The Humpty Dumpty Court: more from Scalia in King v. Burwell
A dissent has no power except the power of its words and its logic—that is, it has no legal power. So Scalia’s dissent in King v. Burwell (joined by Alito and Thomas) is satisfying only in the rhetorical and intellectual sense. But it is so good that I’m highlighting it anyway.
Here are some excerpts:
[T]he plain, obvious, and rational meaning of a statute is always to be preferred to any curious, narrow, hidden sense that nothing but the exigency of a hard case and the ingenuity and study of an acute and powerful intellect would discover.” Lynch v. Alworth-Stephens Co., 267 U. S. 364, 370 (1925) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved…
Perhaps the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will attain the enduring status of the Social Security Act or the Taft-Hartley Act; perhaps not. But this Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medicaid] payments to the State” means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State” means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.
More Scalia quotes here.
One of the strange things about the conservative reaction to this decision (and I count myself in that group) is that the SCOTUS ruling in King vs. Burwell doesn’t have all that much immediate practical effect on Obamacare. The Republican majority Congress was not going to let the state subsidies lapse, certainly not right away, even if the decision had gone the other way. Their proposed fixes involved a temporary preservation of the state subsidies, with various plans to change things to a more choice- and market-based system in the future if a Republican president were to be elected, plans that might or might not have come to fruition depending on how conservative the president would have been and how conservative the new Congress might be. So in practical terms nothing much has changed: the subsidies stand, and a new (and more conservative) Congress and president could still change things if they so desire.
The greater damage done by this decision is to the rule of law and our faith in the Supreme Court’s ability to abide by basic legal rules and exhibit sound legal reasoning. That faith had already been sorely shaken; now the thread by which it had been hanging has been cut. You can see this in Scalia’s complaint that “words no longer have meaning” and “the [Obamacare] cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.”
To put it in legal terms, this case sets a terrible precedent.
Scalia wrote that we could rename Obamacare “SCOTUScare” now. I will add that we should rename the current Supreme Court, as well. It’s not “the Roberts Court” anymore, it’s “the Humpty Dumpty Court” instead:
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ”˜it means just what I choose it to mean ”” neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ”˜whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ”˜which is to be master ”” that’s all.”
The damage done to the Rule of Law by John Roberts in the Obamacare cases cannot be understated.
And what was Kennedy doing joining Roberts and the libs on this one? He was hopping mad on the tax/penalty case.
Wait till Monday. It will be 6-3. Scalia’s dissent will be powerful and clear, but it will be ignored and mocked.
We have reached the ultimate post-modern state. Everything is relative. There are no objective facts.
Jenner. Dozeal. Burwell.
Trifecta!
This government is illegitimate.
ditto gpc31.
continued participation in democracy has all the significance of a rat’s fart in a sewer – it merely adds to the fetor. I will participate in democracy only when Jefferson’s tree had been refreshed with a proper pruning.
5 justices of SCOTUS reading into things by what they divine in the emanations of penumbrae rule the nation, make the laws. that’s not a democracy it’s Swiftian satire.
Adieu America
I keep thinking of the sad King Arthur singing the finale of Camelot:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdD2lpJDiek
ARTHUR:
Each evening, from December to December,
Before you drift to sleep upon your cot,
Think back on all the tales that you remember
Of Camelot.
Ask ev’ry person if he’s heard the story,
And tell it strong and clear if he has not,
That once there was a fleeting wisp of glory
Called Camelot.
CHORUS:
Camelot! Camelot!
I know it gives a person pause
But in Camelot, Camelot,
Those were the legal laws.
ARTHUR:
Where once it never rained till after sundown,
By eight a.m. the morning fog had flown…
Don’t let it be forgot
That once there was a spot
For one brief shining moment …
that was known
As Camelot!
Ultimately, the political result of this is because of the changes made to our society given feminist ideals… the first such twisting of the court into a pretzel to favor a law was of course, the penumbras for abortion to save eugenics/euthanasia/democide as a statist practice under the guise of helping women
the twisting here relates and flowers from that in the idea that there is no such thing as neutral, so why try (unlike ayn rands point), and so there is no real reason for the jurists to try. then of course, what kind of education system got to teach roberts, and what kind of family structure does he have living under the changes post classical?
the whole idea of changing things from the bench and in terms of the supreme court would be in whose bakyard? hint very famous feminist lawyer
substantively equal outcomes may require different treatment…
you cant have feminism and the constitution..
because they see the equality before the court and law as unequal outcomes, and so, for the law to change and for things to move to where feminists want, the courts had to twist into all kinds of contortions and bastardizations to allow an end around for any system that may allow for unequal law for equal outcome.
one of the major points is that the ACA is feminist favored and favors unequal treatment for more equal outcomes..
half the population has to pay for birth control that they cant use… who does that favor?
Women earn less but cost more, so who does it favor?
single mothers dont earn enough to be single mothers, so who does the law favor then?
throughout her life, Sullivan, who became the wife of Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts……
so guess where this all comes from?
she knows where he sleeps..
he would never have peace in his home if he did ANYTHING that would be seen by feminists as not helping them!!!!!!!!!!
At the moment she found Feminists for Life, they were just gearing up for a transformation, and Roberts instantly joined the board and gave the group legal advice. In their efforts to address the causes of abortion, they banded with traditional feminist groups to lobby for the Violence Against Women Act and against certain welfare cuts.
isnt it nice that our supreme court justice is choosing sides and sitting on the board of some radical groups… in this case, feminists against abortion, while the other side is feminists for abortion… feminism, everything and nothing to everyone and no one… consistency is not theirs
Jane Sullivan Roberts’ Service to Women
http://feministsforlife.org/-news/jsroberts.htm
reading their point on this page is a big farce
Now how could susan b anthony do that if abortion was illegal then? and even more interesting that the feminsts prior to their sovietization, were against abortion..
how do they reconcile nondescrimination and affirmative action? reverse discrimination doesnt exist dont ya know
and justice for all? how is it justice that men pay for womens birth control, treatments and so on? how is it justice that nuns do the same?
Impact of the Affordable Care Act on Health Coverage for Women [there is no such stuff as to men]
To help those with low and moderate incomes with the costs of insurance, the federal government will provide subsidies (in the form of premium tax credits) to eligible individuals and families with incomes between 100% and 400% FPL. All plans offered on the Marketplace must provide coverage for 10 Essential Health Benefits (EHB). Abortion services, however, are explicitly excluded from the list of EHBs that all plans are required to offer. Under federal law, no plan is required to cover abortion.
here are the 10… how much do they favor women?
Outpatient care–the kind you get without being admitted to a hospital
Trips to the emergency room
Treatment in the hospital for inpatient care
Care before and after your baby is born
Mental health and substance use disorder services: This includes behavioral health treatment, counseling, and psychotherapy
Your prescription drugs
Services and devices to help you recover if you are injured, or have a disability or chronic condition. This includes physical and occupational therapy, speech-language pathology, psychiatric rehabilitation, and more.
Your lab tests
Preventive services including counseling, screenings, and vaccines to keep you healthy and care for managing a chronic disease.
Pediatric services: This includes dental care and vision care for kids
and there is why this is what it is…
its just another penumbra game
that is, how do you change constitutional law to allow for communist ideas and practices which are forbidden?
that lawyer i mentioned above? Catherine Mckinnon…
Furthermore, I suggest we henceforth refer to him as “the traitor Roberts.”
Every time a third-world banana Republic gets a new tin-pot dictator, the first thing he does is write a new constitution “for the people,” and all new laws for them.
The people, having supported the revolucion, soon find that they have been screwed over once again, maybe even worse than they were with the last dictator. But the people lack any power to make their own laws. Eventually get desperate and start another revolucion, lots of blood, lots of destruction, much loss — and elect another dictator.
We have a tin-pot Supreme Court.
Agreed; Rule-of-Law is dead.
Which means that EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW is dead.
Which means that the Law itself, as well as our legal system, and our Government, are now the ENEMIES of the citizens of this country.
Our Founders did not foresee that a majority of members of all three “checked” and “balanced” branches of government would sell their souls, and thus sell-out their countrymen.
There is NO WAY that a government so UNIVERSALLY corrupt can correct itself, and there is NO WAY that We-the-People can correct it by legal means (since “legal” now means “whatever those in power want”).
May Emperor Obama and the Imperial Viziers of Washington DC be content with what they already have — because if they want more, there’s NOTHING to keep them from taking it away from you.
And get your assets out of banks. As Ann Barnhardt said a year or so ago, “When Rule of Law dies, anything you can’t stand in front of and defend with a gun isn’t yours any more.”
we really should not complain..
Neo cuts down posts as she has a reason, and that reason may destroy the time a person donated from their life… but thats ok… she has a reason
roberts, obama, and all those guys, they have reasons too…. so lets just accept them and not complain… there really is no reason for them to change or stop it, any more than neo thinks cutting ideas and the work of others for space reasons is ok
the end justifies the means is what she believes in… and practices… and yet does not see that that is the reason that sticks in the craw
hitler killed lots of ideas we will never hear, he had reasons, and thats ok… cause once you have a reason, what you do is ok… and the person you act upon, just has to accept it
so lets take a lesson…
nothing to complain about..
they have reasons, and thats enough
its all the same… if not, how so?
[edited for length by n-n]
“Matt_SE Says:
June 25th, 2015 at 3:16 pm
Furthermore, I suggest we henceforth refer to him as “the traitor Roberts.”
May I suggest the “dread traitor” Roberts?
(Princess Bride!)
I don’t know how many have read the original ACA law. When it was passed and briefly available on the net, I read it. Essentially it makes criminals out of doctors. It is a totalitarian inspired law with penalties both civil and criminal written into it. That is why you will increasingly see doctors opt out of medical practice either through retirement or becoming simple employees of hospitals or going into laboratory work. Most of the focus has been on premium cost, which will undoubted go up, and the enforcement of universal coverage through the IRS. Wait until doctors are fined and imprisoned because they used the wrong diagnostic code or failed to adequately keep electronic records. What kind and caliber of people will be enrolling in medical schools in the future, and how many standards will be lowered to accommodate them?
Poorly trained and lower IQ physicians assistants will be the ones screening you for cancer and other life threatening diseases. These are just a few of the nightmare list of consequences, intended and unintended.
The very worst part of this now fiat accompli law is that it treats highly trained and intelligent people, most of whom have dedicated their entire lives saving the sick, working ungodly on-call hours, exposing themselves to deadly contagious disease (and the avarice of trial lawyers) – it treats these people as conscripted labor. In that sense it is communistic, and it will fail. But not before the usual suffering and death it spreads around.
the supreme court, neos rules based censorship of ideas too long to keep, stalins erasing, and on and on…
are about ethics..
but now, ethics is reduced to justification of personal wants, reasons, needs, goals, etc
does the end justify the means?
The end of saving the ACA justified roberts
Trimming comments for space, justifies neo
[edited for length by n-n]
Beverly: are we related? I have been re-reading “The Once and Future King,” T.H. White’s masterful retelling of the King Arthur story that — I am pretty sure — formed the inspiration for the “Camelot” musical. Just last night I came to the somber ending, in which the old King Arthur, preparing for what he knows will be his final battle, summons a page, tells him the tale of the lost dream of Camelot and the reasons for its fall, and sends him away from the battle, charged with the responsibility to keep telling the tale of what has been lost so that the dream won’t be forgotten. Just like you, I looked up from the last page of the book and thought: that’s where we are, too.
Patrick Macnee has died at the age of 93
The other aspect is that the separation of powers set forth in the Constitution apparently is no longer applicable. We have the President invoking powers not granted to him such as ignoring the plain language of laws and a Court that has also decided to exercise the legislative function in redrafting laws. We are rapidly becoming something other than a nation governed by law.
Many appropriate comments. Little to add. It is clear that our Constitution is on life support, and SCOTUS is disconnecting the plug. Future generations will be ruled by the unfettered dictates of those in power at the moment.
It matters little to me in my personal life. Time is too short. Nor am I particularly sympathetic to my children, and their contemporaries; most are flaming liberals who applaud a government that “cares enough to be involved in the lives of the people”. Now they roll their eyes at my retro thinking. If they awaken, it will no doubt be too late to undo what they have countenanced with their precious votes. I do grieve for my grand children who will have no choice in the matter. Of course they are “educated” to believe as their mentors do; so will probably give little thought to what was intended when those “old white men” crafted the finest form of governance known to mankind.
Yes, great comments by all. So discouraging.
The decision was corrupt (as anonnymouse says), whatever the precise thinking and motivation, just as corrupt as the first one.
Objectivity and truth are out the window. Rule of law is out the window.
I hope I am wrong, but I fear far worse is yet to come, and sooner rather than later.
Artfldgr Says:
June 25th, 2015 at 3:54 pm
we really should not complain..
Neo cuts down posts as she has a reason, and that reason may destroy the time a person donated from their life… but thats ok… she has a reason …
Why don’t you quit your fucking whining and start acting like a man.
The idiots who think their health care is free are getting a surprise. Deductibles, co-pays, and premiums are taking off. Will people demand more free stuff and higher taxes for the rich?
Insurance stocks took off today. The are lining up for all those premiums.
I was struck by the people talking about Obama’s legacy. To me his legacy is creating horrible messes for others to clean up. Just like his community organizing at Altgeld Gardens to remove asbestos. Years later there was still asbestos, but Obama had moved on.
I hope his successor can do something to cut the monstrous bureaucracies and will demand that congress enact more precise and limited laws.
It may not be the end, but it is the beginning of the end. Unless the LIVs wake up, the way our government was intended to work will soon be a memory. It is slipping away with each new executive order, each Supreme Court decision that makes new law, with each corrupt bureaucracy that targets conservatives, with each official lie told to make people believe that Climate Change is a clear and immediate danger, with each phony charge of racism against the police, with each commerce strangling regulation that squashes growth, and much more. It is to weep.
“The greater damage done by this decision is to the rule of law and our faith in the Supreme Court’s ability to abide by basic legal rules and exhibit sound legal reasoning. That faith had already been sorely shaken; now the thread by which it had been hanging has been cut.” neo
Where the rule of law is absent, the law of the jungle reins supreme. Once a Republic abandons legal redress of grievance, civil war must follow.
There is an old saying that bankruptcy happens slowly at first, then all at once.
I guess we’re about to find out if the same holds true for totalitarianism.
DNW:Thanks.
I am not surprised. When trying to explain Roberts’ last minute decision in 2012, I could really only come up with two- either he didn’t want the Court to be the one to take down the ACA, or he was blackmailed by someone. While I think the latter is very unlikely (though not impossible), either explanation made today’s decision fairly predictable, and one I made.
I wrote a few days ago that the optimal outcome of this case for Republicans was likely for the court to uphold the IRS interpretation since the exchanges themselves are just about certain to go deeper into the death spiral that has already started. Democrats were sure to blame this failure on SCOTUS if it had found for the plaintiffs. Also, there is every indication that Republicans were prepared to extend the subsidies at least until next year, and probably thereafter. That avenue of defeat is now closed. Democrats own this law entirely now, and they will own its financial failure.
“The greater damage done by this decision is to the rule of law and our faith in the Supreme Court’s ability to abide by basic legal rules and exhibit sound legal reasoning. That faith had already been sorely shaken; now the thread by which it had been hanging has been cut.” neo
See Subotai Bahadur post at Fernandez’s:
WE have been kidnapped by a hostile power, our government.
I blame the voters ….
Tonight I ordered a Stars & Bars flag.
Flag Store USA is a company I’ve dealt with in the past and recommend. This flag is made by Annin. The U.S. flags they make have sewn stars and stripes and are of excellent quality. I’m assuming the same holds true for this one.
I was told last night that all manufacture of Confederate Battle Flags in the U.S. ceased as of 6/22. July 4th is coming up, and I will be flying this flag. I suppose it’s just as well: the low information retards who have been whipped into a frenzy over the battle flag won’t even know what it is.
G6loq Says:
June 25th, 2015 at 9:26 pm
Not to disparage anyone here, but Subotai Bahadur is simply my favorite blog commenter on the entire internet.
Once he described meeting Ann Barnhardt. What I would have given to have been a fly on the wall in that room. Their combined intellectual firepower could power a midsized city.
Roberts is looking more and more like a vacuous fool with each decision. Or maybe it’s the people who appointed him who didn’t do much of a job studying him who are the fools?
Vacuous fools, or committed statists?
Or blackmail victims?
I would not put my money on “vacuous fools”.
One thought I can’t shake is that certain influential people in the government might be being threatened with child pornography being planted on their computers.
The government has the NSA, the FBI, and any number of other agencies. You really think they couldn’t do it if they wanted to?
“Go home tonight, turn on your computer, and tell me what you see. Want to make it go away? Then play ball with us.
Or you can spend the rest of your life in pound-me-in-the-ass prison. Your choice.”
Does anybody seriously believe that the Communists would hesitate to do that?
I forgot to mention that the beauty of my child porn idea is that the victims need not have any actual skeletons in their closets. They could be as pure as the driven snow, and it wouldn’t matter.
The power of the Leftist alliance is as people can see, who wish to. I don’t need to hint at it any more. Suffice it to say that they are not merely a political party you have to deal with, they are far more than that. The sum total of their might equals that hideous strength of totalitarianism, which many people downplayed, hand waved, and poo pooed as if they knew better than some of us. They didn’t and never will know better.
If this was a normal foe, winning elections would have solved it by now. Wouldn’t it have.
rickl, children are an easy leverage to obtain. Look up couples with children and how many are in danger of being given to CPS, and you will see how easy it is to connect Child Protective Services to places like Rotter.
Child porn would merely have personal consequences. Some people are brave enough to bypass personal consequences. How many are reckless enough to sacrifice their children? They will be told exactly what will happen to them when the children are given to CPS, to immigrant couples, to ISIS asylum cells, to Hollywood actors and directors, homo couples, etc. The Left will make sure of it.
When it comes to obtaining leverage on people, children are most people’s weaknesses.
Today I thought of the old movie ‘7 Days in May’ and how I watched it with a sense of horror years ago. And today I realized that if it actually happened now I’m not sure I would care. This government may not be worth saving.
Neo, are you going to tackle the other disastrous, totalitarian ruling of SCOTUS today? the “Disparate Impact” ruling?
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court Thursday ruled that claims of “disparate impact” can be brought under the Fair Housing Act of 1968.
The 5-4 closely divided decision – authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by the four more liberal justices – was a victory for civil rights advocates, who have been long concerned about how the high court would resolve the issue.
In January, the justices heard arguments in the case – which was brought back in 2008 by the Inclusive Communities Project against the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs.
The question that ultimately reached the Supreme Court is a relatively simple one: Whether “disparate impact” claims are able to be brought under the Fair Housing Act of 1968.
“Disparate impact” claims address policies that are NOT discriminatory on their face but have a “disparate impact” on a particular race, and civil rights advocates have said they are a key tool in addressing housing discrimination.
While the FHA makes no specific mention of whether such claims are covered by the law, every court of appeals to decide the issue and the federal government – through the Department of Housing and Urban Development – agree that such claims are permitted under the act.
–Buzzfeed
Which means: if you live in a majority white neighborhood, You Are a Racist, and Section 8 households can now be forced into your midst. (Actually, the Leftists have already been trying this model out in Liberal Birdbrained Westchester, NY: and the Liberals have fought against it, hypocritical little dears.)
And hi, Mrs. Whatsit! wish we could sit down over a cuppa. I’ve been feeling so melancholy, and wondering as I walk the streets of NYC, how everyone can be so nonchalant as our nation is dying….
Note, too, that the all-out assault against Texas In Particular continues apace.
Mark Levin was all over this “disparate impact” stuff today: like the SCOTUS decision that words have no meaning, this ruling opens the door wide for the Levelers to lay waste everywhere, with a vengeance.
Why should I listen to, respect, or heed nine senior citizens parading around in black dresses?
No deference at all should be given to the “Humpty Dumpty Court.” They are nonsensical, not rational, let alone wise, moral, or even constitutional.
I am of course mindful of my own ignorance and aware that “no man should be a judge in his own case” — still, I cannot obey such unconstitutional nonsense. I am an average guy — able to be a good loser and fall into line if the rules seem fair and are followed. But not this abomination of rigged legislation, executive overreach, arbitrary implementation, and judicial sophistry. This ain’t according to the consent of the governed, no matter how you look at it. Crossing unwritten boundaries creates awful precedents. There is no trust.
Small consolation — at least this sordid state of affairs is forcing me to research and rethink the rational and ethical foundations of authority and political legitimacy.
The true traitors of the South are the Democrats. Whether loyalist or plantation owner, whether slave owner or aristocrat, whether politician or lawyer.
It’s not Lee. It’s not Stonewall Jackson. It’s not the matrons of high society in the South that rejected racism or treated slaves well.
It’s the Democrats. Has been for at least a century now.
Do the South want to be free? Do the South want State’s Rights?
Get rid of the Democrats. Until Southerners get rid of Democrats, who they are to lecture me about freedom and supposed Lincoln Tyrants?
Small consolation – at least this sordid state of affairs is forcing me to research and rethink the rational and ethical foundations of authority and political legitimacy.
The percentage of people that can resist authority is comparable to the numbers of homos, the numbers of people who resist hypnosis, etc.
Also the number of geniuses that pushed scientific boundaries to the extent that most of their peers considered them nut hats.
http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html#j8
Y’all got on this boat for different reasons, but y’all come to the same place. So now I’m asking more of you than I have before. Maybe all. Sure as I know anything, I know this – they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They’ll swing back to the belief that they can make people… better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin’. I aim to misbehave.
Captain Mal Reynolds (Nathan Fillion) Serenity
I would rather die having spoken in my manner, than speak in your manner and live. For neither in war nor yet in law ought any man use every way of escaping death. For often in battle there is no doubt that if a man will throw away his arms, and fall on his knees before his pursuers, he may escape death, if a man is willing to say or do anything. The difficulty, my friends, is not in avoiding death, but in avoiding unrighteousness; for that runs deeper than death. – Socrates before the Athenian death panel
I am so friggin’ discouraged but I will NEVER give up or cease from doing what little I can do.
rickl: every comment you have made rings true, and I especially like your new flag. I have had little interest in owning a firearm, but I am now considering obtaining one if only to create an additional armed citizen.
Ymarsakar: as always, you express the reality of things. I might add to your Galileo reference the scientific discovery that light has a speed and is not instantaneous. Despite irrefutable evidence, scientists rejected the idea with the usual ridicule and lack of objectivity.
True, most people (even highly intelligent persons) are not independent thinkers, precisely because of the natural human desire to not be seen as odd or out of step. This is the crux of leftist propaganda and the associated colored ribbon mentality, the desire for approval and the fear of disapproval.
I am so angry. So many have just given up America. How stupid and absurd and childish they are.
To give up the right to be a free person? Truly, you must be an idiot, and I say that knowing it applies to people I know and love.
And look what it takes to give up that right: like Roberts, it means corruptly debasing yourself, allowing the mob to do your thinking, consciously deciding that integrity has nothing to do with you.
This is the door where Pol Pot enters, heading to Roberts first and laughing at the squeals.
Also been pointed out; Obamacare is full of errors because it tried to subvert the legislative process. re: Scott Brown won and they rushed it because they knew they couldn’t pass it without rushing it… it wouldn’t pass today either. So the court’s “deference” to the legislature is even more absurd. The legislative branch doesn’t want that dog either.
“So in practical terms nothing much has changed: the subsidies stand, and a new (and more conservative) Congress and president could still change things if they so desire.”
The subsidies are not the problem with Obamacare IMO. I, personally, wouldn’t mind making some level of healthcare universally available.
The problems I have with Obamacare are the control over the healthcare system and the eventual restrictions on choices available as a patient. AKA the death panels. 🙂 Ok; they’re not really going to judge people on a individual basis* (like they did in the UK for awhile with transplants) but rather the gov will tell the ACOs what their care guidelines are with one hand… while pushing everyone in the healthcare field into ACOs with the other. Thats my problem with it. Thats what I want to go. The cost controlling aspects.
* then again; one medical efficiency review panel could recommend the creation of new ones… that did just that…
Why don’t you quit your fucking whining and start acting like a man.
ok
then dont complain yourself…
you answered my moral question
its ok to erase nobodies..
only the elite count, those with value, etc
thanks for making the case that the progressives and so forth are all right… unless you show your value ahead of the choice, you dont count… not in the state, not in the world, and certainly not here…..
good job
thanks
DNW
mathew 25:40whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me
i wanted to thank you for making my point for me
that only the important and valued have a right to be heard in completeness…
the handicapped (like me), those that dont write well, those that say what you dont want to hear, those that are not important, cant justify their existence…
you missed the larger point..
there is no argument to separate whats being done on all scales… and in ways you dont like
there should not be a first amendment according to you
the supreme court did the right thing, according to you
the judgment today on gay marriage is ok with you
the erasing of history is ok
the removal of the confederate flag is ok
you see the point was whether there was a moral argument to divide those things up and allow some but not others.
you cant argue that those things should exist, while also arguing that something you dont like should go away!!!
once you start doing that, you start down the road of its ok as long as there is a reason, whether everyone accepts it or not..
as to the erasing of the jews, thats ok, the germans had a reason, and the jews should have been men and shut up about it… right?
the point you missed was the asking of the moral and ethical arguement as to whether its one for all and all for one, or its whatever those in power have a reason.
you missed it entirely and made my case for me
that there is no place for us to complain or care as there is no moral or ethical point to it. you either protect everyone large and small, liked or unliked, valued or not.. or you dont.
you showed that we dont
logically then what follows is that no one has a right to complain… as long as the court has a reason…
you agree with neo reason, i dont
you dont agree with the courts reason, they do
i have no power and neo does in this realm, and that makes it right, and you agree
we have no power, the court does in htis realm, and that makes it right, and now we know you agree
cant complain if this is the way it is. can you?
the only ones that have a right to complain and act are the elite lords who have power, not the feeble nobodies like you and me..
thanks
Does today’s same sex marriage ruling mean that Obamacare will not include paying for surrogates?
Sorry, I mistyped not for now. At any rate, Kennedy can decide without asking Congress.
Artfldgr:
I wonder why you would think that you are “erased” by not being allowed to comment at all the length you want on a certain blog.
Even if you were to be banned from here, how does that constitute “erasure”? No one here has silenced you in any way. You are free to comment at any other blog that hasn’t banned you. You are free to start a website or blog of your own. And that’s just the internet; there are other forms of speech. You are free to write a book, or a letter to the editor, or to speak to people.
You may be reluctant to do so, or afraid to do so, for any number of reasons. You may feel (and have expressed many times in this comments section) that your life has not worked out as you would have wanted, in a host of ways. But “erased” is not what’s happening here.
John Hinderaker of Powerline says it succinctly today:
“Yesterday’s Obamacare decision told us that we do not live under the rule of law. Today’s gay marriage decision tells us we do not live in a democracy. These are dark days.”
I am trying to persuade myself that there are some people in PC socialist Europe that are living happy, productive lives. Not many, but some. It is that which I hope for, for my kids and grandkids.
by the way DNW… i know that you and others dont like my post/s (too much like school, not entertaining enough to self pleasure you, and they warn of things you dont want to think of).
“I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.”
― Oscar Wilde
so it was the perfect means of making the example as to what morals and ethics we as a group may have… you got suckered… as i knew someone would chime in and play the part i needed to make the point… or is the term pawned today? does it matter?
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
― George Orwell
George Washington
“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”
― George Washington
.
“I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
― James Madison
We hold these truths to be self evident (but not to DNW) that all men are created equal…
which means that the elite or those in power do not have a right to supress others, but you made it clear they DO have that right.. not only do they, but if they do something you approve of, you have demonstrated we agree…
so the only question is to sell something under some reason that most find acceptable, then they are free to do it.
hitler accomplished that, and the society followed him down the toilet… thats cause he did not have morality above what was only a reason, or justification that was sold to the people that would make it happen.
“It was a shocking thing to say and I knew it was a shocking thing to say. But no one has the right to live without being shocked. No one has the right to spend their life without being offended. Nobody has to read this book. Nobody has to pick it up. Nobody has to open it. And if you open it and read it, you don’t have to like it. And if you read it and you dislike it, you don’t have to remain silent about it. You can write to me, you can complain about it, you can write to the publisher, you can write to the papers, you can write your own book. You can do all those things, but there your rights stop. No one has the right to stop me writing this book. No one has the right to stop it being published, or sold, or bought, or read.”
― Philip Pullman
but you claimed that right…
you accepted the tyranny
if only that it has a reason you accept
or it acts upon those that you do not like
but you didnt ask, what if YOU were the victim?
would you still agree, or would you change your tune and make your morals and ethics situational upon the reward you get or the penalty you lose by?
“If there’s one American belief I hold above all others, it’s that those who would set themselves up in judgment on matters of what is “right” and what is “best” should be given no rest; that they should have to defend their behavior most stringently. … As a nation, we’ve been through too many fights to preserve our rights of free thought to let them go just because some prude with a highlighter doesn’t approve of them.”
― Stephen King
“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.”
[The One Un-American Act, Speech to the Author’s Guild Council in New York, on receiving the 1951 Lauterbach Award (December 3, 1952)]”
― William O. Douglas
“The fact is that censorship always defeats its own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion. In the long run it will create a generation incapable of appreciating the difference between independence of thought and subservience.”
― Henry Steele Commager
and thus, with an army of people with the morals of such that woudl agree and choose who to stand up for and who not to not by the fact they are human, alive, and ahve feelings – but whether they have value to you, their work has value to you, or if they at the very least do not annoy you.
right?
now we all know why the USA is no longer the USA… the ethics and morals that are the foundation of such, make way, and are murdred in their sleep by such reasoning.
“Most people do not really want others to have freedom of speech, they just want others to be given the freedom to say want they want to hear.”
― Mokokoma Mokhonoana
looks like i am in better company than most…
wouldnt you agree?
“Not to disparage anyone here, but Subotai Bahadur is simply my favorite blog commenter on the entire internet.”
I’ve encountered him before too. He’s a fine commenter.
neo-neocon i should have informed you of my little test, sorry i didnt… keep editing as you please..
but remember, the united states is a larger model of what we do in the smaller spaces of our existence…
if the lord of one manor has the right to do such, the lord of all the state has the same right… it cant be devided…
not without bringing up arguments of value, appreciation, opinion, etc… for those are the only things that then can justify the action…
what was the point of the procrustes story?
In the Greek myth, Procrustes was a son of Poseidon with a stronghold on Mount Korydallos at Erineus, on the sacred way between Athens and Eleusis There he had an iron bed, in which he invited every passer-by to spend the night, and where he set to work on them with his smith’s hammer, to stretch them to fit. In later tellings, if the guest proved too tall, Procrustes would amputate the excess length;
to point to what your saying.
the author of something should choose carefully where they publish, or else the keeper can erase their words… and its their fault they didnt choose a more favorable place…
this then puts the issue under Victim Blindness, or “They/He/She/ You should have seen it coming.”
it applies even greater responsibility to victims: whether they asked for it or not, they should have known their actions would be met with this unethical response, and their ignorance, carelessness or stupidity constitutes a waiver of ethics.
Clever, but nonsense. We do not judge the ethics of conduct according to the virtues, or lack of same, of its object. Rescuing a rotter from certain death is as admirable as rescuing an innocent child; horse-whipping a chiseling, cheating, wife-beating cannibal is still wrong. Predicting that another individual’s unethical conduct might follow from one’s own acts, good or bad, is irrelevant to the analysis of whether that subsequent conduct is right or wrong.
Stopping or avoiding unethical conduct that I know is coming may be wise and it may be prudent, and I may blame myself for failing to do either if that was possible, but the last person who has standing to blame me for my fate is the one doing me harm
and one does not get to say i think it does no harm, so it doesnt… which would be another ethical fallacy, no?
its an interesting deep question that requires a lot of thinking.. and the point of the supreme court and these choices are ones of ethics. morals, rights and choices..
if one cant understand this in themselves, then they cant understand this in terms of the court.
go tear up a piece of artwork
it does the creator no harm if you dont value it
but for some reason, the persons doing the writing, creating, sharing… dont feel that way.
i wonder why?
why have the sense of such if such is wrong?
it certainly would be much easier to just agree, and post in kind, and join the mob and not think… but then what?
by the way
what makes it ethical, but annoying (to me)
is that neo and i have an agreement on it
i should have mentioned that earlier, but it would have negated the point i was making as to how we life our lifes daily, should be no different ethically or morally from what we wish our statesmen to protect or faciliatate..
what makes us upset about roberts is that its obvious to us that he has warped the ethics we think should be in play (and his benchmates kind of agree too)…
but then, is the warping of ethics ethical?
is there status the kind that makes what they do ethical regardless of what they choose? or whether we like it?
without answering that, where do we derive the right to complain or disagree about it? its ethical, how can you disagree with an ethical ruling?
thats the larger point that i could not faciliate without a game, because when asked, people dont answer honestly as to the ethics they follow… ie. they are unethical as to their ethics.
On June 22, the Supreme Court released its decision in Horne v. Department of Agriculture. When I wrote about Horne after oral arguments last fall, I called it the “raisin ripoff” case because the federal government (specifically, the Department of Agriculture’s Raisin Administrative Committee) had demanded 47 percent of the Hornes’ crop for its “price stabilization” system back in 2002.
The value of those raisins was roughly $484,000. When the Hornes refused to obey the Department’s order to turn over the raisins, they were slapped with an assessment plus a fine amounting to $695,000. They fought back, arguing that the government had violated their rights under the Fifth Amendment because it sought to take their property without paying just compensation.
Litigation dragged on for years, with the case making two appearances in the Supreme Court.
Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion finally puts to rest the strained, desperate arguments that the government had hoped would keep this absurd policy going.
For one, he dismissed the claim that the Fifth Amendment was only meant to protect against takings of real property and that takings of personal property (like raisins) did not have to be compensated. Roberts noted that one of the reasons why the Constitution’s drafters included the just compensation requirement was that the people had suffered from uncompensated seizures of personal property by the British and did not want any of that in their new country.
Furthermore, he easily dealt with the Ninth Circuit’s idea that the taking of the property of raisin growers was constitutionally OK because the growers might benefit from the higher prices and also might get some money returned to them — besides which, no one forces them to go into the raisin business in the first place. “Selling produce in interstate commerce, although subject to reasonable governmental regulations, is similarly not a special benefit that the Government may hold hostage, to be ransomed by the waiver of constitutional protection,” Roberts replied.
The Court’s holding that the Department of Agriculture must pay just compensation if and when it takes growers’ output is a welcome defense of property rights. While the decision does not put an end to the Department’s manipulation of raisin prices or any of its other programs — it has “marketing orders” that cover twenty fruits and vegetables including pistachios, cranberries and tomatoes — having to pay for any crops taken will crimp these programs somewhat.
Artfldgr:
I refer you once again to my comments to you on the matter: this, this, this, and this.
Excerpt from the second link I listed:
I will add that a blog is akin to a person’s home, or speaking to someone on the phone. This blog is my abode and my statement to the world, not anyone else’s. Commenters are here as guests in my home. The fact that the blog is published is akin to my putting a webcam in my home and broadcasting the proceedings of a particular room, including the utterances of the guests therein, who realize I’ve got a webcam there. I am stopping no one from commenting outside this blog and abridging no one’s freedom of speech.
My two cents: I skip over almost anyone’s comments that go on beyond 3 or 4 paragraphs. I think commenters should try to be concise and edit themselves because – IT’S NOT THEIR BLOG.
I learned a long time ago to scroll past Art’s comments. He is writing for his own needs and in total disregard of Neo and others.
Mr. Frank:
The thing is that often Artfldgr has interesting information and thoughts to impart. The problem is locating them in the flood of verbiage.
Artfldgr: IIRC, I have seen neo respond to a point or argument you have made numerous times, always taking you seriously and respectfully.
That is a compliment to you, considering the source.
It is lacking humanity (not to mention common sense) to complain about gracious hospitality.
Mr. Frank: I agree with neo.
Artful has a lot of good stuff, if you can find it.
When people talk about length (IMO) what they really mean is coherence. Three paragraphs can be tedious and thirty a breeze.
I think about Artful when I read him, but really do not have a clue what is going on with him.
I actually feel somewhat disappointed when his incoherence defeats me. Somehow I like him a lot.
So now we have the big topics of the day, King v Burwell, Obergefell v Hodges, and Artfuldgr v Neo-neocon.
Which one does not involve Constitutional law?
Art does his own thing. There’s no reason for him to edit himself to suit somebody else’s fancy, but there’s also no reason for Neo to do the same for other people’s benefit.
Art doesn’t apply his own rules to other people, perhaps because Art doesn’t obey rules. He submits to other people’s rules.
People who cannot be convinced by reason or logic, I convince through rhetoric. Emotional appeal is their foundation of belief? Then I will smash the tide at it, if it is feasible.
I’ve only become more abrasive and less tolerant of evil, politicians, or fools that think themselves independent. For me, I have my own rules.
I didn’t intend to point to Galileo as an exception, although he is more popularly known as one than Gauss or others. But Art reminds me too much of Galileo, so it may not be a coincidence. Good at some things, but horrible at human persuasion, understanding human nature, and figuring out the social niceties of working with the Pope or the hierarchy. He is abrasive, Art is, not because he intends to but because it’s like he doesn’t know how to read a book about social etiquette. Me, on the other hand, knows the social rules… I just pay them no attention whatsoever. If they are useful, I will use them, but they hold no authority over me.
and I especially like your new flag. I have had little interest in owning a firearm, but I am now considering obtaining one if only to create an additional armed citizen.
Ton ,
I recommend a look at Target Focus Training. A great way to go under the radar, no documentation, ammo costs, and the ability to take as many weapons guerilla style from the gangs as you wish.
I am so angry. So many have just given up America. How stupid and absurd and childish they are.
I was angry in 2009-2012. Things became easier to accept once I fully accepted how far beneath me most humans really were. They had demonstrated their inferiority for years, decades, by now. I cannot admire them any more, even as an abstract species. Only exceptional individuals are what I can admire or respect, deeds, not a bunch of inherited American aristocratic freedoms.
When I begin to complain on this blog about being ignored, or about Neo’s shortening my posts, or how my life is ruined and over because of what some woman did to me, and how my art work is not appreciated, or given coverage and then I apparently do nothing to take people up who have offered to help get it coverage, feel free to remind me of it.
I don’t believe that your problem is so much that you are a “nobody” as the warped standard of moral worth you employ in order evaluate who and who is not a “nobody”.
Your moral evaluation system is so damned bent and other directed that:
1. you believe that lack of attention means that you are a “nobody” and
2, that you imagine that you as a result enjoy what amounts to some kind of moral leverage as such: one which accrues to the socially ignored or slighted.
You have a victim mentality if I may say so. One that seems to actually enjoy its ostensible helplessness and persecution, and to be ludicrously attuned to seeking social affirmation as a sign of moral worth … just like some goddamned groveling eastern European peasant.
Stand up, damn it. Even if you can only do so figuratively. This is the effen United States … or remains so for the moment, and the value of your life is not dependent on social approval.
So stop effen whining about being ignored. Make your point, and move on. Do you think that other people have a moral obligation to validate your existence when you won’t do it yourself?
Now I am going to offer you a qualified apology of sorts in my next reply. But that will be in response to another of your postings.
I had no idea that you were a disciple of Jesus Christ, and therefore a brother or sister in Christ, whether one of the least or not.
Is this part of your personal testimony?
You might not believe it Art, but many people nowadays have adopted the cynical and manipulative habit of quoting and presenting Jesus to others as a kind of unimpeachable or even Divine moral authority, while not actually calling Him “Lord” themselves. I am sure you would not stoop to that.
Why if you did, and it turned out that much to your surprise, that what you were cynically citing were true, why just imagine the potential consequences.
Because I am skating on thin ice in this respect myself, I generally avoid quoting the words of Jesus in The New Testament in order to admonish others, though I do do it for other ends on occasion.
” i wanted to thank you for making my point for me
that only the important and valued have a right to be heard in completeness…”
Sounds like what you are claiming is not a right to be free of Congressional abridgement of your political right to speak freely, but rather some social privilege of commanding a captive audience in whatever venue you choose for as long as you like.
I’m pretty familiar with the history of Anglo-Saxon social and legal traditions, and what you are insisting on certainly doesn’t come from that. Sounds more like one of those crappy Old Irish laws aimed at ensuring the emotional comfort of victims of embarrassment.
Quit feeling sorry for yourself in that regard. You write well enough to be understood. The problem is not that your wants are not understood, but that they are.
I don’t know what kind of person taught you your catechism, but they did you a great moral wrong.
Your existence is not socially justified. It is justified as a result of your being (according to the sense and message of the very Scriptures which you have yourself quoted) a person with an eternal destiny, and personally known to, and valued by the ultimate creative reality.
Just who infected you with this stinking “I am justified in life as an accepted member of the tribe” psychology, I do not know.
But insofar as I was sneering at someone so miserably misled by a contemptible moral formation, one that had left him psychologically debilitated by a false idol of acceptance, I do, under those terms, express my regrets.
“(according to the sense and message of the very Scriptures [from] which you have yourself quoted)”
Just who infected you with this stinking “I am justified in life as an accepted member of the tribe” psychology, I do not know.
Using my spy tech and Eye, I surmise that Art has been conditioned to behave in certain ways by those around him. Much like a dog can be beaten into submission and fear of everything around him.
DNW’s direct point about acclaiming a superior status of victimhood and benefits, is critical here.
Many people here have softened or withdrawn their criticism of Art because of the whole “Asperger’s” or other “handicap”. This only empowers a person to sustain their victim status for more power. They don’t want to improve since being miserable is actually more empowering and beneficial to them than shucking off the Victim Status.
Art gets some of his behaviors from the Leftists around him. They provide him the strongest stimuli and he often uses the internet as a way to vent. Because he’d be slapped silly and punished if he spit in the eye of his Leftist bosses or coworkers. He knows it. He may think the rest of us are too weak or stupid to call him on it, but some of us aren’t like that.
Whether Art knows it or not, there are plenty of people with his problems and handicaps. They are far stronger than Art though. That’s because people with issues can at times get the strength to change themselves ,for the better. And no Art, you don’t get to look down on the rest of us because you have problems. The words you quote, are not your own. You even recognize this when you talk about your own writing. If you are so smart and better than the rest of us who need to “think hard”, why can’t you become better at writing? Outperform us? Because you can’t or because you won’t?
Neo continues to work with AFD and has done so since I have been here (five and a half years).
It is impossible (for me) to understand AFD’s sobriquet. It has nothing to do with his posts.
In the scheme of Transactional Analysis, I find myself too often playing the vulnerable child role. I would love to think better of myself, as just the adult. Even past 60, the child within calls loudly. Alas.
Neo is the adult voice. She is the evenest keel.
Her blog voice is probably not the full picture, but maybe it is.
While in our minds we are busy with America, freedom, leftist manipulation and leftist psychological deformity, we are also being ourselves.
And being ourselves is America and freedom. If only people could see that.
Artful needs a lot of emotional comfort, and his expectations are not always fair, although what difference it makes is up for grabs.
It makes a minor difference. When the Leftist slave overlords order Art to commit his time and resources to helping the Left conquer us, Art will most likely obey.
What’s ironic is that Art likes to lecture us about helping the Left by doing X or not doing Y.
The person lacking a spine is the one that’s going to obey the Leftist overlords the most. It’s merely logical.