Vote(d) 2012 ... can't mediate the Ho Ho's

[Hallack]

Actually politically it was probably a very good move for Rand.  Lots of ideological purists out there take it as a betrayal but in truth only time will tell.  The endorsement really didn't surprise me.  It's part of the party politics involved. 

Yes, a segment of libertarian minded purists will turn from Rand.  But in the bigger picture it makes Rand a lot more palatable to the rest of the party establishment.  He is showing that he can play ball with the Party.  He is already very popular across the party and not just the libertarian wing.  How so many neoconservatives and others like him is actually kind of funny.  This move on his part will do more good for him politically than it will harm him I think.

Personally, I don't like it.  I would love to see more people in office that would put principle over politics.  It is my opinion that many of the problems we have now are because voters have been too willing to trade principle for a Team win.

I am a Republican and even likely to be the county chair of our local party next year.  If I'm successful in attaining that office I will try to use it to share information and hold politicians accountable.  I figure I will not be a very popular person

[darqueseid]

Actually politically it was probably a very good move for Rand.  Lots of ideological purists out there take it as a betrayal but in truth only time will tell.  The endorsement really didn't surprise me.  It's part of the party politics involved. 

Yes, a segment of libertarian minded purists will turn from Rand.  But in the bigger picture it makes Rand a lot more palatable to the rest of the party establishment.  He is showing that he can play ball with the Party.  He is already very popular across the party and not just the libertarian wing.  How so many neoconservatives and others like him is actually kind of funny.  This move on his part will do more good for him politically than it will harm him I think.

I don't know, unless this is foreshadowing him getting a cabinet post or something like that I'm not sure this helps him.. still even bad publicity at a national level is probably good publicity for him, so it may help in the long run. 

Personally, I don't like it.  I would love to see more people in office that would put principle over politics.  It is my opinion that many of the problems we have now are because voters have been too willing to trade principle for a Team win.

Agreed (re: Romney is the republican nominee because republicans need a team win rather than voters sticking to thier guns...)

I am a Republican and even likely to be the county chair of our local party next year.  If I'm successful in attaining that office I will try to use it to share information and hold politicians accountable.  I figure I will not be a very popular person

Sadly I think almost everyone loses thier principles when they get to the national level.  Accountability is the one thing that Americans (especially american politicians) can't stand the most so I'm sure you won't be popular, but you'd have my vote 

Sorry about the Republican thing though, nobody's perfect 

[awaken_D_M_golem]

I think the Libertarians are in better overall shape
than say the (real) Socialists.  Only Bernie Sanders
calls himself to be one ; although a couple of Dems
have "supposedly" more left voting records than him.
idk by what scale that happens.

Same kind of thing can be said of Repubs + Liberts.
There is a rather large chunk of money going toward
the more libertarian Repubs. Like the Koch brothers
and the Microsoft millionaires, etc ...
It'll still be a while before the insiders let them sit
at the big boys table. 


Supreme's make their Obamacare ruling on Thursday.
Uh-oh.
Guaranteed drama on this one.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

I am a Republican and even likely to be the county chair of our local party next year.  If I'm successful in attaining that office I will try to use it to share information and hold politicians accountable.  I figure I will not be a very popular person

Sadly I think almost everyone loses thier principles when they get to the national level.  Accountability is the one thing that Americans (especially american politicians) can't stand the most so I'm sure you won't be popular, but you'd have my vote 

Cynical (not in a bad way) , but accurate.

[bhu]

http://news.icanhascheezburger.com/2012/06/26/political-pictures-one-man-army/

One wonders how Paul feels about this.

[Hallack]

Sorry about the Republican thing though, nobody's perfect 

Hehe, can't really be helped in my state at this time.  The red team is just the best to two bad political tool options for my needs.  But as the one party system has control right and has created rules and laws promoting itself and keeping out competition one can only do what they can. 

On the up side, there is a great number of us that have gotten involved over the past 5 or so years that do put principle over politics and our presence is going to be felt more and more within party politics.  Many will likely start to play politics sadly but many will not.  Those who do not will be demonized to the extent possible even though they are the ones promoting and fighting for the principles the Party claims to uphold. 

Politics is a sickening dirty game. 

http://news.icanhascheezburger.com/2012/06/26/political-pictures-one-man-army/

One wonders how Paul feels about this.

There is really no mystery on this.  Paul has consistently opposed such views of the War Powers act.

[bhu]

Rand Paul and Ron both?

[bhu]

The mandate was upheld.  I am shocked to say the least...

[archangel.arcanis]

The mandate was upheld.  I am shocked to say the least...

I was shocked as well but they did word the ruling in such a way that I can understand it. They upheld it on the basis of it being a tax and congress being able to apply taxes is constitutional. It does not fall under the commerce clause which would have been illegal as well as give the government authority to mandate purchase of anything they pleased. Now the political issue with this becomes, why were we lied to by proponents of the bill saying it wouldn't be a tax in any way shape or form.

[altpersona]

i think by now, those who have seen my political posts know i lean a little left.

i am generally in favor of the health care bill. not so much as passed... more so as initially proposed.

i cannot believe they let it stand.

[bhu]

i think by now, those who have seen my political posts know i lean a little left.

i am generally in favor of the health care bill. not so much as passed... more so as initially proposed.

i cannot believe they let it stand.

Actually i find it more difficult to believe roberts was teh deciding vote

[darqueseid]

I think he may be feeling a little political pressure to seem (seem at least) more like a compromiser.  In reality the citizen's united decision and a host of other decisions have empowered the wealthy in this nation like no other court has done before. 

But since healthcare reform is near and dear to liberals, he could vote for this rather tame version of it (it doesn't really even do much of anything new except for a few people), and seem like he's a compromiser. 

If this is gonna be a tax on us all, then I want to get something out of it, I want a public option, ANYthing.  Right now I have healthcare, and my prices haven't changed.. I'm not sure what I got out of it after they wasted a year fighting over it. 

I support REAL healthcare reform.  Make insurance companies not-for-profit, reign in the costs of procedures, and reduce the cost of med-school (or make it free) such that we get more doctors and can reduce salaries...

Any logical steps towards reform would be good.  MAKING us all buy healthcare is not reform. 

[awaken_D_M_golem]

i think by now, those who have seen my political posts know i lean a little left.

i am generally in favor of the health care bill. not so much as passed... more so as initially proposed.

i cannot believe they let it stand.

Actually i find it more difficult to believe roberts was teh deciding vote

Yeah wow.  He's found himself to be
a Progressive Republican from the
Teddy Roosevelt + Howard Taft era.
A chip off the old Mt. Rushmore block.
 

[archangel.arcanis]

Just saw this quote and it makes me very sad:
"Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so."-Rand Paul

[darqueseid]

Well since Rand Paul has endorsed Romney, he needs to start making political gaffe's....

apparently, we don't need a supreme court, what do they even do?

Nor do we need silly things like the war-powers act or congress (according to Mitt). 

I think the Romney crowd isn't running for president, he's running for king. 

to quote Monty Python:
"You don't vote for king."  ;-)

[dman11235]

He's right!  I mean, they are only selected with the sole purpose of declaring things constitutional or not constitutional, so what do they know?

I support REAL healthcare reform.  Make insurance companies not-for-profit, reign in the costs of procedures, and reduce the cost of med-school (or make it free) such that we get more doctors and can reduce salaries...

Doctors don't need higher salaries, but nurses need better jobs (better salaries, better hours, etc.).  We do need more doctors, but I don't think reducing the cost of medical school is right, which is about the opposite of how I normally feel about school prices.  Medical school costs are pretty high, but I kind of want my doctors to have the best quality education possible (how about you?), which does take a lot of money (labs and such as well as highly trained teachers, who also need more money).  Anyways, this country tends to view numerous professions that need to be revered (nurse, doctor, teacher, civil servants such as police officers, etc.) as laughable, while the unimportant professions (lawyers, bankers, executives, etc.) are wealthy and powerful.  That's a major problem with the whole system as well, and needs to be fixed.

I think the Romney crowd isn't running for president, he's running for king. 

Right.  Because the presidency is turning away from "commander in chief" to "ruler of America".  It's been a steady decline since......well, the Cold War is when it really picked up, and I'm gonna look at Reagan's legacy for a huge leap in that direction.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Rand will quietly (!) be happy with
the Commerce Clause ruling.
2 of the Libs joined Roberts and
the other 4 Conservatives to
totally strike down using the CC
as any part of the bill.


That's way too inside-baseball for
me to try to understand it.  The CC
was used to do the major Civil Rights
stuff from the '60s.  Rand and Ron
have a specific gripe about all that.

There should then be other federal
level activities that'll be struck down
too, because of that.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Kagan + Breyer joined Roberts to make the
Medicaid Expansion optional.  Sotomayer
+ Ginsburg wanted a little less of a cut to the
Medicaid part.  So they C-ompromised.

We'll see how that all shakes out.  I think
4 states have already said they won't do it.

  ... it ain't over ... the opera lady isn't even warming up.

[Hallack]

Now the political issue with this becomes, why were we lied to by proponents of the bill saying it wouldn't be a tax in any way shape or form.

Why were not lied to by the proponents of the bill.  It really never was a tax in their mind nor intended to be a tax.  The "it's a tax" direction change came because they had no leg to stand on regarding Commerce Clause.  Sadly the SCOTUS bought into the tax defense. 

An even more interesting political issue with this ruling is this....

Constitutionality of the law aside, it is now an invalid law due to how it was passed alone without even getting into its content.  This is all because it is considered a tax.  Taxing legislation must originate from the House as per Article I Section 7 of US Constitution.  The actual bill that was passed originated in the Senate. 

Not that I expect things like the constitution or rules to get in the way of the legislation moving forward.

Also, I agree with the quote about SCOTUS being the final arbiter of Constitutionality.   Even the fact that it was a 5/4 decision like so many others shows that they don't have a single firm grasp on the matter of constitutionality.  Also, States and people also have right to ignore/nullify illegal/unconstitutional laws as part of checks and balances.  Doesn't mean they won't be slapped down for trying but they have the right to do so.

[skydragonknight]

An even more interesting political issue with this ruling is this....

Constitutionality of the law aside, it is now an invalid law due to how it was passed alone without even getting into its content.  This is all because it is considered a tax.  Taxing legislation must originate from the House as per Article I Section 7 of US Constitution.  The actual bill that was passed originated in the Senate. 

Hard for me to care about that. When it was in the Senate, it wasn't a tax at the time, so it's not like a precedent had been set. I'm more interested in the precedents set by this (like the commerce clause excuse Congress has been using since WWII, if not longer, being hit with the nerf stick) than in the immediate impact.
When you consider those, this ruling is a lot less liberal than it would appear, as it opens up many, many things for the chopping block that were first rationalized by the commerce clause should they ever find their way to court.