Yea and you can walk into a Safeway or a Vons and buy a bottle of whiskey or vodka..

Try doing THAT in Oregon! :D

Michale
403

Oregon has always been cool. At least, according to the folks who live there.

It's always fun, driving north from CA, seeing that sign at the border:

"Welcome to Oregon. Please resume normal driving habits."

Heh. But at least we're allowed to pump our own gas...

:-)

-CW

Welcome to the Dark Side!! :D

Michale
The Big Four Oh..... oh...

I don't absolutely trust it: when someone wants to push a nasty reactionary agenda on some topic, they tend to call it "reform". But then again, I don't absolutely trust folks on my side of the political divide either. So I'm somewhat optimistic. What Koch and his spokesperson are quoted as saying sounds good so far. And the system is so broken that if we get even a mixed bag of reforms and "reforms", it's likely to be a net improvement.

And, I am constrained to point out that discrimination wasn't the goal..

The goal was to incentivize the states to set up their own exchanges by making it cost-prohibitive NOT to set up an exchange..

This is a direct quote from the guy who was given all the factual info on TrainWreckCare so he could make a qualified analysis of the mess...

Michale
394

Then the law itself is discriminatory because THAT is how the law was written.

And, according to Gruber, THAT is the *INTENT* of the law..

Why would Gruber say that if it wasn't factual???

Michale
387

You really can't compare then to now..

Because, in effect, Roberts DID scuttle ObamaCare as a mandate and re-wrote it as a tax...

I agree that the question "Why would Roberts go to so much trouble to save it then, only to whack it now?" is a valid question with no good answer..

But I keep going back to the 2 previous rulings Roberts made that were similar to the case before Roberts now..

And those rulings followed the letter and words of the law as it is written, not as one of the PARTYs involved wanted to interpret it..

You know that the SCOTUS would have had to discuss taking the case before hand. Why would those 4 judges decide to take the case if they had ANY thought that Roberts would save it again??

The ONLY thing that makes sense is that Roberts had indicated he might rule with the 4 and that's why the 4 took the case..

The fact that the case is even IN the SCOTUS is a pretty good indication as to how the case will go...

Michale
386

:-(

-CW

If you haven't seen the South Park Redskins episode, check it out, it's hilarious! (link is somewhere above...)

-CW

I base my prediction about SCOTUS and Obamacare on a few things, some legal, some political.

The fact that SCOTUS took the case up means perhaps 4 votes against it. Or, possibly, it means the conservatives on the court are annoyed that Obama finally filled it out, and liberal judges now have a big majority on the court. They grabbed the case before the whole circuit court could rule en banc, which (like I said) could be due to just annoyed conservative SCOTUS justices. Who really knows?

Legally, there are many precedents (plenty Roberts has joined in) showing that the totality of the law as written -- meaning looking at the context outside of one clause -- is what should guide judges.

Also, on the legal side, the court would have to rule that citizens in some of the states are entitled to federal subsidies, while the others aren't. That's pretty discriminatory, in this day and age. So there's a strong equality argument to be made as well.

Politically, ask yourself: how sure were you that SCOTUS was going to overturn Obamacare in the previous case? Roberts didn't take that opportunity. Why would he do so now, when it would be even more politically contentious? Roberts -- unlike every other justice -- thinks of "his court's legacy" since his name gets put on it ("the Roberts Court" as opposed to "the Warren Court" or whatever). Roberts is much more aware of public opinion than all the other conservatives on the court. So there's that.

There are many easy legal ways to rule for Obamacare, and only one to rule against it. The easiest way would be to rule that "the state" merely means "the government" (as it is used in many laws), or that each state has indeed set up its own exchange -- the subset of the federal exchange that deals with their state.

I wouldn't be counting chickens on this one, if I was you. I'd only put the chances of SCOTUS ruling against Obamacare at 50/50, at best.

We'll know end of June, most likely (might rule before that, but I doubt it).

nypoet22 -

Hey, I was just supporting Liz running, not Liz winning! Heh. And re-read that article knowing that Liz ran and then decided herself it was a lost cause and ended her campaign. Kind of looks like just a PR stunt, knowing how it ended, huh? Cheney's never going to be able to run for anything in WY again, that's for sure. (also, that was July of 2013!)

Speak2 -

I actually thought about that when pointing it out -- but it'll be the only one with the "only two states who have legalized". Even if Denver and Seattle play again, it'll still be "the only two states that have legalized that have NFL teams."

:-)

Michale -

There sure would be a lot of "peace pipe" headlines, that's my guess.

Oh, yeah, Speak2 -

Michale brings up a good point. DC's legalized! Now, if you want to be pedantic, well, they play in Maryland, but still...

Also, they're certainly not going to any Super Bowls any time soon, there is that, too...

Heh.

-CW

Which brings up the question...

Will potheads forgive the Washington Redskins if they participate in a Weed Bowl??? :D

Michale
383

I am also constrained to point out that "Obama Unleashed" might have the un-intended consequence of scorching DEMOCRATS in 2016..

Remember how un-scripted Obama said "Make no mistake, my policies are on the November ballot, each and every one of them" thereby giving Republicans an added boost in their "A vote for Candidate X is a vote for Obama polices" message...

Remember also how Obama pushed a Wall Street Giveaway in the budget over the finish line...

Finally, Obama's "Americans Want A New Car Smell" message was a not so subtle dig at Hillary Clinton's anticipated campaign...

An unleashed Obama may not be the Leftist's friend ya might be envisioning... :D

Michale
382

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2013/07/18/run-liz-run/

"The Court's decision to grant King substantially increases the odds that the government will lose this case," wrote Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/health-care/the-supreme-court-really-might-destroy-obamacare-this-time-20141107

The key here is going to be, again, Chief Justice Roberts..

But there is a window into Roberts' mind as to how he might rule.

In two previous rulings, the Chief Justice went with the wording of the law, rather than the loose interpretation that one of the Partys wanted...

So, if this precedent holds, then Roberts will go with the wording of TrainWreckCare and the subsidies for those states who did not set up an exchange will be revoked..

There is also evidence that the wording of the law is clear and was intended to provide a carrot and a stick.. The states set up their own exchanges or they don't get the subsidies.. According to Gruber, who WAS in a position to know, that was the intent of the law..

So, the ONLY way that TrainWreckCare survives is if Roberts ignores the letter of the law and, instead focuses on the ramifications of his ruling..

As I mentioned, in two previous rulings, Roberts went with the letter of the law..

Doesn't bode well for TrainWreckCare...

We'll know in.. What?? June??? July???

Michale
381

Come now, let's be accurate here..

Obama *PROPOSED* an emissions control deal with China..

A POTUS cannot "cut a deal" with a foreign power on their own...

And, let's look at the "deal" that Obama proposed..

The US will have to cut pollution emissions by 40% by 2030..

China doesn't have to cut ANYTHING by 2030... By 2030, China has to be willing to DISCUSS cuts in their emissions...

That is the "deal" that Obama proposed...

Now, I don't know how it is in LaLa liberal land, but here in the real world that isn't a "deal"...

That's a total capitulation and surrender to China...

The US would have been a LOT better off if Obama HAD curled up into a ball and whined...

I'm just sayin'....

Michale
380

And a nod to Lt Sulu... Can't get much better than that.. :D

At least THAT slogan has the advantage of, yunno.. being ACCURATE.. :D

I just have one minor nitpick... Or, more accurately, a question..

Another court prediction: the Supreme Court will toss out the lawsuit against Obamacare that is trying to deny health insurance subsidies to people who live in states that use the federal HealthCare.gov exchange. John Roberts will once again shock conservatives by being the deciding vote in favor of Obamacare.

Do you base this prediction on the law or on the idea that the Chief Justice won't want to mess with what's working??

Just curious..

All in all, an awesome commentary.. :D

Michale
379