Jump to content

U.S. Politics 19


Shryke

Recommended Posts

If I may borrow a phrase from our President, Congress "acted stupidly." My apartment lease has a severability clause. My cell phone agreement has a severability clause. My gym membership agreement has a severability clause. No one in Congress read this bill. That much is plainly clear.

A severability clause may not have saved the law, but there is absolutely no excuse for it not to be in there.

Clearly your opinion is based on some philosophical ideal, and not any sort of empirical evaluation of the law, since you do not agree with certain other posters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's interesting is that an earlier House version of the the bill, HR 3200, did contain a severability clause.

Too bad endless Republican filibusters prevented a conference committee that might have sorted that out.

Speaking of filibusters, the reform to Senate rules has pretty much breathed its last. Yes, other changes were made, but I suspect they won't amount to much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any reason why they couldn't put a clause into the reconciliation bill that joined the House and Senate bills?

Probably. Reconciliation, from what I understand, is not an all-purpose way to get around filibusters. Bills passed in this manner have to be budget-related, and can't increase the deficit, and all sorts of things. There's also a 10-year time limit of some kind, which is why the Bush tax cuts had a sunset clause. I don't fully understand it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps they thought that a severability clause would make it more likely for a court to toss out a part of the law, and they didn't want that. So they were engaging in some groupthink, essentially convincing themselves that the courts wouldn't dare throw out the entire law.

What's interesting is that an earlier House version of the the bill, HR 3200, did contain a severability clause.

But whether the mandate is or is not unconstitutional does not at all depend on the issue of severability. If a judge decides that the mandate is unconstitutional, it's coming out regardless of the existence of a severability clause. The severability clause at least makes it more likely that the judge will not kill the whole law, as it is evidence that Congress intended to keep individual parts of the law should one part be stricken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But whether the mandate is or is not unconstitutional does not at all depend on the issue of severability. If a judge decides that the mandate is unconstitutional, it's coming out regardless of the existence of a severability clause. The severability clause at least makes it more likely that the judge will not kill the whole law, as it is evidence that Congress intended to keep individual parts of the law should one part be stricken.

I understand that, and it is certainly inarguable from a purely legal perspective. But judges don't always render decisions based solely on the law, and sometimes let political or policy considerations filter in as well. It's possible some ACA supporters thought that a severability clause would lower the political/policy bar for a judge considering ruling part of the ACA unconstitutional. So, they might have intentionally refused to insert a severability clause, essentially daring a judge to toss the whole thing.

I'm not saying I think that was wise. I'm simply saying that might have been the motivation not to push for one in the legislation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been pondering this one on and off for a day or so:

By definition, yes. As corrupt, feckless, and beholden to their corporate masters as most of our politicians are, they have at least put themselves in the public arena, accepted the responsibility of leadership, and subjected themselves to the judgment of their constituency. They may suck at it, but at least they're on the field

It sounds to me like you are actually agreeing with my assessment of the vast majority of our congress people: they are, in essence, corrupt lackeys of this or that corporation or other special interest group, and as such, will put the interests of said corporation or special interest above those of their constituents every time.

Yet you still persist in claiming that there are actually significant differences.

To me these differences amount to 'do you want to be raped - or merely beaten half to death? Or how about that guy - all he'll do is swindle us!'

They are also collectively cowardly in the extreme: witness the giant hole the dems dug for themselves with this 'mandate' for the ACA. Passed it by claiming that it wasn't a tax, and are now saying, well, it sorta is a tax, and if that don't work, well, we got this commerce clause thingy. That is absolutely nothing but cowardance and stupidity combined.

I would also point out that the vast majority of folks in the US.(85%) - according to polls which are sometimes linked to even here - regard Congress with utter contempt. Right now, the usual response of those folks is apathy...but when they get ticked off enough...a true 'people power' movement is something that would probably really spook the powers that be. Witness the mideast now, or the east block of twenty some years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just watched Obama interviewed by O'Reilly as part of my Fox Superbowl coverage.

1. FAIL! I'm watching football goddamnit!

2. God damn! O'Reilly is an insufferable ass. I kinda wanted Barry to stand up and slap the shit out of him.

3. Yeah, I don't know. More punching of Fox 'news' casters by presidents please!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been pondering this one on and off for a day or so:

It sounds to me like you are actually agreeing with my assessment of the vast majority of our congress people: they are, in essence, corrupt lackeys of this or that corporation or other special interest group, and as such, will put the interests of said corporation or special interest above those of their constituents every time.

Yet you still persist in claiming that there are actually significant differences.

To me these differences amount to 'do you want to be raped - or merely beaten half to death? Or how about that guy - all he'll do is swindle us!'

They are also collectively cowardly in the extreme: witness the giant hole the dems dug for themselves with this 'mandate' for the ACA. Passed it by claiming that it wasn't a tax, and are now saying, well, it sorta is a tax, and if that don't work, well, we got this commerce clause thingy. That is absolutely nothing but cowardance and stupidity combined.

I would also point out that the vast majority of folks in the US.(85%) - according to polls which are sometimes linked to even here - regard Congress with utter contempt. Right now, the usual response of those folks is apathy...but when they get ticked off enough...a true 'people power' movement is something that would probably really spook the powers that be. Witness the mideast now, or the east block of twenty some years ago.

The point that you still haven't absorbed after a day or so of pondering is that Limbaugh is not going to announce for any political office. He makes too much money and he is too insulated from the consequences of his vile fear-mongering in his current position to subject himself to the vagaries of elected office. To that end, there is a big difference between Rush Limbaugh and the politicians you keep thinking he wants to join: the difference is in their fucking job titles.

We started on this conversational tangent because you said Limbaugh would be a serious contender if he ran for office. I said he'd never run for office. You can keep making fatuous points about something that's never going to happen, but when you ignore the point I'm trying to make and then say that there are no substantive differences while papering over the crucial difference I did point out, it makes me wonder why the fuck you're even bothering to include me in this argument you're having with thin air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been pondering this one on and off for a day or so:

It sounds to me like you are actually agreeing with my assessment of the vast majority of our congress people: they are, in essence, corrupt lackeys of this or that corporation or other special interest group, and as such, will put the interests of said corporation or special interest above those of their constituents every time.

Just tossing out a theory here, but I wonder how much this has to do with the sheer magnitude of the legislation Congress produces. It's easier to stick to principles, pay attention to details, etc., when you're dealing with a manageable amount of crap. But the sheer amount of stuff they do now, and the incredible momentum built up by the whole legislative process, would seem enough to wear down all but the very strongest personalities. It is impossible for even the most diligent of them to read all the crap they pass. In that environment, how righteous, or even just dutiful, steward of the public purse is it possible to be? They get bombarded from all these different directions, by all the various interest groups, and resisting all that crap and consistently charting your own way just seems like a lot to expect of anyone.

That's a really pessimistic view because it suggests that no matter who we elect, serving in office itself is going to change them so much that they'll no longer be whom we elected them to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just tossing out a theory here, but I wonder how much this has to do with the sheer magnitude of the legislation Congress produces. It's easier to stick to principles, pay attention to details, etc., when you're dealing with a manageable amount of crap. But the sheer amount of stuff they do now, and the incredible momentum built up by the whole legislative process, would seem enough to wear down all but the very strongest personalities. It is impossible for even the most diligent of them to read all the crap they pass. In that environment, how righteous, or even just dutiful, steward of the public purse is it possible to be? They get bombarded from all these different directions, by all the various interest groups, and resisting all that crap and consistently charting your own way just seems like a lot to expect of anyone

Sounds like an excellent argument for either a vastly smaller government or libertarianism. However, the trend, even among those allegedly promoting smaller government, is actually towards a bigger, more intrusive government (Socialist/Totalitarian).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love his latest racist outburst and the fact that calls by a California State Senator to apologize for his blatantly racist remarks have lead to that State Senator receiving death threats.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/27/rush-limbaugh-boycott-leland-yee_n_814601.html

Was it racist when South Park did it in Team America?

Pretty weak stuff. The civility police on the left has been out in full force lately, ever since the electoral beating (can I say that?) in November.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was it racist when South Park did it in Team America?

Pretty weak stuff. The civility police on the left has been out in full force lately, ever since the electoral beating (can I say that?) in November.

Rosie O'Donnel got into trouble for doing exactly what Limbaugh did.

Except that she was mocking some unspecified Chinese person, whereas Limbaugh was specifically referring to China's head of state.

Weak? No. Consistent? Yes.

What is weak is your attempt to normalize the offensive behavior of Limbaugh by bringing up South Park. South Park's entire schtick is to BE deliberately offensive. It hardly helps your case when the only defense you got is that South Park did it and got away with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was it racist when South Park did it in Team America?

Pretty weak stuff. The civility police on the left has been out in full force lately, ever since the electoral beating (can I say that?) in November.

I didn't know exactly what Limbaugh said before today. But after having read a transcript, I'd agree that while it was stupid, this also has been overblown. He was making a very specific comment relating to the fact that there was no real-time translation of what the Premier was saying, so everyone listening just had to sit there and look intently at him as if they pretended to understand, when in fact it was just gibberish to them. He wasn't making fun of the Premier -- he was making fun of how stupid the whole thing looked/sounded with the translation being so delayed.

Probably stupid, but the only reason some folks are so up in arms about this is that they hated Limbaugh already. On the other hand, there's no problem cozying up to folks on the other end of the spectrum regardless of misconduct (try Al Sharpton on for size) if it helps advance a preferred agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rosie O'Donnel got into trouble for doing exactly what Limbaugh did.

Except that she was mocking some unspecified Chinese person, whereas Limbaugh was specifically referring to China's head of state.

Weak? No. Consistent? Yes.

What is weak is your attempt to normalize the offensive behavior of Limbaugh by bringing up South Park. South Park's entire schtick is to BE deliberately offensive.

you could certainly make the argument that the same is true of Rush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you could certainly make the argument that the same is true of Rush.

since when is making fun of dictators offensive?

Well, you two should get your story straight. Is it, or is it not, meant to be offensive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...