Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

How do liberals feel about this?

Greyparrot
Posts: 14,333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 8:38:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org...

A rollicking tale as follows:

A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

The Supreme Court interpreted the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8, which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government.

Since this is the SCOTUS decision that effectively gave the Federal Government power to tell us what we can buy and sell arbitrarily, paving the legal path for Obamacare, do you feel that this case was justified?
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2013 8:03:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"How do liberals feel about this?" Interesting choice of words. WTF does it matter how they "feel" about anything!
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 4:12:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/3/2013 8:03:58 AM, sadolite wrote:
"How do liberals feel about this?" Interesting choice of words. WTF does it matter how they "feel" about anything!

It does matter because I then have the opportunity gauge different opinions of what justice means.
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 4:48:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 4:12:22 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/3/2013 8:03:58 AM, sadolite wrote:
"How do liberals feel about this?" Interesting choice of words. WTF does it matter how they "feel" about anything!

It does matter because I then have the opportunity gauge different opinions of what justice means.

Feelings have no place in the interpretation or enforcement of law.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 11:40:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 8:38:07 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

A rollicking tale as follows:

A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

The Supreme Court interpreted the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8, which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government.

Since this is the SCOTUS decision that effectively gave the Federal Government power to tell us what we can buy and sell arbitrarily, paving the legal path for Obamacare, do you feel that this case was justified?

It's not as bad as 1886 CA v Santa Clara Railroad. And, given the ridiculous US Agriculture policy that originated with Nixon (it's the reason we have so much damn corn now), it's also not that bad, though knowing nothing else about the case other than what you posted, I don't approve of it.

I have no idea what touchy-feely neo-liberals might think, but Liberal and Libertarian come from the same root word - Liberty.

We have a lot more in common than I think y'all wanna believe. Where civil liberty is concerned, we should actually be in lockstep, frankly.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 3:14:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 8:38:07 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

A rollicking tale as follows:

A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

The Supreme Court interpreted the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8, which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government.

Since this is the SCOTUS decision that effectively gave the Federal Government power to tell us what we can buy and sell arbitrarily, paving the legal path for Obamacare, do you feel that this case was justified?

Yes, I do.
The issue at hand was not that wheat was traded nationally per se, it was that the price of wheat was trying to be regulated with the enactment of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, hence the alotment.

If it wasn't for this law, it shouldn't have mattered if the farmer opted out of the market by growing his own wheat. The Supreme Court ruled that the law was constitutional via interstate commerce.

This is not the same legal reasoning the high court used to defend Obamacare.
My work here is, finally, done.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 4:08:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/6/2013 3:14:48 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/2/2013 8:38:07 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

A rollicking tale as follows:

A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

The Supreme Court interpreted the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8, which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government.

Since this is the SCOTUS decision that effectively gave the Federal Government power to tell us what we can buy and sell arbitrarily, paving the legal path for Obamacare, do you feel that this case was justified?

Yes, I do.
The issue at hand was not that wheat was traded nationally per se, it was that the price of wheat was trying to be regulated with the enactment of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, hence the alotment.

If it wasn't for this law, it shouldn't have mattered if the farmer opted out of the market by growing his own wheat. The Supreme Court ruled that the law was constitutional via interstate commerce.

This is not the same legal reasoning the high court used to defend Obamacare.

Um...they didn't use any legal "reasoning" in that case. The majority opinion was muddled and contradictory.

I just can't figure out why they did it. Based on other recent decisions trending by this court, the law should have been shot down.

All I got so far is that Rob McKenna is as sh!tty a lawyer as he is a gubernatorial candidate. I despise McKenna, though, so that conclusion may be simply for my own enjoyment.

I actually think they shot it down because if they didn't, it would have paved the way for real universal care, which is what The ACA should have been all along - fines for forced participation in sh!tty legislation are OK if we can justify them by calling them "tax-like"...no they're not. They're fines. BUT, if they just said "taxes=OK and fines=/=not OK" that would have given Congress the push they needed in the right (left, actually) direction to initiate the full expansion of Medicare to everyone that The ACA should have been when it passed in the first place, instead of the watered down Nixonian (pun intended) plan that it is.

There is no way in hell that the 5 justices who currently dominate the court want that to happen, so they made up a nonsense justification to keep what we got in order to stop what they felt would be even worse.

It's bullsh!t, and so is The ACA.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 8:42:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/6/2013 4:08:51 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/6/2013 3:14:48 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/2/2013 8:38:07 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

A rollicking tale as follows:

A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

The Supreme Court interpreted the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8, which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government.

Since this is the SCOTUS decision that effectively gave the Federal Government power to tell us what we can buy and sell arbitrarily, paving the legal path for Obamacare, do you feel that this case was justified?

Yes, I do.
The issue at hand was not that wheat was traded nationally per se, it was that the price of wheat was trying to be regulated with the enactment of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, hence the alotment.

If it wasn't for this law, it shouldn't have mattered if the farmer opted out of the market by growing his own wheat. The Supreme Court ruled that the law was constitutional via interstate commerce.

This is not the same legal reasoning the high court used to defend Obamacare.

Um...they didn't use any legal "reasoning" in that case. The majority opinion was muddled and contradictory.
That it was, almost like it was a last minute switch on Kennedy's (?) part.

I just can't figure out why they did it. Based on other recent decisions trending by this court, the law should have been shot down.
I think the logic goes like this:
1. The "tax and spend" authority is what this was decided on, as the individual mandate was ruled a tax.
2. The fact that one's taxes can be effected by not engaging in commerce is allowed (see green energy credits).
3. Apparantely, a forgone decrease of tax liability due to not engaging in commerce equals an increase in tax liability due to not engaging in commerce (individual mandate). I disagree with this point, as this adds to taxes owed, as opposed to offering a tax decrease. But, perhaps there are other more direct examples I am unaware of...


All I got so far is that Rob McKenna is as sh!tty a lawyer as he is a gubernatorial candidate. I despise McKenna, though, so that conclusion may be simply for my own enjoyment.

I actually think they shot it down because if they didn't, it would have paved the way for real universal care, which is what The ACA should have been all along - fines for forced participation in sh!tty legislation are OK if we can justify them by calling them "tax-like"...no they're not. They're fines. BUT, if they just said "taxes=OK and fines=/=not OK" that would have given Congress the push they needed in the right (left, actually) direction to initiate the full expansion of Medicare to everyone that The ACA should have been when it passed in the first place, instead of the watered down Nixonian (pun intended) plan that it is.

There is no way in hell that the 5 justices who currently dominate the court want that to happen, so they made up a nonsense justification to keep what we got in order to stop what they felt would be even worse.
Interesting theory. It is believable.
I have heard that Roberts wanted to maintain an appearance of unbiasness for his tenure (i.e. preserving a legacy).

Either way, I agree, it is a bad ruling.

It's bullsh!t, and so is The ACA.
My work here is, finally, done.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 9:39:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
If you are serious about not understanding the Court's opinions on Health Care I suggest you read the Amicus Briefs. The Court was asked to determine if the Federal Government had the authority to collect a penalty from the States. Recall Obama, "this is not a tax". Obama out lawyered the GOP by a damn cite then said...ooops I was wrong, it is a tax I'll follow the law. The Amicus will show that no one opposed obama Care, the insurance lobby wanted more premiums and the states wanted to tax.