Nobody demolishes the progressive mantras more efficiently...

[Lukey]

Than Charles Krauthammer:

The administration’s case for the constitutionality of Obamacare was so thoroughly demolished in oral argument that one liberal observer called it “a train wreck.” It is perfectly natural, therefore, that a majority of the court should side with the argument that had so clearly prevailed on its merits. That’s not partisanship. That’s logic. Partisanship is four Democrat-appointed justices giving lock-step support to a law passed by a Democratic Congress and a Democratic president — after the case for its constitutionality had been reduced to rubble.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-obama-v-scotus/2012/04/05/gIQAZ41txS_story.html?hpid=z2

Amen! You know the progressives are lying whenever their lips are moving...

 

[Arkady]

The case for Constitutionality is unassailable. There is a whole cluster of precedents all around this, which have stood the test of time. Government has long forced people into insurance, including medical insurance, with the only difference being that the people hand their money to government rather than to private enterprise. And the government has long created a whole host of precedents that effectively force people to buy things from private enterprise. That goes all the way back to the Militia Act of the late 18th century, which effectively forced a huge number of citizens to buy certain weapons and equipment. And, to this day, there are all sorts of federal rules that for all practical purposes force people (and "corporate people") to contract with private parties. For example, if I want to go boating, I need a Coast-Guard-certified PFD, which the government doesn't sell, so I need to buy one from a private enterprise (and, depending on the boat, I also have to buy Coast-Guard-certified flares, fire extinguishers, and other equipment). Publicly-listed corporations have to hire private entities as independent auditors. If the Supreme Court wants to strike down the healthcare mandate without throwing away all that long-precedented practice, it will need to very carefully craft a ruling tailored exactly to fit between the cracks of all those precedents, so that the only federal action that isn't allowed is making people buy private health insurance. In other words, the Supreme Court will have to start with its desired POLICY GOAL and then come up with a set of supposed legal principles sufficient to achieve that policy goal without accidentally interfering with all the vast number of similar things the government does. That's EXACTLY the kind of thing a court is NOT supposed to do. It's supposed to start with legal principles and then work from there.

As for Krauthammer, he's one of the most useful commentators in Washington, in that he's wrong about pretty much everything.

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2009/08/the-trouble-with-charles-krauthammer

If you're trying to figure out a tough issue and having trouble, read Krauthammer and assume whatever he has written is incorrect, and chances are you're right. For example, if you're confused by the conflicting reports and unsure whether Iraq really has massive stockpiles of WMDs, check out Krauthammer's columns. If he's been going on and on for weeks about Iraq's WMDs, there's a good chance it has none. If you're unsure about Clinton's planned policy of using airstrikes in Kosovo, read Krauthammer. If he's been blathering about how such a policy is doomed to dismal failure, you can be confident it will be an unmitigated success. How many other commentators are that useful?

Krauthammer's also great for having given us a new holiday: Krauthammer Day

http://thinkprogress.org/media/2011/04/22/184686/happy-krauthammer-day/

 

[Lukey]

The case for Constitutionality is unassailable. There is a whole cluster of precedents all around this, which have stood the test of time. Government has long forced people into insurance, including medical insurance, with the only difference being that the people hand their money to government rather than to private enterprise. And the government has long created a whole host of precedents that effectively force people to buy things from private enterprise. That goes all the way back to the Militia Act of the late 18th century, which effectively forced a huge number of citizens to buy certain weapons and equipment. And, to this day, there are all sorts of federal rules that for all practical purposes force people (and "corporate people") to contract with private parties. For example, if I want to go boating, I need a Coast-Guard-certified PFD, which the government doesn't sell, so I need to buy one from a private enterprise (and, depending on the boat, I also have to buy Coast-Guard-certified flares, fire extinguishers, and other equipment). Publicly-listed corporations have to hire private entities as independent auditors. If the Supreme Court wants to strike down the healthcare mandate without throwing away all that long-precedented practice, it will need to very carefully craft a ruling tailored exactly to fit between the cracks of all those precedents, so that the only federal action that isn't allowed is making people buy private health insurance. In other words, the Supreme Court will have to start with its desired POLICY GOAL and then come up with a set of supposed legal principles sufficient to achieve that policy goal without accidentally interfering with all the vast number of similar things the government does. That's EXACTLY the kind of thing a court is NOT supposed to do. It's supposed to start with legal principles and then work from there.

As for Krauthammer, he's one of the most useful commentators in Washington, in that he's wrong about pretty much everything.

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2009/08/the-trouble-with-charles-krauthammer

If you're trying to figure out a tough issue and having trouble, read Krauthammer and assume whatever he has written is incorrect, and chances are you're right. For example, if you're confused by the conflicting reports and unsure whether Iraq really has massive stockpiles of WMDs, check out Krauthammer's columns. If he's been going on and on for weeks about Iraq's WMDs, there's a good chance it has none. If you're unsure about Clinton's planned policy of using airstrikes in Kosovo, read Krauthammer. If he's been blathering about how such a policy is doomed to dismal failure, you can be confident it will be an unmitigated success. How many other commentators are that useful?

Krauthammer's also great for having given us a new holiday: Krauthammer Day

http://thinkprogress.org/media/2011/04/22/184686/happy-krauthammer-day/

LOL! THE Barret Brown?

 

[NightSwimmer]

Charles Krauthammer:

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! ...

 

[Old Ridge Runner]

For example, if I want to go boating, I need a Coast-Guard-certified PFD, which the government doesn't sell, so I need to buy one from a private enterprise (and, depending on the boat, I also have to buy Coast-Guard-certified flares, fire extinguishers, and other equipment).

However, if you do not have a boat are you still required by the government (Coast Guard) to purchase that item? that is the jest of the argument, does the government have the right to force a person to purchase something that they do not wish to purchase.

 

[TomFitz]

Charles Krauthammer begins his article with a lie and works his way up from there.

The right wing noise machine has exploded with its customary exaggerated outrage and all the dittoheads are nodding and chanting on cue.

It was clear to anyone with a brain that the President's remarks reflected his background and opinion on the specific issue being litigated before the court last week:i.e. the Commerce Clause (the Necessary and Proper clause).

Within that context, not only were the President's remarks correct, but they also reflected the concensus of most of the nation's legal scholars (including many conservatives).

But, of course, conserative media knows that it's audience's understanding of the Constitution and the Supreme Court is pretty much limited to what they hear on talk radio and talk radio with pictures (Fox), and can be scrawled on a homemade sign at a tea party rally (that is, if you can find one anymore).

So they have to sell the phoney outrage and gin up the base by falsely conflating the President's remarks to suggest that the President actually said that for the Court to overturn ANY law would be unprecidented.

And Krauthammer is walking the talking points.

Of course, the idea is idiotic on its face.

Barack Obama taught constitution law, and is clearly familiar with the fact that the court overturn legislation. He even mentioned Marbury vs. Madison recently.

But to be sure, Jay Carney clarified the matter the next day.

This wasn't enough for the right wing loonies or the so called "liberal media" which is parroting the right wing line on this.

Krauthammer falsely claims that ACA passed without a single vote from the opposing party. He goes on to walk the dishonest construct that this is in contrast to landmark legislation passed in the 1960's. Of course, he's been around long enough to know that Washington and the Democratic and Republican parties were far different then, and not polarized as they are now. But promoting the myth that they were as polarized then as they are now is standard practice in right wing media today.

Krauthammer then falsely claims that "liberal" were unprepared for the post hoc argument (If Congress can force the individual into a private contract by authority of the commerce clause, what can it not force the individual to do? ). Verelli didn't discuss the question in his remarks because the idea is so bogus. It's the kind of argument worthy of a trash blog, and had been floating around for weeks. EVERYONE expected the more radical conservatives to bring it up, and they did.

Krauthammer then goes on to declare premature partisan victory for his cause.

Of course, he never mentions consequences, asks where the GOP health care reform plan is, or talks about what might happen of only parts of the ACA are overturned.

That would require nuance, and thoughtfullness. And none of those things are desirable when you're walking the talking points.

 

[Woolleybugger]

Reminds me of comments on Youtube that David Lane Craig just demolished Sam Harris when he said the proof that Jesus rose is right there in the Bible. Herr Charles is someone that needs desperately to shed his coat and tie, grab a bottle of Tequila and get lost in a brothel in the Phillipines for about a month. I have never seen a more uptight dude in my entire life.

 

[Cerulean Mutt]

I'm sure he would if he could - Mr. Krauthammer is a quadraplegic.

Disability aside, he's a hack.

 

[Old Ridge Runner]

I'm sure he would if he could - Mr. Krauthammer is a quadraplegic.

Disability aside, he's a hack.

Way to go in defending the rights of the disabled. Isn't it the left that say they are always fighting for the rights of the minority? I guess that is only for the minorities that think like them.

 

[Cerulean Mutt]

What the hell are you babbling about? What rights of disabled persons have I advocated being revoked in my post?

 

[GordonGecko]

An opinion piece by Dr. Krauthammer.....Lukey won't particularly care for.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/07/krauthammer-romney-not-a-strong-frontrunner-gets-weaker-not-stronger-every-week/

 

[Number_58]

And, to this day, there are all sorts of federal rules that for all practical purposes force people (and "corporate people") to contract with private parties. For example, if I want to go boating, I need a Coast-Guard-certified PFD, which the government doesn't sell, so I need to buy one from a private enterprise (and, depending on the boat, I also have to buy Coast-Guard-certified flares, fire extinguishers, and other equipment). Publicly-listed corporations have to hire private entities as independent auditors.

Big difference being, this isn't forcing EVERYONE to do this...the only reason one would have to purchase the required boating equipment is if they want to boat...if I choose not to boat, I am not forced to purchase any of this. This is the exact same thing as auto insurance requirements...if I don't choose to drive a car (and there are millions of Americans that don't) they aren't required to purchase auto insurance.

If I don't own a corporation or a business, I am not required to pay for auditors.

 

[Number_58]

Well thought out and reasoned retort...about what most of us expected though.

 

[Arkady]

However, if you do not have a boat are you still required by the government (Coast Guard) to purchase that item? that is the jest of the argument, does the government have the right to force a person to purchase something that they do not wish to purchase.

If the argument is whether the government has the right to force a person to purchase something that he does not wish to purchase, that's been settled. If the Coast Guard comes out with some new safety rule, requiring me to carry a piece of equipment on my boat, and I don't already own that equipment, I've got to buy it. Yes, I could get around it by never boating again, but that effectively fines me the value of the boat I own, since it is no longer worth anything to me if I don't make that federally-required purchase (or worth less to me if I confine myself to uses that don't trigger the Coast Guard requirement). Well, it's the same thing with healthcare. If I choose not to buy the required healthcare, I get fined the value of that tax hit.

It's also no defense to say "well that only requires boat-owners to buy things, so it doesn't matter, since most people don't own boats." Well, in exactly the same way the health care mandate doesn't matter to most people, since we already get health insurance through our employers or the federal government (Medicare), so it's just the minority of people who don't have health care who are being made to buy something -- and I wouldn't be surprised if nearly as many people as that own boats.

And, as I mentioned, there's the Militia Act, which was passed into law in the time of the Founders. It clearly FORCED people to buy things.... and there was no way to get around it. If the Founders themselves didn't have a problem with forcing people to buy things, why should we?

And then there's Medicare. We're all FORCED to buy into the Medicare system. Why is that any different? Just because the "seller" is the government? Why does that matter? Isn't that a meaningless distinction. Could the government fix the problem with the healthcare mandate simply by taxing people the exact same amount and then giving them a tax credit for that amount if they buy healthcare? It would seem the absolute height of legal absurdity to have the government play that ridiculous game, when it made not one iota of difference in the end result for anyone, and yet that's the kind of weird double standard that would be created if the Supreme Court invented a crazy new Constitutional principle that tried to distinguish between a credits-based Medicare reform of the kind the Republicans have been pushing and the healthcare mandate that Obama got passed.

 

[Arkady]

The healthcare mandate isn't forcing the vast majority of people to do anything. We already have healthcare through our employers or the government. So, if your problem was your mistaken notion that the mandate forced everyone to do something, then your problem has been solved. Next issue?

 

[Number_58]

Answer this...are the millions of people who...by choice or otherwise...don't have insurance right now going to be forced to purchase health insurance at the risk of being fiscally penalized?

 

[Woolleybugger]

That explains it then. I did not know he was disabled.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Than Charles Krauthammer:

The administration’s case for the constitutionality of Obamacare was so thoroughly demolished in oral argument that one liberal observer called it “a train wreck.” It is perfectly natural, therefore, that a majority of the court should side with the argument that had so clearly prevailed on its merits. That’s not partisanship. That’s logic. Partisanship is four Democrat-appointed justices giving lock-step support to a law passed by a Democratic Congress and a Democratic president — after the case for its constitutionality had been reduced to rubble.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-obama-v-scotus/2012/04/05/gIQAZ41txS_story.html?hpid=z2

Amen! You know the progressives are lying whenever their lips are moving...

Yeah....this is what I was talking about last week. Just about everyone, on the right and the left, concedes that the 4 leftist justices will be voting lockstep in favor of Obamacare....yet the left was accusing any con justices of playing politics if they voted to strike it down, even though they also conceded that they were the only justices who were willing to hear the arguments for and against before making up their minds.

So you can always count on a leftist justice to vote for the leftist argument, you can often count on at least some of the con justices to be willing to vote with the left if the merit of the argument warrants it, but the con justices are the partisan ones. Makes sense, huh? lol

 

[Old Ridge Runner]

If the argument is whether the government has the right to force a person to purchase something that he does not wish to purchase, that's been settled. If the Coast Guard comes out with some new safety rule, requiring me to carry a piece of equipment on my boat, and I don't already own that equipment, I've got to buy it. Yes, I could get around it by never boating again, but that effectively fines me the value of the boat I own, since it is no longer worth anything to me if I don't make that federally-required purchase (or worth less to me if I confine myself to uses that don't trigger the Coast Guard requirement). Well, it's the same thing with healthcare. If I choose not to buy the required healthcare, I get fined the value of that tax hit.

On the contrary, it is still of worth to you. You can always sale it and get into something else that is not regulated. So being of not worth is simply not true.

It's also no defense to say "well that only requires boat-owners to buy things, so it doesn't matter, since most people don't own boats." Well, in exactly the same way the health care mandate doesn't matter to most people, since we already get health insurance through our employers or the federal government (Medicare), so it's just the minority of people who don't have health care who are being made to buy something -- and I wouldn't be surprised if nearly as many people as that own boats.

So in your way of thinking, since most have insurance either through their employer of the government, that in itself justifies the government to require those who do not have it to buy it? I do not have a bicycle so should the government require me to buy one because say you have one? That dog don't hunt, we are suppose to have freedom of choice in this country.

And, as I mentioned, there's the Militia Act, which was passed into law in the time of the Founders. It clearly FORCED people to buy things.... and there was no way to get around it. If the Founders themselves didn't have a problem with forcing people to buy things, why should we?

Ahhhhh, is the law still on the books or has it been repealed? If it is still enforce and you didn't have a firearm and didn't believe in having one, than should you be forced to purchase one? What about those who are conscienious objecter, would they be required to buy a firearm?

And then there's Medicare. We're all FORCED to buy into the Medicare system. Why is that any different? Just because the "seller" is the government? Why does that matter? Isn't that a meaningless distinction. Could the government fix the problem with the healthcare mandate simply by taxing people the exact same amount and then giving them a tax credit for that amount if they buy healthcare? It would seem the absolute height of legal absurdity to have the government play that ridiculous game, when it made not one iota of difference in the end result for anyone, and yet that's the kind of weird double standard that would be created if the Supreme Court invented a crazy new Constitutional principle that tried to distinguish between a credits-based Medicare reform of the kind the Republicans have been pushing and the healthcare mandate that Obama got passed.

And that is the problem with government mandates, it takes away the persons self determination in the fact that the person can not determine what is best for himself. I would have rather seen an insurance plan that the person would carry throughout his lifetime and than use medicare as a backup plan for those who did not have a plan. Not to mention what our illustrious representatives in the House and Senate would do with the money that comes out of our checks for universal healthcare. We have already seen what they did with Social Security, placing IOUs in while draining the trust fund, if they had been responsible and invested the excess fund Social Security would not be facing the troubles down the road that are predicted. It will be the same the healthcare act. The exess funds will be skimmed off the top intead of being in vested for the cronically ill and future generaltion.

 

[Old Ridge Runner]

The healthcare mandate isn't forcing the vast majority of people to do anything. We already have healthcare through our employers or the government. So, if your problem was your mistaken notion that the mandate forced everyone to do something, then your problem has been solved. Next issue?

The issue is not solved. You have health insurance from your employer, so you will not be forced to buy it wherther you could afford it or not. However, it is ok to force someone else to but the insurance as long as it is not you.