Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Ken B]

Sociobiology. Seems like more of an academic issue than a political one, and I haven't found any reason to think that there is a scientific consensus, or that opinions on it fall along politically partisan lines.

You don't think there's a scientific consensus that genetics affects behavior? Then you just don't know much about it. Nothing wrong with not knowing something. Something wrong with citing that lack of knowledge to support a position.

I recommend The Blank Slate by Pinker.

[Pat B]

You don't think there's a scientific consensus that genetics affects behavior? Then you just don't know much about it. Nothing wrong with not knowing something. Something wrong with citing that lack of knowledge to support a position.

I recommend The Blank Slate by Pinker.

"Genetics affects behavior" is all you meant? Who are the liberals disputing that and how is it reflected in their policy ideas?

[Todd]

I guess one more can't hurt.

[Karl Henning]

I guess one more can't hurt.

"When the front-runners are still clumped together around 10%, what that tells me there" . . . may be crowding in the pool 

[(poco) Sforzando]

And the Court just upheld Obamacare 6-3 (guess the 3). I suppose all these Republicans are going to have to work even harder to deprive millions of their newly acquired insurance, just when they thought it all might be going their way. What's next? Legalized gay marriage? oh, the horror!

[Todd]

Obamacare and the evils of judicial activism will make for a good 2016 issue (I will repeal it if elected!, and so forth), as will gay marriage if the court strikes down bans, which seems likely.  But in 2018 and later, something else will be needed.  I'm thinking those good old standbys abortion and immigrant bashing will feature more prominently.  And global warming.  Lots of global warming stuff.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Obamacare and the evils of judicial activism will make for a good 2016 issue (I will repeal it if elected!, and so forth), as will gay marriage if the court strikes down bans, which seems likely.  But in 2018 and later, something else will be needed.  I'm thinking those good old standbys abortion and immigrant bashing will feature more prominently.  And global warming.  Lots of global warming stuff.

The Court is only activist when it rules against the way this one or that one wants it to. Otherwise it is a model of juridical impartiality.

[Todd]

The Court is only activist when it rules against the way this one or that one wants it to. Otherwise it is a model of juridical impartiality.

Absolutely.  Judicial activism - meaning "bad decisions", or "decisions I disagree with" - is always useful politically.  The Republicans have this bad decision, among others, to rail against, the Democrats have Citizens United, among others, and so on.  I'm just commenting on the political utility of this particularly egregious example of judicial activism.  Its egregiousness is unprecedented, or something along those lines.

[Todd]

See how egregious this decision is!  It actually transcends judicial activism.  It is judicial tyranny!  The Republic itself is in danger!!

[Brian]

Huckabee's language is actually not too far from Scalia's own language in his dissent. Here are some quotes I found while I read it this morning:

"Words no longer have meaning..." [when the majority makes this ruling]
"so obvious there would hardly be a need for the Supreme Court to hear a case about it."
"Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved."
Roberts' opinion is "a defense of the indefensible."

He also suggests that, in common parlance, the law should "be called SCOTUScare" - implicitly in contrast to Obamacare. This is the first time the term 'SCOTUS' has appeared in a SCOTUS decision.

[Todd]

He also suggests that, in common parlance, the law should "be called SCOTUScare"

Obamacare is ungainly enough, thank you.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Obamacare is ungainly enough, thank you.

Many would also say Obamacare = Romneycare. In Kentucky, of course, it's KYCare, thus making sure it does the same thing without any taint of Obama on its ungainly neck.

And who said Republicans aren't fun?

[Karl Henning]

Obamacare is ungainly enough, thank you.

But SCOTUScare does sound more . . . medical . . . .

[Ken B]

Huckabee's language is actually not too far from Scalia's own language in his dissent. Here are some quotes I found while I read it this morning:

"Words no longer have meaning..." [when the majority makes this ruling]
"so obvious there would hardly be a need for the Supreme Court to hear a case about it."
"Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved."
Roberts' opinion is "a defense of the indefensible."

He also suggests that, in common parlance, the law should "be called SCOTUScare" - implicitly in contrast to Obamacare. This is the first time the term 'SCOTUS' has appeared in a SCOTUS decision.

Scalia, in the words have no meaning bit, is talking about logic not consequences. Roberts's opinion even admits it is flouting the actual wording. That is what Scalia objects to and Scalia is right.

Legal opinions should be judged on their logic, not their political consequences.

Here, for the sake of accuracy, is the full sentence which Brian artfully elided:

"Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is 'established by the State.'"

[Karl Henning]

Donald Trump comes second in New Hampshire poll. How?

Well, duh!

Analysts attribute Trump's advance to his broad name recognition in a field brimming with nearly 20 Republican candidates, aided by a successful global empire of long-running reality television shows and luxury hotels.

[Brian]

Scalia, in the words have no meaning bit, is talking about logic not consequences. Roberts's opinion even admits it is flouting the actual wording. That is what Scalia objects to and Scalia is right.

Legal opinions should be judged on their logic, not their political consequences.

Here, for the sake of accuracy, is the full sentence which Brian artfully elided:

I wouldn't say my "artful elision" was motivated by any particular to desire to skew the statement - I had just closed the PDF of the decision and didn't want to find the rest of the sentence again.

My point, anyway, was the tone, and the tone survived intact.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Scalia, in the words have no meaning bit, is talking about logic not consequences. Roberts's opinion even admits it is flouting the actual wording. That is what Scalia objects to and Scalia is right.

You're talking about the same Scalia who thinks corporations are persons and that the opening clause of the 2nd Amendment can be discounted.

Any document, especially such a huge and complex one as the ACA, is bound to have instances where meanings are not as clear as the framers intended. Roberts's point, and he was right, is that despite a few ambiguous and inconsistent words, in context "Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them."

Live with it. It was a good day for the country, and the bad guys don't always get their way.

[kishnevi]

Trump certainly will have an impact on the Hispanic vote.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/25/media/univision-donald-trump-mexicans/index.html?iid=ob_article_topstories_pool&iid=obnetwork

[Ken B]

You're talking about the same Scalia who thinks corporations are persons

Ha ha, what a risible and ignorant comment. Corporations as legal persons goes back centuries. Ignorance of that case seems to be a badge of honour with some people.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Ha ha, what a risible and ignorant comment. Corporations as legal persons goes back centuries. Ignorance of that case seems to be a badge of honour with some people.

Ha ha, yourself. There is no one "case." The central issue with the Citizens United case was the Court's 5-4 decision that "corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment." This was an overruling of Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990), which "upheld the right of the state of Michigan to prohibit corporations from using money from their corporate treasuries to support or oppose candidates in elections, noting: '[c]orporate wealth can unfairly influence elections.'"

Are you going to accuse the 4 dissenting justices of ignorance too? I bet Stevens, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Ginsburg know more about the law than you do in your little finger.

(quotes from Wikipedia, "Corporate Personhood")