live with a little less fear that I will die a miserable death so that a bunch of people I have never met can celebrate something like "free markets," or "standing up to liberals." In case you didn't catch it, you're voting for people who would see me dead not because they actively hate me, but because promising to see people like me dead makes people like you happy, and actually managing to follow through with it would make people like you even happier. You, collectively, are exactly the Germans in the 1930s who voted for people blaming Jews for all of the nation's ills because whatever they do to Jews is fine with you as long as they do make your nation "great" again.
great read. I'm very sorry that you and many thousands have to live with those fears lingering over you on top of what are already very heavy economic burdens due to illness/healthcare cost. It is not humane, it's not the foundation of a content and caring society.
on the plus side, it lessens the inequality by getting rid of those bottom 10%, they can't fuck the statistics if they're dead /s
|
On June 09 2018 08:18 Gorsameth wrote:
To interrupt this thrilling moral high ground fight briefly.
Do I understand this situation correctly?
With the DoJ's withdrawal its now up the presiding judge of this case to decide if he agrees with Texas or not.
And if he does, can the case get throw up to the Supreme Court or is that also up to the DoJ to file for?
Just how close is the death of the ACA and how sick in their stomach are Republicans at the thought of having to draft a viable replacement in an election year?
even if the DoJ doesn't defend it; anyone else with standing can also defend it. From the earlier description it sounded like some of the State attorney generals are going to defend it in court (because it'll affect their state's finances, thus giving them standing).
yes, from the article earlier: "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.”"
|
On June 09 2018 08:24 misirlou wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 09 2018 08:06 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 07:29 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 07:12 Plansix wrote:Why would Dems in this thread condemn what Obama did when it is abundantly clear you don't hold your own politicians to the same standards? Why would they meet half way when it is clear you won't show up? As far as I am concerned, Sessions would have done this anyways, even without DOMA to use as an excuse. Just like holding up the Supreme Court nomination until after the election. It has never been a question of if they should, it is always can the Democrats stop them and will it cost them an election. On June 09 2018 07:08 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 07:00 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 06:44 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 06:25 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 06:18 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2018 06:12 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2018 05:09 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
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. You see what their objections go them. First, try to see if your objections will help the executive think better of their actions. If not, second, make sure they have reason to fear the consequences of breaking them. Not for straightforward realpolitik use of power, but that less may be broken in future. Men are not hanged for stealing horses, but that less horses might be stolen in the future. Their objections were like yours, hollow. Meaningless. The thing that you expressed outraged about in 2011 in now totally sweet revenge in 2018. The only thing I learned today was Obama made the right move in 2011 and it just got a little riskier for me and my wife to move out of MA. Same justification can be used for Trump. “Oh, does Plansix say Obama did the right thing choosing to let partisan motives fuel his justice department, even as Trump uses that principle back against his allies? Okay, fine. Trump did the right thing today and tomorrow, because the next Democratic administration will always show they’re unprincipled and they’re whining about what Trump does because they wish they were the ones in power doing it. Oh well.” I’m not with you. No, Danlgars. I've joined you. You were always here. I just been reminded that any bipartisan future for congress and politics is years away. Fire has to be fought with fire until everyone is so burned they don't want to do it any more. See, I’ll reverse the roles a little here, but end in almost the same place. I opposed Clinton on abuses, I opposed Bush on abuses, I opposed Obama on abused, and look just how far that got me. Liberals will still say I started it and they’re justified in this response. Turns out, I find little common ground when people that stood idly by when Obama did something suddenly react in outrage when Trump does it. So it’s tough to care. I don’t know who will lay down the gloves first, and if there’s an acceptable road back to make America great again. I know I have to see a little more respect for the rights of religious Americans, and much more respect for the division of powers in general. It’s tough to see that future, but I at least know an electoral majority in 2016 put their foot down in the face of a Clinton presidency. That was a incredibly good thing that I’m thankful for. At least now the left recognizes, albeit imperfectly, something about where we are as a country. Allow me to change the terms of the discussion. Or don't allow me, I'm doing it anyway. You talk about high minded points, or respect for people who are definitely not the least respected demographic in America. You cheer Trump refusing to defend the ACA as a way to chalk up petty points against Democrats. You who talk about religious freedom to discriminate against minorities, or freedom of Nazis to have platforms on college campuses. And you vote for Republicans who work to undermine the ACA most basic, unarguable elements, such as guaranteeing people with serious health issues can get medical coverage that actually covers those issues. You, and people like you, are a threat to my life. You are a threat to my life in the same way that Germans who voted for Nazis during the 1920s and early 1930s were a threat to the lives of Jews living in Germany. You have put my life and the lives of people like me on a scale and weighed them against the moral outrage of a subset of the population who did not want to see people of the same sex marry, and found those things to be of equal weight. You are a threat to my life, and you are a threat to the lives of countless people like me. We are not people to you, we are just statistics. But for us, you and people like you are attempting to pull the trigger to kill us on a regular basis, every time you walk into a polling station and vote for a Republican who has sworn to repeal the ACA. You may feel that America is not on a good path, but for me, every time you and people like you become less comfortable voicing your opinions, every time an idea that helps Republicans get elected has to crawl back into the darkness, I live with a little less fear that I will die a miserable death so that a bunch of people I have never met can celebrate something like "free markets," or "standing up to liberals." In case you didn't catch it, you're voting for people who would see me dead not because they actively hate me, but because promising to see people like me dead makes people like you happy, and actually managing to follow through with it would make people like you even happier. You, collectively, are exactly the Germans in the 1930s who voted for people blaming Jews for all of the nation's ills because whatever they do to Jews is fine with you as long as they do make your nation "great" again. great read. I'm very sorry that you and many thousands have to live with those fears lingering over you on top of what are already very heavy economic burdens due to illness/healthcare cost. It is not humane, it's not the foundation of a content and caring society. on the plus side, it lessens the inequality by getting rid of those bottom 10%, they can't fuck the statistics if they're dead /s
I appreciate this post. I really, really do.
On June 09 2018 08:18 Gorsameth wrote:
To interrupt this thrilling moral high ground fight briefly.
Do I understand this situation correctly?
With the DoJ's withdrawal its now up the presiding judge of this case to decide if he agrees with Texas or not.
And if he does, can the case get throw up to the Supreme Court or is that also up to the DoJ to file for?
Just how close is the death of the ACA and how sick in their stomach are Republicans at the thought of having to draft a viable replacement in an election year?
I wanted to reply to this to point out that I'm not really fighting for the moral high ground. I wanted to move past the phase of arguing about whether the Trump administration moved to dramatically lower my life expectancy in a way that is currently acceptable or not and back to the more core part about whether the Trump administration moving to dramatically lower my life expectancy is acceptable. Then I got to your last sentence, the one I bolded, and fell over laughing.
To my understanding, the Trump administration's move is purely symbolic. The case is currently in a Texas district court. In either outcome, the case is almost certainly going to be appealed to the appropriate Circuit court, and then the Supreme Court, unless the red state citizens get sick of their state governments wasting their money. There will be injunctions issued to prevent changes until the Supreme Court issues a decision. The case is so legally specious that there is absolutely no chance that the Supreme Court agrees with it. In short, the death of the ACA is not even close (because of this anyway), but a win in court before November would probably be terrible for Republicans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
