and if the same had happened with segregation, it could have lasted another thirty years. Some issues the people gradually work out for themselves, but for others they need to be dragged forward kicking and screaming. Which is which, not such an easy question.

JL

And THAT is Ginsberg's argument...

If abortion had been allowed to work it's way thru society BY THE PEOPLE, it's entirely likely that it would not be the Lightning Rod issue it is today...

The exact same reasoning can be used for the gay marriage debate...

Let society work it thru... If it is FORCED on people, then they will simply resist all the more...

Michale

Because it was STILL marriage, defined as "MAN" and "WOMAN"..

There was no changing of the definition..

The decision that stands before the SCOTUS in the here and now is, "Do we change the definition of marriage that has stood for thousands of years?"

And, if they decide to change it NOW, what's to stop it from being changed in 10 years when a woman wants to marry her pot-bellied pig or a man wants to marry his porsche??

Absolutely nothing...

Now, a generation later, interracial relationships and marriage have wide acceptance. How is gay marriage going to be any different, when race was a so much more violently charged issue???

For the same reasons that abortion is such a lightning rod/hot button issue decades after the decision was handed down..

THAT is the point GINSBERG is making, not me..

Argue with her about it..

Michale

"Gay Marriage will **NEVER** be accepted in the United States unless it is ALLOWED to be accepted by the people of the United States...
It's THAT simple...
And THAT is what the real issue is about..
Acceptance..
And you cannot legislate acceptance..."

Ok Michale, I will beat this dead horse one more time for you, and then I will drop it.

In 1967 the Supreme Court forced interracial marriage on the nation, even though all opinion polls said that a majority of the country at the time was against it. It did not happen either through the "will of the people" or by people voting on it or for it, but by judicial fiat. Now, a generation later, interracial relationships and marriage have wide acceptance. How is gay marriage going to be any different, when race was a so much more violently charged issue???

Using that reasoning, the SCOTUS "telegraphed" that they would rule AGAINST TrainWreckCare...

Or, CW's reasoning that it only takes 4 justices to take a case puts a dent in your "telegraph" theory..

You can't have it both ways... Much as you want to...

Michale

But Obama and the Democrats have refused the fix...

So, stick THAT with your fork and chew on it.. :D

Michale

Switch the Partys...

Would the Left be so gung ho to have Democrats bail out Republicans over a VERY unpopular Republican law??

Of course not...

So, it's silly for ya'all to blame Republicans for not pulling Democrats' arses out of a fire of the Democrats' own making...

Michale

Why didn't Democrats fix it??

The first subsidies lawsuit came out while Democrats still had the power...

They could have easily fixed it....

But they didn't..

This is a Democrat Law....

When it goes belly up, it's only wishful thinking fantasy that Republicans will get the blame..

Democrats lived by the sword.. Now they are going to get cut and cut bad by the sword...

Michale

I am also constrained to point out that Gruber was in a LOT more of the "rooms" than Snowe ever was..

That, and the fact that his statements came out PRE-Lawsuit, is the determining factors...

IMNSHO....

Michale

It's THAT simple...

And THAT is what the real issue is about..

Acceptance..

And you cannot legislate acceptance...

Ireland realized that. Which is why they went to a public vote..

Why FORCE this on people who don't want to accept it??

Ya'all just HAVE to realize that forcing gay lifestyle on people makes them resist it more...

Michale

You keep forgetting Michale, that when the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeals on cases where the Lower courts ruled in FAVOR of gay marriage, like from the 9th circuit, the vote was 7 to 2 by the Supreme Court in FAVOR of letting the lower court ruling stand legalizing gay marriage. They only took a case when the ruling went the other way, AGAINST gay marriage. That telegraphs that the Supreme Court is going to rule in FAVOR of gay marriage.

That doesn't explain Kennedy's statement..

You are also forgetting Michale, that Ginsburg and Kagan have both officiated at gay marriage ceremonies recently. If Ginsburg was going to rule AGAINST gay marriage, do you really think she would show up at a wedding and PERFORM a gay marriage ceremony herself???

So??

Ginsberg believes in abortion. But she has publicly stated that she would have voted differently on abortion knowing what she knows now. Knowing that by voting FOR abortion, it actually made things WORSE...

It doesn't take a Spock to realize that Ginsberg might be applying the same logic to the Gay Marriage issue.

Sure, Ginsberg is for gay marriage.. But, by her own words, it is logical to consider she might vote AGAINST it so that gay marriage in the US can be passed BY THE PEOPLE...

Not have it imposed...

"Those who hate and fight must stop it themselves or it is never really stopped."
-Spock, STAR TREK, Day Of The Dove

Gay Marriage will **NEVER** be accepted in the United States unless it is ALLOWED to be accepted by the people of the United States...

It's THAT simple...

Michale

This one is almost considered a "done deal" by most liberals,

I know..

But Israel was ALSO considered a "done deal" by liberals..

England was ALSO considered a "done deal" by liberals..

I'm just sayin'... :D

OK, this one is a closer call, I'll admit that. And you might turn out to be right. But SCOTUS takes cases on only 4 votes, so don't count your own chickens too early.

True.. But I am certain that the CJ put his two cents worth in prior to the decision to take the case or not..

It makes no sense for the 4 conservatives to take the case if Roberts had made clear he would uphold TrainWreckCare..

But I still say if Roberts had wanted to gut it, he would have done it. Remember, you were awfully confident about that case too.

I stated that the SCOTUS would rule that the mandate was unconstitutional.. And, by converting the mandate to a tax, that is EXACTLY what the SCOTUS did...

OK, so Olympia Snowe (R) is totally wrong?

If she is furthering the "typo" argument, yes she is totally wrong..

Find me ONE instance, ONE report, even one HINT that indicates this "typo" was actually a typo before the lawsuit was known...

You can't... It's nothing more than the Quickie Mart lottery ticket..

Last I checked, Gruber was neither on this committee, nor even a member of the US Senate.

Yet, he was STILL intimately involved in the creation process.. even more so than Snowe...

I'll listen to the Republican woman who was in the room over him, sorry.

Ex squeeze me?? Yer going to listen to a Republican over a Democrat's fair-haired boy???

Stop the world!!! I want to get off!!! :D

Republicans will get the blame because they'll refuse to pass a one-sentence bill to fix the problem.

The lawsuits were initiated in while Democrats still had majority control.. They could have fixed the problem if they had wanted to..

I am also constrained to point out that Joe Sixpack would think it's ridiculous that Republicans should have to bail out Democrat for the Democrats' own bonehead mistakes..

Michale

You keep forgetting Michale, that when the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeals on cases where the Lower courts ruled in FAVOR of gay marriage, like from the 9th circuit, the vote was 7 to 2 by the Supreme Court in FAVOR of letting the lower court ruling stand legalizing gay marriage. They only took a case when the ruling went the other way, AGAINST gay marriage. That telegraphs that the Supreme Court is going to rule in FAVOR of gay marriage.

EXCCELLENT point! I'm sitting here applauding!

:-)

Also, Ireland has a totally different constitution than we do, so while theirs required amending (which they can do, I should point out, by national referendum, something we don't have), ours may dictate that marriage equality becomes the law of the land.

I have to say, I was pretty proud of Ireland's citizens.

-CW

The Supreme Court is going to rule in FAVOR of gay marriage, otherwise why let all the many previous multiple Lower Circuit Court rulings in favor of gay marriage stand?

"Kennedy's statement regarding changing a definition that has been with us for thousands of years is pretty indicative of how he will vote.."

You keep forgetting Michale, that when the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeals on cases where the Lower courts ruled in FAVOR of gay marriage, like from the 9th circuit, the vote was 7 to 2 by the Supreme Court in FAVOR of letting the lower court ruling stand legalizing gay marriage. They only took a case when the ruling went the other way, AGAINST gay marriage. That telegraphs that the Supreme Court is going to rule in FAVOR of gay marriage.

"Ginsberg's statement regarding that she would change her vote in Roe V Wade if she could is also indicative of how she will vote..."

You are also forgetting Michale, that Ginsburg and Kagan have both officiated at gay marriage ceremonies recently. If Ginsburg was going to rule AGAINST gay marriage, do you really think she would show up at a wedding and PERFORM a gay marriage ceremony herself???

"As much as I disagree with what Ireland did, it's simply undeniable that Ireland definitely went about it the right way..

THAT is how it has to be done here in the US.."

No, it is NOT how it is done here in the USA. Ireland did it by popular vote because that is the ONLY way they could amend their constitution. The USA has a completely different process. No one is IMPOSING gay marriage on anyone! Don't worry Michale, once it becomes legal, you still won't have to get gay married if you don't want to!

Because Republicans have been the party screaming about it, suing about it, and they could fix it in Congress if they wanted to. But won't.

Oh wait, CW said that.

What CW said.

-David

Yeah, me too. Rosy-colored glasses firmly in place...

Heh.

Michale [2] -

That's interesting. Especially your hat-tip to Ireland for doing it through the ballot box.

This one is almost considered a "done deal" by most liberals, at least from what I can tell. The gay rights activist community has largely been shifting their focus to what they see as their next big battle -- getting "sexual orientation" added to the federal civil rights laws. Right now, it's up to state law, but if there was a federal law then gays couldn't be discriminated against for housing, employment, etc., in every state. You can still get fired for being gay in roughly half the states, I believe (I'd have to look up the exact number).

But you're saying they're counting their chickens on Obergefell. It'll be interesting to see, but I bet the court votes pretty much the same way it did on the previous two gay marriage cases (my "6-3" prediction was total optimism, I do admit... but I'd bet a large pile of Quatloos that SCOTUS is about to say gay marriage is a constitutional right).

Oh, um, we have a bunch of new readers, so here is what a Quatloo is.

Considered the currency of choice here at CW.com for these sorts of wagers!

Michale [3] -

OK, this one is a closer call, I'll admit that. And you might turn out to be right. But SCOTUS takes cases on only 4 votes, so don't count your own chickens too early.

But I still say if Roberts had wanted to gut it, he would have done it. Remember, you were awfully confident about that case too.

:-)

Michale [4] -

7-2? Hoo boy. The stack of Quatloos in front of me just got a LOT higher!

Heh.

I will agree with this: the King case will probably be 5-4, no matter which way it goes.

dsws [5] -

I read a very interesting article about two months ago from a very lawyerly point of view (cited a bunch of precedents) on King. There are probably similar ones out there, and I expect more as the announcement gets closer.

The biggest precedent is "Chevron" (search "Chevron Supreme Court case" and it'll likely pop up). This states that bureaucrats are able to interpret congressional lawmaking when the lawmaking is either contradictory or not well defined. There are many MANY other cases, however, when the Supremes essentially said "the rest of this law makes absolutely no sense if this one phrase is taken literally, therefore the phrase can be interpreted as a part of the intent of the whole law." MANY other cases -- some of them very prominent conservative decisions (some so recent that current conservative justices wrote the opinons that say this).

So while I didn't save the link, I bet you can find a legal reasoning type of argument pretty easily, but how much chaff appears in Google might depend on the search terms used.

Michale [6] -

OK, so Olympia Snowe (R) is totally wrong? Just checking, if you haven't read her quote you should. She was on the committee that WROTE the legislation. Last I checked, Gruber was neither on this committee, nor even a member of the US Senate. I'll listen to the Republican woman who was in the room over him, sorry.

akadjian [9] -

Yeah, I'm hoping I'm right too. King's gonna be a nail-biter, that's for sure.

Michale [10] -

Republicans will get the blame because they'll refuse to pass a one-sentence bill to fix the problem. "Where it says 'state' it will now read 'state or federal government.'" There you go, all fixed! But the GOP will block this bill, and thus reap the blame when 6+ million people lose their subsidies.

So far, 16 million have gained insurance. The uninsured rate has plummeted from 18% to less than 12%. And we're only in the second year of implementation. Next year will be the true test. My prediction (if King is shot down): uninsured rate goes into single digits.

OK, that's it for now. Moving on to Friday's column (always a challenge)...

-CW

TrainWreckCare cannot survive, even if the subsidies are ruled legal...

Gotta face the facts, people..

It's a BAD law that is doing absolutely NOTHING of what it promised...

Rates are skyrocketing..

People were thrown off their plans that they were CONSTANTLY promised they could keep...

It's a Dunsel, pure and simple... It serves no useful purpose and actually HARMS the very people that Democrats claimed it would help...

"These are the facts. And they are undisputed."

Michale

How, exactly, are Republicans involved or at fault??

It's Obama's stupid law..

It's the Democrats' moronic actions...

Not a Republican in sight..

Yet, somehow, magically, the Republicans will be blamed...

It does not compute....

Michale

You make a good case, CW. I hope you're right. It would be a giant disaster that would gain a heaping amount of news coverage.

None of it good for Republicans.

Obama took his case around the beltway media to the Catholic Health Association this week.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/09/1391832/-President-Obama-makes-the-moral-case-for-sustaining-Obamacare

There's a reason the media covers him so little.

-David

We have to hide his identity, so we'll just call him... H. Simpson..

No, no, no... That's too easy.

We'll call him Homer S.

:D

Michale

A man walks into the Quickie Mart and buys a 1 Million Dollar Drawing lottery ticket from Apu... The man's numbers are 12, 16, 22, 27, 37 and 42

The drawing is held and the winning numbers are 08, 14, 28, 33, 35 and 40.

After the drawing, the man goes back to the Quickie Mart and tells Apu, "My intent was to play numbers 08, 14, 28, 33, 35 and 40. I would like my million dollars please."

THAT is the "Typo" argument...

Michale

There is absolutely NO credible evidence to support the claim that it was a "typo"....

If there was one statement, just ONE SINGLE SOLITARY statement BEFORE this lawsuit was initiated that there was a "typo" made, then there could be a case made for a "typo"..

But there isn't so there isn't....

Michale

The ruling in gay marriage will be 7-2 (or possibly 6-3) against changing the definition of marriage that has stood for thousands of years...

The ruling will be 5-4 in favor of interpreting the law as it is written and gutting the subsidies based on the stated intent of one who was intimately involved in the creation of TrainWreckCare..

Gruber's statements of intent are untarnished by the subsequent lawsuit and, therefore, must be given considerably more weight than the self-serving statements of the politicians that were made post-lawsuit...

Any optimistic statements from the Left regarding EITHER ruling simply ignores the statements of those intimately involved in the issues before the court..

Michale

There is absolutely NOTHING factual to support such a claim...

On the other side of that coin, there is factual evidence that overwhelmingly PROVES that the text of the law was the INTENT, not a typo...

Even one Republican on the drafting committee for the law has publicly stated that this was nothing more than a typo or oversight in the language being drafted. It was not intentional -- it was never supposed to be a way to punish states who didn't set up their own exchanges.

Yet, we have the recorded statements from one who was intimately involved in the creation of TrainWreckCare who states unequivocally and for the record that it was EXACTLY the intent to use the subsidies to coerce States to set up their own exchanges..

The simple fact that the SCOTUS took the case, with absolutely NO lower court conflicts indicates that the court will gut TrainWreckCare..

Since there was no lower court conflict, if the justices were going to uphold the law, they would have simply had to do nothing...

So, logic dictates that, simply by taking the case, the SCOTUS will vote to kill the subsidies for Federally run exchanges...

The only argument that has a chance is the "TOO-BIG-TO-FAIL" argument...

And ya'all just HAVE to know that I am laughing my ass off at the fact that the Left is hanging their hat on THAT argument.. :D

Michale

You contradict yourself, CW..

On the one hand, you said that the SCOTUS had wanted to put the brakes on the change to give the public time to get used to the idea..

Then, in the very next paragraph, you point out how fast things have gone...

I think ya'all are going to be very disappointed by the SCOTUS ruling in this case..

My logic for this comes from actual statements from the Justices that the Left ignores..

Kennedy's statement regarding changing a definition that has been with us for thousands of years is pretty indicative of how he will vote..

Ginsberg's statement regarding that she would change her vote in Roe V Wade if she could is also indicative of how she will vote...

Gay marriage needs to be resolved by the people and not by the courts or by politicians IMPOSING gay marriage onto people who don't want any part of it..

As much as I disagree with what Ireland did, it's simply undeniable that Ireland definitely went about it the right way..

THAT is how it has to be done here in the US..

Or we will continue to have gay marriage as a "lightning rod" issue much like abortion..

Michale