Nancy Pelosi Threatens to Commit Obviously Unethical and Illegal Action

KelinciHutan wrote:

Forbes wrote:

Most analysts were expecting a ruling in favor of the 26 states hoping to overturn the bill.

bolding mine

bolding mine

POLITICS WANK!

KelinciHutan wrote:

Perhaps you would care to read the article in question?

Perhaps you'd care to read the article in question.

Quote :

Justice Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court in Pensacola ruled today that the primary mechanism used by the health reform legislation to achieve universal insurance coverage–the individual mandate–is illegal. ... With this ruling, and a similar one in December by Judge Henry Hudson in Virginia,...

That's two (2) judges.

Quote :

Most analysts were expecting a ruling in favor of the 26 states hoping to overturn the bill.

That is states. States. Not judges. And who are the people bringing these challenges? They are people like John W. Suthers, the Attorney General of Colorado, Troy King, the Attorney General of Alabama, Mark L. Shurtleff, the Attorney General of Utah, and a whole bunch of other attorneys general--not one of whom is, by definition, a judge! Only four (4) of these AGs are from states where a judge ruled the law unconstitutional, and in only two (2) of those states, the ruling was not overturned by a higher court. The other 12 AGs are not from states where a judge has ruled the law unconstitutional, and the rest of the lawsuits are (I understand from other sources) being brought by other private parties. You said,

Quote :

We're talking about a piece of legislation so incredibly problematic that it was ruled unconstitutional in over half the states in the country.

It was not "ruled unconstitutional in over half the states in the country" because neither AGs nor private citizens have the power to do that; only a judge has that power. Four (4) of them did (according to the article you, yourself, posted) and two (2) of those rulings were overturned. Do you get it now?

KelinciHutan wrote:

and now, thanks to a contrary ruling in some others, requires the SCOTUS to wade in and sort things out.

rachel wrote:

The sooner, the better, but they don't seem to be terribly eager to do so.

Which mitigates Pelosi's statement exactly how again?

IMO, her statement doesn't need mitigation; it needs understanding. True, she should have put it better, considering that she knew that there were a crapload of people out there trying to find any sound bite they could to discredit her, but the interpretation that she meant, "We're gonna pass a super-seekrit bill, so suck it GOPers! Muah-ha-ha-ha-hah!" is bilgewater.

Quote :

What does this even have to do with anything, actually? So the Supremes are dragging their heels. So what? That's not relevant or even interesting.

It isn't relevant or interesting that the Supremes may be considering that the challenges have no basis in law? Okey-dokey, then. ('Cos that's a pretty common reason for them to turn down a case. Others being that they consider that the plaintiff has no status to bring suit, that they feel a case was decided correctly by a lower court, they've got too much else to do, or that they're just waiting to see what happens.)

KelinciHutan wrote:

rachel wrote:

*The bill, in its entirety and in summary, had been posted online for months, long enough that anybody who cared to educate themselves about what was in it could have done so.

Nobody knew what was in it,

Untrue, there was no shortage of people who understood it and were willing and able to explain it (eg. Ezra Klein).

Quote :

even those people who tried to (of which, by the way, I am one). It was over two-thousand pages long (close to three, IIRC, though I'm less certain there), and changed radically every few days. I downloaded at least two copies from the House website at the time, and they didn't even look similar, let alone contain similar wording. Eventually, I had to give up on making sense of them and delete them. Even people in Congress didn't know what was in it.

That's what the Congressional staff members are for: they translate from legalese to plain English for their Congresscritters and from English to legalese to write the bill. Unfortunately, some representatives don't want to know, some are lazy and some are really dumb.

Quote :

There was, at no point in time, a single version of the bill posted online--in whole or in part--from an official source that remained unchanged for even one month, let alone several.

Of course it was changing; they were still dickering about the provisions. So you gave up because of that? That's understandable, but now that the law has passed it won't be changing any more until or unless it's amended.

Quote :

Look, we've already done the Obamacare debate. It was boring the first time. You asked for a source for Pelosi's statement. I gave it to you. Naturally, you won't think it's condescending when you agree with her and use the same condescension in your post

I don't think she was condescending at all, I think she was being realistic. Now me, I often condescend to people who hate something that they don't understand until their faces are rubbed in reality; it's is why I hang out at this board in the first place. It's a failing, but it's not entirely a failing on my part.

Quote :

("OMG, those working people and folks with weirdo names must've never bothered to actually look at the bill otherwise they would like it, so what could they know about it anyway?"), so it's not surprising you missed it.

That's rich, coming from a person who doesn't seem to grasp the implications of either the article she posted or the fact that Ms Pelosi's prediction is being borne out by events.

Quote :

I'm not foreseeing any future productive discourse here,

Neither am I.

Quote :

so this is me throwing in the towel.

You do that.

Quote :

Later, gator.

Bye-bye now!

Lady Anne wrote:

POLITICS WANK!

Yes indeedy! I used to be satisfied with just wanking about fandom, but that doesn't do it for me any more. Politics is a much stronger drug. What's odd though is that--considering the original post--we're not discussing what a repulsive smear of slime Newt Gingrich is. Poor Newt! Pelosi is just that much more compelling than you!

rachel wrote:

I used to be satisfied with just wanking about fandom, but that doesn't do it for me any more. Politics is a much stronger drug. What's odd though is that--considering the original post--we're not discussing what a repulsive smear of slime Newt Gingrich is. Poor Newt! Pelosi is just that much more compelling than you!

Well I can't really can't add to your excellent defense of the health care bill. Thanks.
Sooo... I'll just help with your last comment. Happy Holidays.

Newt Slime

[quote="zootie"]

rachel wrote:

Newt Slime

I love it!

Lady Anne wrote:

POLITICS WANK!

Can we just delete this fucking popcorn smiley from the site? Seriously.

Back on topic, do we even hold our politicians to any standards any more? It's one thing to be in the pocket of big businesses but to be all subtle and quiet about it and try to at least pretend you're doing what's best for the American people. But now we have politicians going on the record just about every week making public statements that demonstrate open contempt of the American people. People that they are supposed to serve. And they continue to get reelected!

All of it just baffles me. What the fuck? "Poor people are all criminals that need to learn a hard days work." How is this man able to have a serious run at the presidency? How was he able to have a political career at all after what he did to his wife?

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

POLITICS WANK!

Can we just delete this fucking popcorn smiley from the site? Seriously.

Back on topic, do we even hold our politicians to any standards any more? It's one thing to be in the pocket of big businesses but to be all subtle and quiet about it and try to at least pretend you're doing what's best for the American people. But now we have politicians going on the record just about every week making public statements that demonstrate open contempt of the American people. People that they are supposed to serve. And they continue to get reelected!

All of it just baffles me. What the fuck? "Poor people are all criminals that need to learn a hard days work." How is this man able to have a serious run at the presidency? How was he able to have a political career at all after what he did to his wife?

It's because ethics are only for Democrats.

No.

I think the majority of career politicians have become detached from reality. This is starting to seem like one big game to them.

Mr.Doobie wrote:

But now we have politicians going on the record just about every week making public statements that demonstrate open contempt of the American people.
People that they are supposed to serve. And they continue to get reelected!

Well there's your answer! Track down the undead zombies who are voting for them and,...do stuff to them!
Or... at the very least ask them for your cut of the millions they are spending on their campaigns. I find it difficult to believe that imbecilic tv ads and junk mail is all it goes for.

Mr.Doobie wrote:

All of it just baffles me. What the fuck? "Poor people are all criminals that need to learn a hard days work." How is this man able to have a serious run at the presidency? How was he able to have a political career at all after what he did to his wife?

Obviously he appeals to people who are afraid of "poor" [read: non-white] people mugging them, breaking into their houses and sucking up all the welfare, and the people who understand that sometimes a man just needs to divorce his broken wife and a hospital visit is the best time to discuss that.

And we have to keep the popcorn smilie. How else will we know who's a brainless idiot without a single original thought in hir empty little head?

Lady Anne wrote:

It's because ethics are only for Democrats.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Are you seriously going to say that in the same week that this happened?

Penguin wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

It's because ethics are only for Democrats.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Are you seriously going to say that in the same week that this happened?

Words could not express how sad I was this week when I read about that.

Lady Anne wrote:

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

POLITICS WANK!

Can we just delete this fucking popcorn smiley from the site? Seriously.

Back on topic, do we even hold our politicians to any standards any more? It's one thing to be in the pocket of big businesses but to be all subtle and quiet about it and try to at least pretend you're doing what's best for the American people. But now we have politicians going on the record just about every week making public statements that demonstrate open contempt of the American people. People that they are supposed to serve. And they continue to get reelected!

All of it just baffles me. What the fuck? "Poor people are all criminals that need to learn a hard days work." How is this man able to have a serious run at the presidency? How was he able to have a political career at all after what he did to his wife?

It's because ethics are only for Democrats.

Do you mean like how when Clinton (a Democrat) was harassed non-stop for stepping out on his wife by Gingrich (a Republican) who was was right at that time doing the same thing?

ETA: IOKIYAR

Penguin wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

It's because ethics are only for Democrats.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Are you seriously going to say that in the same week that this happened?

Hey, Pengy, I think your sarcasm detector is broken.

Fair enough.