SCOTAL Itch

[ChuckF]

Don't worry, Clutch, your would-be house guests may find hope for freedom yet, because Jerome's god Orly Taitz is on the case!

Do not click on this link, because it goes to Orly's possibly malware-infested shithole site: click here only at your own risk.

WOW. 360 degrees turn.

Wow! 360 degrees turn!

[Snipping something about Magna Carta and revolution, globalists and Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, secession, and more stuff about the "right for redress of grievances," whatever that is.]

I suspected that Roberts might pull this and prepared a plan B law suit on Obamacare. You will see it shortly. When people will read it they will be screaming: take this burden off my shoulders or I am ready for a revolt. I will be filing it shortly. I will probably change the court though, different rout.

Different rout, indeed.

[Watser?]

Doesn't a 360 degrees turn leave you facing the same way?

[ChuckF]

Don't tell the birthers.

[Sauron]

Here is an interesting piece from EJ Dionne.

Justice Scalia must resign

Justice Antonin Scalia needs to resign from the Supreme Court.

He’d have a lot of things to do. He’s a fine public speaker and teacher. He’d be a heck of a columnist and blogger. But he really seems to aspire to being a politician — and that’s the problem.

So often, Scalia has chosen to ignore the obligation of a Supreme Court justice to be, and appear to be, impartial. He’s turned “judicial restraint” into an oxymoronic phrase. But what he did this week, when the court announced its decision on the Arizona immigration law, should be the end of the line.

Not content with issuing a fiery written dissent, Scalia offered a bench statement questioning President Obama’s decision to allow some immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally as children to stay. Obama’s move had nothing to do with the case in question. Scalia just wanted you to know where he stood.

Ah, Scalia. The man who assumed that Bush would naturally ask him to become Chief Justice after Rehnquist. He was wrong; Bush picked Roberts.

So now we have this health care ruling. One would expect Scalia to come totally unglued and denounce it as well, per the example in EJ Dionne's piece, above.

But wait: SC Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the majority in very significant way.

Scalia will be forced to choose between:

(a) giving into his true nature in a public display of overt partisanship or
(b) keeping his mouth shut in order not to piss off his boss.

Frankly, I wonder if that isn't the reason why Roberts sided with the majority - to finally put a cork in Scalia's senile mouth and prevent such outbursts. That, and to also remind Scalia that it was Roberts who was chosen as Chief Justice, and *not* Scalia. The public behavior of Scalia suggests that he would prefer to *not* remember that, unless he is forced to do so.

[ChuckF]

A Children’s Treasury Of Wingnut Obamacare Freakouts

This one is my favorite.

In a closed door House GOP meeting Thursday, Indiana congressman and gubernatorial candidate Mike Pence likened the Supreme Court's ruling upholding the Democratic health care law to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, according to several sources present.

[The Man]

Health Care Decision A Victory For Everyone, Except Millions Of Poor People Maybe | Wonkette

The rather important downside to this decision

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by some link upthread there

Americans agree with what Justice Kennedy said in the dissenting opinion that ‘the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety.’ We are putting all politicians on notice that we will not rest until this law is overturned it’s in entirety.”

Entirely

Originally Posted by Wonkette

100% of the Medicaid expansion is paid for by the Feds for several years and then 90% thereafter. But it’s the principle of the thing! So whatever states (Arizona) decide that expanding Medicaid (Arizona) is a savage affront (Arizona) to Freedom will just (Arizona) stick with the old system, the one that Congress repealed. This system will apparently still live on in some kind of zombie existence for states that want it (Arizona).

We need an Arizonaburn smiley

[lisarea]

I cannot stop lolling at this.
pelosiboehner.jpg

[erimir]

Originally Posted by The Man

Health Care Decision A Victory For Everyone, Except Millions Of Poor People Maybe | Wonkette

The rather important downside to this decision

One would hope that turning down federally funded health insurance for hundreds of thousands or millions of residents would carry consequences, but American voters can be pretty stupid at times (Arizona).

It definitely could have consequences in some states though. Eventually you would hope that poor Arizonans or Louisianans would think that maybe voting for a Democratic governor isn't so bad if it means you can afford to see the doctor.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by lisarea

I cannot stop lolling at this.
Attachment 8661

Caption for Boehner: "Damn, my tooth hurts a teeny bit. Well I think I'll go to the dentist and gets thousands of dollars of free dental work paid for by the taxpayers since as a sacred member of Congress I get free unlimited health care and other good shit like that. After my dental work is done I'll work on repealing Obamacare."

[Sauron]

So Ezra Klein thinks this might have actually been just a clever move on Roberts' part, to set the chessboard up more effectively for conservatives:

The 5-4 language suggests that Roberts agreed with the liberals. But for the most part, he didn’t. If you read the opinions, he sided with the conservative bloc on every major legal question before the court. He voted with the conservatives to say the Commerce Clause did not justify the individual mandate. He voted with the conservatives to say the Necessary and Proper Clause did not justify the mandate. He voted with the conservatives to limit the federal government’s power to force states to carry out the planned expansion of Medicaid. ”He was on-board with the basic challenge,” said Orin Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University and a former clerk to Justice Kennedy. “He was on the conservative side of the controversial issues.”
[....]
One interpretation is that Roberts was playing umpire today: He was simply calling balls and strikes, as he promised to do in his Senate confirmation hearings. But as Barnett’s comments suggest, the legal reasoning in his decision went far beyond the role of umpire. He made it a point to affirm the once-radical arguments that animated the conservative challenge to the legislation. But then he upheld it on a technicality.

It’s as if an umpire tweaked the rules to favor his team in the future, but obscured the changes by calling a particular contest for the other side. ”John Roberts is playing at a different game than the rest of us,” wrote Red State’s Erick Erickson. “We’re on poker. He’s on chess.”

By voting with the liberals to uphold the Affordable Care Act, Roberts has put himself above partisan reproach. No one can accuse Roberts of ruling as a movement conservative. He’s made himself bulletproof against insinuations that he’s animated by party allegiances.

But by voting with the conservatives on every major legal question before the court, he nevertheless furthered the major conservative projects before the court — namely, imposing limits on federal power. And by securing his own reputation for impartiality, he made his own advocacy in those areas much more effective. If, in the future, Roberts leads the court in cases that more radically constrain the federal government’s power to regulate interstate commerce, today’s decision will help insulate him from criticism. And he did it while rendering a decision that Democrats are applauding.

[davidm]

Michael Savage (real name "Weiner"):

Roberts' epilepsy medication effects [sic] his cognition.

[Sauron]

LOL

FOX News couldn't wait to get "Obamacare Upheld" off their front page. Now they've moved on to the "Fast & Furious" contempt vote on Holder.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Orly Taitz

When people will read it they will be screaming: take this burden off my shoulders or I am ready for a revolt.

[Stormlight]

If I were Canadian, I would start to worry ...

[Watser?]

My poor sad wingnut friends. I hear you. I understand. When you elected George W. Bush to a second term in office, I had serious discussions with my fiance, now my husband, that the time may have come to leave these shores. We entertained both the Netherlands and Canada. Now I can understand that the Netherlands would be completely out of the question for you. Fox News has made sure you hate the Netherlands nearly as much as abortion. And they speak Dutch. It's hard. It's only natural that you would gravitate towards Canada.

Daily Kos: So you are sick of the tyranny and want to move to Canada. A guide.

[LadyShea]

Michael Savage: Roberts Epilepsy Medication Affects His Cognition | RealClearPolitics

This guy here, seems to be saying it is better to die than to buy health insurance under mandate....for freedom

I live alone. Have an income level WELL below the poverty line, and cannot afford insurance. If I get sick--really sick--I die.

I accept this reality, and have accepted this my entire life. To the extent I've ever seen anyone for medical services, I've paid my own way.

I'm the guy Nancy Pelosi hates, it seems.

But I LOVE my freedom too...and as much as I love my life.

===

Patrick Henry said it best: "Give me liberty...or give me death."

I EMBRACE WITH FULLY OPEN ARMS my human right...to choose that second option.

The mandate is necessary if we're going to keep the stupid for-profit insurance system (which is stupid) and at the same time promote the general welfare of all Americans.

You people want to die on that hill? Be my fucking guest. Jesus Christ

[BrotherMan]

I accept this reality, and have accepted this my entire life. To the extent I've ever seen anyone for medical services, I've paid my own way.

I seriously doubt this part. But if by some miracle of nature he's never had anything more serious than a head cold, I see where he's coming from.

But what about anecdotes like one I read just the other day? A guy breaks his ankle and spends a few days in the hospital. You know what his bill was? $70,000. That's 3 or 4 small cars. That's half a small house. For a broken ankle. That's everything a person below the poverty line makes in five years. If that were him, his children will likely be paying on that debt. And, to the best of my knowledge, that is without expensive surgery or a life threatening condition or treatment.

This shit is expensive and not getting cheaper.

[ImGod]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Michael Savage: Roberts Epilepsy Medication Affects His Cognition | RealClearPolitics

This guy here, seems to be saying it is better to die than to buy health insurance under mandate....for freedom

The mandate is necessary if we're going to keep the stupid for-profit insurance system (which is stupid) and at the same time promote the general welfare of all Americans.

You people want to die on that hill? Be my fucking guest. Jesus Christ

People like this just don't get it. They get in a car accident and the paramedics take them to the hospital and they wake up days later alive.

They should have passed the Affordable Care Act with "pay to get into a pool with the rest of society" and "no thanks, I'll die" options. Then shut the doors to the hospitals and make it so you need a "Yes I have health insurance card" to get in the door. Talk is cheap if there is no option to let them die. That's the only way to test their resolve, while allowing millions into an affordable health care pool.

Easier still, they should have just expanded medicare down to cover anyone who wants to pay into it. Then, the GOP would have had to threaten to fuck around with people's medicare. Try selling that to the boomers. On top of it you could ration care and allow the medicare suppliment insurance companies to come to the rescue of wealthier individuals.

[Stormlight]

Originally Posted by BrotherMan

I seriously doubt this part. But if by some miracle of nature he's never had anything more serious than a head cold, I see where he's coming from.

But what about anecdotes like one I read just the other day? A guy breaks his ankle and spends a few days in the hospital. You know what his bill was? $70,000. That's 3 or 4 small cars. That's half a small house. For a broken ankle. That's everything a person below the poverty line makes in five years. If that were him, his children will likely be paying on that debt. And, to the best of my knowledge, that is without expensive surgery or a life threatening condition or treatment.

This shit is expensive and not getting cheaper.

That's what the death panels are for. They work really well over here.

[LadyShea]

Mom's ER visit for a broken finger in NOLA? $1500.00 for cash people, 850.00 just for the ER facility (not the doctor or pharmacy or x-ray). Medicare paid the hospital 8.00 for that. Not 80.00, but 8.00. And the hospital took that 8.00 "as agreed"

So, a poor person paying his own way would have paid 100X the negotiated Medicare rate. Why is that mark up there in the first place? Because ERs have to cover those who cannot pay, and have to pay an army of administrators to negotiate rates with multiple insurance companies, then to later determine and collect the negotiated rates from amongst all the agreements with various insurance providers including the government. The bigger the provider, the less they pay for services, but it's made up for in volume or whatever.

A single payer system without a whole bunch of middlemen with profit motives would reduce costs. Period.

[ImGod]

Originally Posted by BrotherMan

I seriously doubt this part. But if by some miracle of nature he's never had anything more serious than a head cold, I see where he's coming from.

But what about anecdotes like one I read just the other day? A guy breaks his ankle and spends a few days in the hospital. You know what his bill was? $70,000. That's 3 or 4 small cars. That's half a small house. For a broken ankle. That's everything a person below the poverty line makes in five years. If that were him, his children will likely be paying on that debt. And, to the best of my knowledge, that is without expensive surgery or a life threatening condition or treatment.

This shit is expensive and not getting cheaper.

The best part about the bill is it will force people like my brother and siter in law into the system. They're the types that don't see medical insurance for the family as a necessity; unlike their cable bill, big screen TV, smart phones with data plans, etc. His hobby (racing cars around little dirt tracks) uses enough money each year that he probably could pay for the family's health insurance.

Since I've known them, the have used every state, local, charity program available to get medical care. They've had ER visits, hospital stays, babies, etc. that cost the rest of us more than it cost them. These are the type of "poor" people (not black either mind you) who somehow can't afford/don't need insurance yet constantly end up using it. Sure they can't afford $10,000/year for an individual plan through an insurance company. But the can afford insurance if they are thrown in a pool with 40,000,000 other uninsured people with $2,000/year premiums.

But you'd have to pry those premiums out of their lotto ticket, cigarette buying, fat ass hands. Or deny them service a couple of times when they show up looking for charity.

[Janet]

Originally Posted by BrotherMan

I seriously doubt this part. But if by some miracle of nature he's never had anything more serious than a head cold, I see where he's coming from.

But what about anecdotes like one I read just the other day? A guy breaks his ankle and spends a few days in the hospital. You know what his bill was? $70,000. That's 3 or 4 small cars. That's half a small house.

Where I live, that's at least 3 houses, fancypants.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Stormlight

That's what the death panels are for. They work really well over here.

If the death panels work so well, how is that you are still alive? Answer me that Mr. Smartypants European.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Sauron

So Ezra Klein thinks this might have actually been just a clever move on Roberts' part, to set the chessboard up more effectively for conservatives:

Yeah, I keep reading things kind of like this, the whole "We're playing poker and John Roberts is playing chess!" thing. I don't really buy it though.

The merits ruling that the mandate is not a constitutional exercise of the commerce power is an important data point in terms of commerce clause jurisprudence. But it doesn't really amount to some huge new limitation on Congressional power to regulate. It's not like they overturned Wickard or anything, or that that's likely to happen. It's not clear that this even extends Lopez in any significant way.

It's also not like Roberts crafted some extremely clever solution to a thorny problem. Don't get me wrong, this is a very good opinion. (Also a dense one, Christ, I am about a tenth of the way to understanding it.) But Roberts endorsed an alternative basis for the Congressional power that was presented by the government all along.

To paraphrase John Roberts, the way to constrain the federal government’s power is to start constraining the federal government's power. This opinion doesn't really do that; the Congressional action remains intact. I'm not buying the narrative of the Machiavellian long game. That seems too ginned-up by reactionaries seeking a silver lining. I think if we're going to impute long-term political motives to the Chief Justice, it's more likely that he wanted to be on the right side of history.