Juror#8

Let's revisit an instructive post: "You don't agree, fine. So noted. Sadly, you're not adding anything that can be addressed in any conventionally logical way and your posts are replete with declaratives and insults. Is that the value that you can be expected to add to the debate? Truthfully, beyond your name - which clearly alludes to some 70s-era gay porn icon of yours - you're completely unmemorable. Your posts are a joke. So how about this sweetheart, if you want to talk about specific policies, go for it - throw out the gauntlet. However, if you want to spam post and type insults that get lost in language filter symbols because you're mad that a Supreme Court decision didn't go your way while others happen to be satisfied with a legislation designed to fundamentally affect a large segment of the population in a very beneficial way, go back to mining male asses." Insincerely, Me You've conducted yourself in an effeminate way. I've just continued to emasculate you. I want you to understand your essence more intimately so you can be a better B word for your husband and your entire pathetic posterity. By the way, you started this **** throwing spectacle (post# 229). I wasn't addressing you, you weren't the person with whom I was communicating - yet you saw fit to interject with BS and insults. Now you want criticize the tone of the conversation ("pompous," and such). You !@#$ing hypocrite. You're exactly what I've said you are - an unmemorable reject. You're a charlatan. Have you been following this conversation on these forums or are you just fashionably late. Can you read? I just mentioned in a previous post that there were beneficial POLICY angles to the ACA (in my estimation). Yet you keep trending back to this idea of improvement. You predicating my support on "improvement" presupposes that there is nothing else that I like about it. I've told you multiple times that the evolutionary angle is secondary and ancillary to my support for the legislation as a motus of beneficial domestic policy. What about that simple sentence escapes you? Here it is again: "...the evolutionary angle is secondary and ancillary to my support for the legislation as a motus of beneficial domestic policy." I can put it in terms that you can more easily understand so that you don't retreat to the evolutionary angle for lodging and comfort again: ACA Bill now, me like, good policy, good for people, goods much gooder than bads. now. ok. Does it really upset you to know that people disagree with you? If not, "why you mad?" Now...if you'd like to discuss the gooooooder policies, we can. You can redeem yourself for the bs and the off-topic, and the insults. You started em. If you don't like em, end em. Get to what you really want to dispute...which surrounds my support for the policies and why. Go. 1912 btw.

It's all in the technique sweetheart - just like I explained to you in that "other" context the other night.

That's not my style. I hate sunglasses. But depending on what day that was (I remember that it was the end of the week because the tourists were out), I was either wearing a Canali suit (I only wear Canali suits), or Zanella slacks with an 1818 shirt (if casual Friday). They can both be considered designer-light - but that depends on your sartorial disposition and, of course, if you've worn bespoke before. If you have worn bespoke (which I haven't), Canali ain't ****. 1912.

1912. That is how long a President has been suggesting doing something about healthcare in this country. 1 century. 100 years. A Bill. A Stack. A C-note. A Benny. Whatever. Why are you so averse to nuance - is it that you're afraid of it or is it because you're unsure how to spell it? In MULTIPLE threads, I've discussed why this legislation is a good thing. I agree with the ACA, PRINCIPALLY, as a policy measure. I agree with both the scope and intention of the ACA. I also believe that it is an initiative that can be built upon to create a better end product. To the extent that the "some thing" was started, I agree with that too. But not at the expense of the "some thing," in my mind, being a "good thing." The ACA just happens to inhabit both realms. For you to act like my agreement with the ACA begins and ends with doing "some thing" is disingenuous at best. At worst it is knowingly false and misleading as it is in direct contradiction with ACTUAL POSTS by me that exist on this forum lauding particular policies within the scope of the ACA. You don't agree, fine. So noted. Sadly, you're not adding anything that can be addressed in any conventionally logical way and your posts are replete with declaratives and insults. Is that the value that you can be expected to add to the debate? Truthfully, beyond your name - which clearly alludes to some 70s-era gay porn icon of yours - you're completely unmemorable. Your posts are a joke. So how about this sweetheart, if you want to talk about specific policies, go for it - throw out the gauntlet. However, if you want to spam post and type insults that get lost in language filter symbols because you're mad that a Supreme Court decision didn't go your way while others happen to be satisfied with a legislation designed to fundamentally affect a large segment of the population in a very beneficial way, go back to mining male asses. Either way, whether you want to add value to this debate (there are always others who enjoy spirited conversation and who add substance to their contributions) or you want to pillow bite (I agree that you were born that way and fully support your right to marry a dude and support your partner financially), it's of no consequence to me. We can have that policy discussion as well if you'd like. 1912.

You play 'being my B word' so well; one wonders how much you're really playing.

There ya go! Let it out. Feel better? You have a couple of broad generalizations that reflect nothing but your disdain for government institutions, some opinions masquerading as facts, dependent clauses just hanging there for effect, stir, add in a dash of your naivete, BOOM! Schhit Sandwich. Express this in a way that dignifies a response and I'll get back to you. Until then, I'll respond in a correspondingly bad fashion, and in a way that might be more intrinsically familiar to you: rack city apple, bAd. M$onee guvmint[gldold. ma gatt diP 5 .trail miX 4 mooNSHinwe. obammmaa hemean n tax ma licka. teef need brush. socIALIS pig pinko bich queer drunck sleep

You know what, I agree with you on all those points. It's a bit of cognitive dissonance, I know. I'm just so tired of everyone wanting things to hurry up and not get done. Nothing begets nothing. At least something can inspire improvement.

I like them too. I like them more because they happen to be correct in this instance. But I'll play along...what are the other options? Wouldn't you presume that he interpreted the law - especially since his interpretation was inconsistent with his broad scale and known political affiliation? And if you agree with the above, and his interpretation led him to that conclusion, wouldn't choosing a different result, but along the some interpretive lines, be results driven and in an effort to stay in line with political ideology?

I have. Admittedly going to the rally wasn't my intended objective. I was on the red line headed to my normal stop (at the time) on the K St. side of Farragut and I was confronted by some unusual characters on the metro. Anyway, long story short, I ended up spending my "lunch time" that day at a tax day rally down in D.C. back in 2010. Literally, there were people with wooden musket toys, 18th and 19th century military outfits, bear skins, effigy dolls, Harry Reid's with "suggestive" and decidedly German (circa 1940s) 'staches, and other nuts. But there were also people there to listen and learn who were decidedly normal. Few were minority. No black or brown. Quite a few Asians (suprisingly). Mostly older women (Asians). 50+ white males were the dominant demo. A lot of pamphlets. Big buses transporting people with cotton neon shorts and homemade shirts. Anyway, the impression that I was left with is that it would be difficult for that group to make a significant mark on the type of mainstream republican party voter needed to win in 2012. I think that the essence of their message (though principally strong) may be slightly too esoteric. I may be a little judgmental because I had to scold a few for standing stationary on both sides of the metro escalator. Stand on the right. Walk on the left. Thank you.

Agreed. But I hope Romney fails miserably in trying to repeal the ACA. We're finally moving in a good direction with respect to healthcare reform. It's a wonderful day! Here's to iterations and improvements! Great job Obama!

It's not the court's job to make policy. They have a very defined role to interpret the law. Roberts interpreted the law consistent with his judicial philosophy and his expert legal knowledge. Because it may not have jived with his political identification (or yours) is of no consequence to a judicial officer. Or do you feel that he should have been an activist and interpreted the law more broadly and, consequently, consistent with his political affiliation? Should a judge arrive at a result, and then create their reasoning to embrace that result? Is that the way that the law should operate? Pride of Buffalo he is...

OP represents a political ideology that will go no where. 2010 was a midterm and now is now. If people think that 10 and 12 will track 06 and 08 "just cause," they're mistaken. The hypothetical democratic candidate was conistently beating McCain (after he secured the nomination) by 5-7 points. That is not so this time around. Obama is trending up in battleground states. It sucks to watch. And people want to talk about the tea party! You think some signs showing people with funny mustaches and politicans in effigy carried around by a couple hundred thousand people wearing teabags like curtains around their head is going to adjust those trend lines? People need to realize that wearing stupid hats, and carrying around black powder muskets isn't gonna do anything but alientate the white, Toyota Sequoia driving women, in Sterling, VA. Romney can win if people don't make a big deal of this ACA issue and instead refocus their attention on their pockets and the shortcomings of this administration with respect to that. Economy. Economy. Economy. Romney can win if he presents a strong national defense character (which includes immigration awareness). Defense. Defense. Defense. ACA is subterfuge and the spinning of it is gonna lead to incoherence. At the end of the day it is just more media time to discuss reasons for the same end result - Obama won. It just means more instances of the dispositive issue not being addressed - the econonomy is hurting. The election is in 4 months.

This is my biggest concern from him. He has become conspicuously quiet on immigration once demographic polls began dropping and the gap between him and certain demographic groups became known. We need someone in the WH who is serious about immigration. Inflation, resource over-utilization, safety, and over-burdened infrastructure are very real issues. If you weren't born here and you can't offer redeeming and significantly beneficial societal, professional, scientific, or artistic value, you and your kids need to get the fu((k out. Democrats are too beholden to certain "interests" to do what needs to be done with respect to immigration. That's a deal-breaker. I think that it is a national security dilemma of the first order. Romney NEEDS to be tough on this issue.

No problem.

Thankfully there is one on point - I haven't read the progeny but it appears as if there are a few actually. You're correct, though, in that on point examples are few and far between. The precedent that 'Free Enterprise' cites to is a 100 year old case if I remember correctly.

Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010) http://pcaobus.org/News/Releases/Pages/06282010_SupremeCourtDecision.aspx http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-861.ZS.html Edit: Dispositive quote also revealing progeny (and as I anticipated, these all allude to basic contract principles): "The unconstitutional tenure provisions are severable from the remainder of the statute. Because “[t]he unconstitutionality of a part of an Act does not necessarily defeat or affect the validity of its remaining provisions,” Champlin Refining Co. v. Corporation Comm’n of Okla. , 286 U. S. 210 , the “normal rule” is “that partial … invalidation is the required course,” Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc. , 472 U. S. 491 ."

It happens in contracts, however I haven't had time to research the nuances in a legislation context. I couldn't imagine that it would operate much differently than it would in the instance of a bilateral arrangement between two contracting entities; essentially the same principle is at work. I'll look on the legisltation side more later but a cursory search of the good ole Lexis Nexis reveals on the contract side: LOCAL NO. 234 OF UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF UNITED STATES AND CANADA v. HENLEY & BECKWITH, Inc. The dispositive language is: "As to when an illegal portion of a bilateral contract may or may not be eliminated leaving the remainder of the contract in force and effect, the authorities hold generally that a contract should be treated as entire when, by a consideration of its terms, nature, and purpose, each and all of its parts appear to be interdependent and common to one another and to the consideration. Whether a contract is entire or divisible depends upon the intention of the parties. Ireland v. Craggs, 5 Cir., 56 F.2d 785. And this is a matter which may be determined "by a fair construction of the terms and provisions of the contract itself, and by the subject matter to which it has reference. ...a bilateral contract is severable where the disputed portion of the contract does not go to its essence, and where, with the illegal portion eliminated, there still remains of the contract valid legal promises on one side which are wholly supported by valid legal promises on the other. Williston on Contracts, rev. ed., Vol. 6, sec. 1782." You probably don't have access to American Jurisprudence texts - but if you can or do, check out Am Jur, Contracts sec(s) 315-316.

Yes, saying that something needs to be done for 50 years and doing nothing is better than doing something.

That's all I'm asking for from him.

Well that was me opining. Thankfully, I'm not a news outlet and don't purport to offer news in any objective way that should be taken objectively seriously. I think all those things of Romney. "Silver spoon," when looked at phraseologically, is objectively true as he was born to significant privilege and wealth. He is also very much a glad hander (significant opportunist who has been described as a "smile-in-your-face" kinda guy). Neither of those two are diparaging. But even if you see them as such, thankfully, I don't purport to be a news outlet. "Fairy punk" is actually euphemisitic. But it's still disparaging. It's a nice way of saying what I really want to characterize him as. It only lightly reflects my disdain for him. I just don't think that he is a conservative. I think he is fake and he is working an angle. I'm only slightly right of center on most issues ( but on some I'm very far right [immigration, 2nd Amendment] and on some, slightly to the left). I think that Romney is FAR more to the left than I am...principally. I don't believe him when he says otherwise. This is an opportunity for him and he is working an available angle. When I vote for Romney, I'll be voting for his advisors and the people that he surrounds himself with.

Nope. It's a great day for those who want to see something ultimately happen with respect to healthcare reform. All those fu((ks and fairies who said "something needs to be done, but not this..." have been saying that **** for 40 years. This is the only semblance of movement on the healthcare front in generations. Seriously....the only significant movement. The echo chamber had their chance to do something and didn't. They complained about alternatives ONLY when someone endeavored to ACTUALLY do something about the broken system. Then, all of a fu(((king sudden, miraculously, different solutions arise! Well ain't that something! Eureka! Look at that! Now people have flippin ideas. Bunch of whiney reactive dolts they are. If this precipitates movement with respect to actual change in the healthcare infrastructure - which it will undoubtedly do, ipso facto - then damn the torpedoes, let's go! It's better than hearing people talking about how it sucks, and something needs to be done, year after year after year after year.... Apparently medicare and the GI Bill went though similar issues. "It's socialism, It's socialism, doom, doom, dismay...." Fu(((k that.

Not really.

For all intents and purposes, it was upheld. http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/28/how-will-supreme-court-rule-on-health-care-law/?hpt=hp_t1 Credit to Fox News too. CNN changed their banner thrice ("upheld," "struck down," "Correction: Upheld"). MSNBC always showed "upheld." Fox waited. Kudos Fox. Moving on...

2 things: 1. Respectfully, your post addresses only a small fraction (and only one political instance) of my post. 2. Your link seemed to be from a considerably biased and decidedly editorialized spam blog. That doesn't mean that some of the information is not legit though (I consider the message independent from the messenger unlike some here who discount anything linked to Fox, Huffington, or whatever). It's just difficult to take seriously a "news outlet" that editorializes thusly: "but Democrats in Congress, also known as 'the caucus perpetually on the wrong side of history,' were having none of this 'responsibility' stuff." If you want to forget about the other political instances that I mentioned in that post and just discuss the mortgage crises, we can. However, my point still stands unchallenged.

So the worst economic catastrophe in the last half-century didn't occur in 2006-2008...under Bush's watch? At the end of the day, right is right and wrong is wrong. If it happened, it happened...notwithstanding how many times someone references it to justify the difficulties in crafting an economic policy to pull the country out of it. And why the disingenuousness amongst conservatives? Some conservatives are such whiney biatches and act like their **** doesn't stink: 9/11 happened because of what Clinton didn't do 2 years earlier; the mortgage crises happened because of democratic legislation in the late 1970s........and Acorn communists; the last prosperous time in this country's history had nothing to do with Bill Clinton, rather it was the result of conservative game-planning during the H.W. Bush Administration and the subsequent Republican Congress; Bush is not responsible for creating an economic mess of such profound moment that its impact can still be felt 3-4 years later - he is insulated by 9/11 (which actually happened on Clinton's watch somehow) which dispirited consumer confidence and curtailed the sale of red-bottom shoes and pedi-paws. Any responsibility for the 2007 recession that began during Bush's tenure would be tolled and actually begin with whatever Democrat assumed office on January 20, 2009. If McCain would have won, the 2007 recession would go back to being Carter and Clinton's fault Why the conservative excuse machine about everything? And the ONE thing that Bush should legitimately take responsibility for (impaling, destroying, and pathetically managing the economy), the apologists absolve him for with innane "Bush bad" references with respect to the current Administration. Does that just make his fu((k ups go away? /rant With respect to Obama's personality (arrogance or whatever), I'll repeat what a very smart person once told me about politics and law: To succeed today in politics you need either to be: 1. intelligent, diligent, organized, efficient and congenial; or 2. resourceful, intrepid, creative, outgoing, dogged, confident, and fearless. You definitely need to fit into one of those two categories because if you are merely pretty smart, responsible, and a nice guy, this business is going to steam roll the fu(((k outta you. The type described by category 1 will get elected and be successful doing the bidding of fellow politicians, business-men and special interest groups who are generally either type 2 folks or the incredibly rare mix of type 1 and 2. If you aren't type 1, you have to survive with very little direction, no instruction or security, and with a lot of chaos and unknowns dominating your life - therefore, you'd better be a type 2 personality. If you aren't either of those, you are a douche and never should have stuck your nose into a confrontational and difficult profession like politics in the first place. Darwin rules right now in politics so you either eat or get eaten. Don't be scared of the fu((king apes. Obama is a type 2 - and there is an arrogance to that. It's not a bad thing. It's adaptation. Romney is a type 1. He is also a silver-spoon, glad-hander, fairy punk who had success handed to him and was always insulated from the risk endemic to most hard-working human beings in this lifetime.