The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
NY TIMES: CONSERVATIVES JUSTICES hold "disturbing views" re:
Poast new message in this thread
Date: March 29th, 2012 8:36 AM Author: Adulterous lay roast beef The last issue before the court was the law’s expansion of Medicaid, which will be financed mostly by federal funds. The challengers contend the expansion coerces them to cover more poor people and that the penalty for refusing to do so would be a cutoff of federal money.
This is a bizarre view that treats Medicaid, a voluntary federal-state partnership, as an affront to state sovereignty. There is no legitimate constitutional question on this issue. It is disturbing that the conservative justices seriously entertained the opponents’ argument |
Date: March 29th, 2012 8:39 AM Author: vermilion pocket flask theater stage Libs killed Bush over the unfunded Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit. Now an unfunded Medicaid expansion is genius. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1910775&forum_id=2#20332772) |
 |
Date: March 29th, 2012 8:40 AM Author: Poppy Elite Mood Center which will be financed mostly by federal funds (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1910775&forum_id=2#20332777) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2012 8:45 AM Author: vermilion pocket flask theater stage Right, unfunded. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1910775&forum_id=2#20332786) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2012 3:25 PM Author: Adventurous Silver Selfie Patrolman I wouldn't mind medicare part d so much if it was in fact unfunded. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1910775&forum_id=2#20334907) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2012 4:59 PM Author: snowy hairless wrinkle stock car Only problem libs had with Medicare Part D was that it came along without tax increases. The program itself is a 180. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1910775&forum_id=2#20335299) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2012 9:39 AM Author: Bright Trip Degenerate Kagan, who's entire career involves sucking up to powerful institutions, asked, "Why is a big gift from the federal government a matter of coercion?"
Was she being sincere or naive? |
|
Date: March 29th, 2012 9:47 AM Author: talented mother forum It's very annoying how every college-educated libpedo in the ~110-125 IQ just takes it for granted that republicans and conservatives are wrong about everything. They squint their eyes, and in an exasperated and nasally whine they wonder aloud how the other side could be so DUMB. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1910775&forum_id=2#20332931) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2012 10:01 AM Author: 180 half-breed private investor Yes, nearly all people are pretty dumb. It's annoying. Exceptionally dumb white rednecks tend to be Republicans. I grew up among them, and they're a lot worse than "annoying". (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1910775&forum_id=2#20332999) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2012 10:09 AM Author: violet comical plaza oh what a poster! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1910775&forum_id=2#20333030) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2012 12:08 PM Author: electric lodge (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1910775&forum_id=2#20333591) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2012 10:02 AM Author: Jade scourge upon the earth love of her life not dumb, rather Satanspawned evil (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1910775&forum_id=2#20333003) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2012 10:19 AM Author: Bright Trip Degenerate You have to wonder if that wasn't the reason for the bad arguments on obamacare. Did the SG office form a panel of conservatives and pseudo-conservatives playing the justices and then mock it about a dozen times? Because the SG wasn't ready for even the basics like, "concisely state the limiting principle." The SG should have been able to do that backwards, forwards, in eggy-peggy, in babytalk, in funny accents. He should have had 3 or 4 tight formlations of that answer. You have to wonder if they took the conservative points of view seriously. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1910775&forum_id=2#20333067) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2012 1:27 PM Author: Aggressive Cream Site Kitty To be fair,
This. This is precisely why, on average, the "intellectual" (read: intelligent, educated) conservatives that I know tend to be substantially better at articulating exactly why they hold conservative views and justifying those views using empirical evidence, reasoning logically from stated first principles, etc.
It's not that they have more RAW INTELLECTUAL HORSEPOWER than their liberal analogs - its that having grown up and gone to school in environments that were predominantly filled with teachers/students who always sort of took it for granted that everyone shared some basic (but disputable) liberal presumptions about the world, they had to make the conscious decision not only to hold conservative beliefs but to justify them in the face of otherwise seemingly intelligent people constantly pushing back.
Meanwhile, the liberals all just sort of agreed with each other and never had to develop really tight, cogent arguments in favor of their positions - or even their first principles. The arguments that they struggled with were never about whether liberalism was right or not; the arguments were about which is preferable, socialism or outright Marxism? So they can intelligently debate the latter point for hours on end, but if you really press them on whether *any* form of big government is preferable to small, limited government, they sort of sputter and act like you just suggested that gravity might not exist and they don't even know how to respond to your ridiculous suggestion (because frankly, a lot of them don't.) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2012 1:36 PM Author: Lilac passionate spot regret (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1910775&forum_id=2#20334051) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2012 1:58 PM Author: Jade scourge upon the earth love of her life credited (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1910775&forum_id=2#20334150) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2012 2:02 PM Author: diverse mediation kitty cat Well I will say that people in academic fields that are in the humanities all sort of mutually agree with each other politically, and there's not much discussion of other points or why views are held.
But imwould think the same goes for covens of conservatives as well. |
|
Date: March 29th, 2012 3:02 PM Author: Mauve water buffalo chad There are no conservatives in academia. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1910775&forum_id=2#20334567) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2012 2:50 PM Author: Mint Thriller Principal's Office Dragon 177 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1910775&forum_id=2#20334492) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2012 2:53 PM Author: claret tattoo flawless victory (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1910775&forum_id=2#20334507) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2012 3:01 PM Author: Mauve water buffalo chad (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1910775&forum_id=2#20334561) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2012 4:56 PM Author: Balding Floppy Lettuce THIS.
Thanks Herbert Marcuse, Frankfurt School, and "critical theory." |
|
Date: March 29th, 2012 4:57 PM Author: Adulterous lay roast beef are you fan of adorno or horkheimer? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1910775&forum_id=2#20335290) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2012 7:24 PM Author: sexy slate gas station sweet tailpipe CR (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1910775&forum_id=2#20336522) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2012 9:10 PM Author: Bateful cruise ship incel proof that you can be a beloved poster if you just don't be so mean all de time (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1910775&forum_id=2#20337560) |
|
Date: March 30th, 2012 3:43 AM Author: Honey-headed piazza http://volokh.com/2011/06/23/the-ideological-turing-test/ (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1910775&forum_id=2#20343005) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2012 1:53 PM Author: Stirring Chrome Sneaky Criminal Brethren TBF, GJ reading Volokh Conspiracy. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1910775&forum_id=2#20334118) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2012 10:16 AM Author: up-to-no-good titillating theatre juggernaut Of course its a legit question. They say "do this, or we will take away the bilions we are already giving you for all of medicaid"
No state has any choice
Just another way to hide the true costs of fed actions. Just as we all overpay severely because medicare underpays. The actual costs of medicare/mecicaid are EVEN HIGHER, as if it wasnt frightening enough already. |
|
Date: March 29th, 2012 12:04 PM Author: grizzly shrine liquid oxygen The federal government is completely within its rights to remove all federal funding for medicaid on a whim. So attaching further conditions to it is not problematic. I just wish it could go further and expel states from the union that don't comply. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1910775&forum_id=2#20333559) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2012 12:09 PM Author: electric lodge (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1910775&forum_id=2#20333594) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2012 12:37 PM Author: Insanely creepy concupiscible factory reset button If the conturds rule against the medicaid expansion then me thinks ANYTHING is on the table.
HIGHWAY funds. UNI RESEARCH funds. That is all fucking god damn coercion man. You say we need to have a drinking age of 21 to get highway funds, fuck you niggas. We gonna let 12 year olds drink now.
FREEDOM bros. |
|
Date: March 29th, 2012 3:04 PM Author: Mauve water buffalo chad Highway funds was coercion and the DEA is complete flame. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1910775&forum_id=2#20334578) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2012 1:32 PM Author: Aggressive Cream Site Kitty To be fair,
(Typical worthless shitlib who spends half of his time fervently defending Latham on XO and the other half daydreaming about actively destroying the concept of federalism) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2012 1:59 PM Author: Idiotic People Who Are Hurt Masturbator dood, you know there are cases holding that making funding contingent on doing x is not coercion, why is this different? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1910775&forum_id=2#20334155) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2012 2:25 PM Author: grizzly shrine liquid oxygen I don't live on a farm 3 weeks by horse away from the next state line. Federalism is antiquated and harmful to the efficient operation of the economy. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1910775&forum_id=2#20334317) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2012 5:01 PM Author: snowy hairless wrinkle stock car TCR. Its an outdated BS concept that hinders our ability to compete with unitary states. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1910775&forum_id=2#20335312) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2012 8:52 PM Author: Outnumbered very tactful field LABORATORIES NIGGA (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1910775&forum_id=2#20337426) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2012 9:06 PM Author: up-to-no-good titillating theatre juggernaut Perfectly valid viewpoint, doesn't change the fact that federalism is required by the Constitution. You want to change that, get an amendment. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1910775&forum_id=2#20337529) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2012 1:41 PM Author: diverse mediation kitty cat Re limiting principle question: why does one need to be articulated inn this case? The health law Is constitutional, and to say woah woah woah what's the limiting principle on the Commerce Clause NOW is a big political WTF. Don't be fooled, Roberts, who is smart, is expressly political in calling for an articulated limiting principle now. That's not to say there is not one, but why does it have to be articulated in this case and in no other? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1910775&forum_id=2#20334077) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2012 1:59 PM Author: Idiotic People Who Are Hurt Masturbator please quit talking about this, you have not added anything to the discussion ever (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1910775&forum_id=2#20334158) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2012 3:02 PM Author: Mauve water buffalo chad Surprise! All that nonsense with the Constitution was flame. Con judges just employ post-hoc reasoning based on political considerations most of the time too.
Legal scholarship is complete flame. |
|
Date: March 29th, 2012 3:11 PM Author: copper galvanic elastic band titcr. Though it's unfair to say that it's only Conservative justices who do this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1910775&forum_id=2#20334609) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2012 3:13 PM Author: henna marvelous cuckoldry Yes. You know if it were a piece of bush legislation, Ginsberg would be "bringing out the wrecking ball" and knocking the whole thing down. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1910775&forum_id=2#20334615) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2012 4:44 PM Author: Adulterous lay roast beef Ginsburg, buddy. And no she wouldn't. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1910775&forum_id=2#20335234) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2012 7:40 PM Author: diverse mediation kitty cat You mean Bush promoted legislation to help the middle class? Huh. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1910775&forum_id=2#20336929) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2012 8:24 PM Author: boyish amethyst space forcing me to pay more $$ to the biggest corporations in the country so they can provide more services to boomers who are already richer than me is helping the middle class? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1910775&forum_id=2#20337221) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2012 9:12 PM Author: up-to-no-good titillating theatre juggernaut I think he meant help the boomers at the expense of most of the middle class, especially youngs. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1910775&forum_id=2#20337572) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2012 9:13 PM Author: boyish amethyst space Cr. Must be posting from his phone. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1910775&forum_id=2#20337581) |
|
Date: March 30th, 2012 3:13 AM Author: sexy slate gas station sweet tailpipe This. I don't even understand why people want to talk abou and debate this stuff. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1910775&forum_id=2#20342945) |
|
Date: March 30th, 2012 8:41 AM Author: Adulterous lay roast beef what stufF? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1910775&forum_id=2#20343167) |
|
Date: March 30th, 2012 9:12 AM Author: sexy slate gas station sweet tailpipe Whether its constitutional or not. I guess you can argue the mandate should be struck down for that reason, but however it actually comes out will have little to do with the constitution, or probably even an honest take on the caselaw. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1910775&forum_id=2#20343257) |
|
Date: March 30th, 2012 9:35 AM Author: Adulterous lay roast beef I mean, don't you think the long lines of cases from post-Lochner era interpreting the CC clause will come into play? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1910775&forum_id=2#20343336) |
|
Date: March 30th, 2012 10:04 AM Author: sexy slate gas station sweet tailpipe It's not that they won't come into play AT ALL or won't be mentioned. They just won't even attempt to recognize/use any real limiting principle from those cases, and continue to bullshit the line according to policy/politics. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1910775&forum_id=2#20343435) |
|
Date: March 30th, 2012 10:04 AM Author: Adulterous lay roast beef What's your prediction of the vote outcome? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1910775&forum_id=2#20343438) |