US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not 100% sure of the numbers but I believe Santorum needed 75% of the remaining delegates before this weekend. All he can do now is hang in and try and have a brokered convention. There is still California, New York and one other big one (Illinois maybe). Santorum will not do well in those states.
 
Cali Red said:
I'm not 100% sure of the numbers but I believe Santorum needed 75% of the remaining delegates before this weekend. All he can do now is hang in and try and have a brokered convention. There is still California, New York and one other big one (Illinois maybe). Santorum will not do well in those states.
Click to expand...

Not mentioning Texas which as a winner takes all state will have a profound impact on where this is going.
 
Ubik said:
:lol:

Santorum spewing out of his arse there.

Wasn't too long ago that he "blamed" the fall of the British Empire on the introduction of the NHS.
Click to expand...

That is the like the pseudo-history that Gingrich would come up with. What a moron.
 
He looked like he was on the verge of totally losing it. I'd imagine about 1 second after the words came out of his mouth he probably felt sick to his stomach.

Whats funny is when I heard the snippet the reporter was asking him about I thought those were his words as well. I still haven't heard it in the context Santorum says it was in.
 
Cali Red said:
He looked like he was on the verge of totally losing it. I'd imagine about 1 second after the words came out of his mouth he probably felt sick to his stomach.

Whats funny is when I heard the snippet the reporter was asking him about I thought those were his words as well. I still haven't heard it in the context Santorum says it was in.
Click to expand...

he just quoted him exactly.

Santorum was more mad at himself.

tht pretty much ended his 'campaign'
 
BTW, the individual mandate is going to be struck down unless there are some drastic changes. 5-4. Book it. Done.
 
Red Dreams said:
the individual mandate is a very small portion of the health Care law...which was modeld on Romney Care.


Romney loses either way.
Click to expand...

The individual mandate goes, then so too must the insurance coverage parts of the law. That is if the law is severable. It may not be. Thomas and Alito will certainly say not, as there is no severability clause in the law.
 
Red Dreams said:
the 5 conservative judges are in the pockets of big business. The insurance companies like the individual mandate..more money from people who are not sick.

Think the law will survive.
Click to expand...

JUSTICE SCALIA: Why do you – why do you define the market that broadly? Health care. It may well be that everybody needs health care sooner or later, but not everybody needs a heart transplant, not everybody needs a liver transplant. Why –

GENERAL VERRILLI: That's correct, Justice Scalia, but you never know whether you're going to be that person.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Could you define the market – everybody has to buy food sooner or later, so you define the market as food, therefore, everybody is in the market; therefore, you can make people buy broccoli.

GENERAL VERRILLI: No, that's quite different. That's quite different. The food market, while it shares that trait that everybody's in it, it is not a market in which your participation is often unpredictable and often involuntary. It is not a market in which you often don't know before you go in what you need, and it is not a market in which, if you go in and – and seek to obtain a product or service, you will get it even if you can't pay for it. It doesn't ...

JUSTICE SCALIA: Is that a principal basis for distinguishing this from other situations? I mean, you know, you can also say, well, the person subject to this has blue eyes. That would indeed distinguish it from other situations. Is it a principle basis? I mean, it's – it's a basis that explains why the government is doing this, but is it – is it a basis which shows that this is not going beyond what – what the – the system of enumerated powers allows the government to do.

GENERAL VERRILLI: Yes, for two reasons. First, this – the test, as this Court has articulated it, is: Is Congress regulating economic activity with a substantial effect on interstate commerce? The way in which this statute satisfies the test is on the basis of the factors that I have identified. If ...

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Mr. Verrilli, I thought that your main point is that, unlike food or any other market, when you made the choice not to buy insurance, even though you have every intent in the world to self-insure, to save for it, when disaster strikes, you may not have the money. And the tangible result of it is – we were told there was one brief that Maryland Hospital Care bills 7 percent more because of these uncompensated costs, that families pay a thousand dollars more than they would if there were no uncompensated costs. I thought what was unique about this is it's not my choice whether I want to buy a product to keep me healthy, but the cost that I am forcing on other people if I don't buy the product sooner rather than later.

GENERAL VERRILLI: That is – and that is definitely a difference that distinguishes this market and justifies this as a regulation.
Click to expand...

When Ruth Ginsburg makes a better Solicitor-General than the Solicitor-General, you know you are in trouble.

It didn't help that Paul Clement had, apprarently, the best oral argument in living memory against the mandate.

This goes two ways.

5-4 to strike it down, or 5-4 to uphold with the Chief Justice writing the opinion. I go with the former.
 
Frosty said:
When Ruth Ginsburg makes a better Solicitor-General than the Solicitor-General, you know you are in trouble.

It didn't help that Paul Clement had, apprarently, the best oral argument in living memory against the mandate.

This goes two ways.

5-4 to strike it down, or 5-4 to uphold with the Chief Justice writing the opinion. I go with the former.
Click to expand...

sounds like it may be 6-4 in favour of upholding the law.


whatever happens it will be very interesting reading.

I wont agree Romney wins on this descion though...whatever happens.
 
Red Dreams said:
sounds like it may be 6-4 in favour of upholding the law.


whatever happens it will be very interesting reading.

I wont agree Romney wins on this descion though...whatever happens.
Click to expand...

If it's 6-4, something screwy happened.

In point of fact, like everything on the Roberts court, it's going to come down to Kennedy.
 
This has just been an extended vacation for him and Callista. Too little too late for Santorum. Once the northeastern primaries happen, Romney will run away with the nomination.
 
Can't believe it's still being discussed, Romney had it wrapped up at the end of January after Florida.

As for the ACA, is the consensus that it will be very bad for Obama if it gets struck down? Isn't there an argument that it will be removing a big pull to the polls for many conservatives? Though I suppose Romney will be glad to see the back of it.
 
I don't think Obamacare will matter much to conservatives if Romney is the nominee. The Santorum and Gingrich types who make up the GOP base will not come out to vote in the numbers they would have if a "real" conservative was the nominee.
 
Depends a bit on how it's seen. If it's seen as a non-political SCOTUS (*snort*) striking down a government overreach, then it helps the GOP. If it's seen as the right-wing Roberts court that ruled that corporations are people preventing much-needed health care reform, it helps Obama.

In all likelihood, it's probably going to be seen a bit more the former, but either way there's not a ton of difference on the Presidential race, given Romney's going to be the nominee.
 
Plechazunga said:
Can't believe it's still being discussed, Romney had it wrapped up at the end of January after Florida.

As for the ACA, is the consensus that it will be very bad for Obama if it gets struck down? Isn't there an argument that it will be removing a big pull to the polls for many conservatives? Though I suppose Romney will be glad to see the back of it.
Click to expand...

Excellent video clip here on why Romney is hosed when it comes to basing his campaign as anti-Obamacare.

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/hardball/46873470
 
Chief Justice John Roberts has asked several questions of Mr. Clement that further the case for striking down the whole law, and echo other remarks from Justices Alito and Scalia.

He has suggested that the whole of the health-law should be considered to be linked to the individual mandate because its myriad of other provisions, such as black-lung payments, were actually included as sweeteners to pass the main bill. Without them, Congress "would not have been able to cobble together the votes to get it approved," he said.-
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court's conservative justices said Wednesday they are prepared to strike down President Obama' s health care act entirely.

Picking up where they left off Tuesday, the conservatives said they thought a decision striking down the individual mandate means the whole statute should fall with it.

The court's conservatives sounded as though they had determined for themselves that the 2,700 page law must be declared unconstitutional.

"One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto," said Justice Antonin Scalia.

Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an "extreme proposition" to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.
Click to expand...

Oh dear...
 
I have to admit, Scalia is good:

Dave Weigel at Slate asks a question that, sadly, must be taken seriously: does Justice Scalia know what's in the PPACA? Or is he just working from the angry right-wing blog posts he read in December 2009?

"If we struck down nothing in this legislation but the – what's it called, the Cornhusker kickback, okay, we find that to violate the constitutional proscription of venality, okay?" asked Scalia, talking to Paul Clement. "When we strike that down, it's clear that Congress would not have passed it without that. It was the means of getting the last necessary vote in the Senate. And you are telling us that the whole statute would fall because the Cornhusker kickback is bad. That can't be right."
Click to expand...

The "Cornhusker Kickback," a term coined by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, was a provision added to the Senate healthcare bill that Democrats passed on Christmas Eve, 2009, in order to secure Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson's vote. The carve-out would have led the federal government to pick up 100% of the tab for new Medicaid enrollees permanently for Nebraska only. It's true that that helped Democrats overcome a filibuster and pass the bill by a 60-39 margin.

But the "Cornhusker Kickback" was then taken out of the bill in a later iteration, because it was such an embarrassing, transparent instance of cynical congressional horsetrading that the entire country was disgusted. It's not in the law, as he seems to think.
Click to expand...
 
There is no way that SCOTUS will carve that Act up. For all their dislike of the mandate, they would be encroaching the legislative function if they severed an unseverable Act.

The more interesting question is why the Republicans would vote for the single payer system. Can you ever see that happening?
 
Those plutocrats get you every time! I never would have guessed they'd use the Supreme Court this time though. They like to keep their boys limber, though, the SC hadn't had a run out since they made Bush president.
 
thats correct. they cannot just carve out the mandate. The entire Act revolves around it. Either they strike down the entire Act or say it is sound. Because the conservatives are in the pocket of big business, they will approve it...and I predict 6-3 in favour with the ideologues offering token resistance.

Because what is the alternative? Single payer. How do they accomplish it? Not through the congress.

Through reconciliation. In this election, the democrats will most likely retain the senate..just and certainly the Presidency.
By expanding medicare/medicaid.

This will keep growing until everyone is covered.

The Conservative justices know this.

Lets see if I am right.
 
Red Dreams said:
thats correct. they cannot just carve out the mandate. The entire Act revolves around it. Either they strike down the entire Act or say it is sound. Because the conservatives are in the pocket of big business, they will approve it...and I predict 6-3 in favour with the ideologues offering token resistance.

Because what is the alternative? Single payer. How do they accomplish it? Not through the congress.

Through reconciliation. In this election, the democrats will most likely retain the senate..just and certainly the Presidency.
By expanding medicare/medicaid.

This will keep growing until everyone is covered.

The Conservative justices know this.

Lets see if I am right.
Click to expand...

Here's hoping.
 
And in most countries, in most campaigns, that'd be the end of him.

I admire America for so much. But I'm terrified of it ever so slightly more.
 
:confused:

Is this a joke, or are people seriously claiming he was on the verge of saying 'the government nigger/nigga'?

I despise Santorum as much as anyone else, but that's clearly bollocks.

I was about to say that I'd wait for the Messi of phoneticians (and staunch liberal), Mark Liberman at Language Log, to give his verdict before absolutely ruling it out, but he already has...er, sort of.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.