|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 06:22 PM Original message |
Poll question: Do you believe a President Palin should be allowed to not appeal a ruling striking down Medicare? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
katsy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 06:28 PM Response to Original message |
1. Medicare is a gov't program for the common good. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 06:29 PM Response to Reply #1 |
3. Again, this has nothing to do with whether Medicare is constitutional. It has only to do with |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
katsy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 06:39 PM Response to Reply #3 |
20. Look, I'm just saying this is not a valid comparison. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 06:40 PM Response to Reply #20 |
22. I am not asking whether she CAN, I am asking whether doing so would be constitutional. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
katsy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 06:47 PM Response to Reply #22 |
27. How can I, a moderately sane human, predict how a pp |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 06:49 PM Response to Reply #27 |
29. I'm not asking you to predict anything. I am TELLING you as part of the hypothetical what her |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
katsy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 06:55 PM Response to Reply #29 |
32. Her beliefs should have nothing to do with the appeal. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 06:57 PM Response to Reply #32 |
33. If she (or the DOJ) can't rely on their constitutional beliefs, then how do they decide? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
katsy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 06:57 PM Response to Reply #33 |
34. case law. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 06:59 PM Response to Reply #34 |
35. That's my entire point. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
katsy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 07:04 PM Response to Reply #35 |
36. But why appeal DADT? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 07:04 PM Response to Reply #36 |
37. You just said that they should look at case law to decide whether to appeal. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
katsy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 07:08 PM Response to Reply #37 |
38. Do they have to make new case law? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 07:11 PM Response to Reply #38 |
39. In that case, wouldn't the hypothetical district court striking down Medicare be "case law also?" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
katsy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 07:19 PM Response to Reply #39 |
40. That could be appealed by any # of aggrieved parties. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 07:22 PM Response to Reply #40 |
41. The whole point is that people want Obama not to appeal to FORECLOSE the option of having anyone |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
katsy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 07:26 PM Response to Reply #41 |
42. You just lost me. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 07:36 PM Response to Reply #42 |
43. Not when the government is the only one with standing to defend or appeal. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
katsy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 07:42 PM Response to Reply #43 |
45. Then why did this DOJ appeal? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 08:08 PM Response to Reply #45 |
49. You just said that they should look at case law. You answered your own question. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
katsy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-15-10 01:47 PM Response to Reply #49 |
88. No. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AlinPA (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 06:28 PM Response to Original message |
2. Unrec: President Palin? Foolish. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
KG (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 06:30 PM Response to Original message |
4. ! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
demmiblue (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 06:41 PM Response to Reply #4 |
24. May I join you? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 06:42 PM Response to Reply #24 |
26. You make a very compelling argument. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tesha (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 06:30 PM Response to Original message |
5. Non-sequitur. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 06:31 PM Response to Reply #5 |
6. That is identical to the hypothetical posted above. Palin would have been told by a right-wing judge |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tesha (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 06:32 PM Response to Reply #6 |
10. Medicare ISN'T unconstitutional and only a nut would assert so. Non sequitur. (NT) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 06:34 PM Response to Reply #10 |
12. Doesn't matter. This has NOTHING to do with whether Medicare is actually Constitutional. It only has |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
polichick (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 06:31 PM Response to Original message |
7. Republican presidents don't hesitate to use their power. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 06:32 PM Response to Reply #7 |
8. Yes they do. Bush's DOJ vigorously defended McCain-Feingold, and actually won in court. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
polichick (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 06:34 PM Response to Reply #8 |
13. Did Bush disagree with it? (Isn't he the guy who took us to war because he wanted to?) nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 06:35 PM Response to Reply #13 |
15. Not only did he disagree with it -- he actually said so in his signing statement for the law. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
polichick (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 06:38 PM Response to Reply #15 |
19. Interesting that he would follow the rules, so to speak, on this... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Unvanguard (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 07:54 PM Response to Reply #8 |
47. Ironically, they won with the same guy who proceeded to argue against it in Citizens United. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 08:10 PM Response to Reply #47 |
50. Exactly. It is stunning to listen to Olsen in FEC v. McConnell and then in Citizens United. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
itsrobert (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 06:32 PM Response to Original message |
9. She would face a revolt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 06:33 PM Response to Reply #9 |
11. A revolt that would not change the result. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ozymanithrax (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 06:34 PM Response to Original message |
14. President Palin's Justice Department would make that decision... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
The Philosopher (621 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 06:37 PM Response to Original message |
16. If she can make a reasonable argument |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 06:38 PM Response to Reply #16 |
17. Who decides what's a reasonable argument? She certainly believes her own argument is reasonable. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Johonny (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 06:38 PM Response to Original message |
18. I support impeaching president Palin! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
walldude (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 06:39 PM Response to Original message |
21. There will never be a President Palin. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 06:41 PM Response to Reply #21 |
23. Then same question with any Republican president. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Initech (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 06:42 PM Response to Original message |
25. President Palin? Hahahahahaha... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
frylock (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 06:48 PM Response to Original message |
28. do you believe in santa claus? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
JackRiddler (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 06:51 PM Response to Original message |
30. "Let's assume" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 06:54 PM Response to Reply #30 |
31. You have never heard of a hypothetical? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
JackRiddler (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 11:34 PM Response to Reply #31 |
66. Have you ever heard of stupid? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 11:58 PM Response to Reply #66 |
70. Yes I have, your post being an example. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joeybee12 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 07:39 PM Response to Original message |
44. Keep digging yourself into that hole |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 08:38 PM Response to Reply #44 |
52. Thanks again for your persuasive, detailed argument in favor of your position. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Unvanguard (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 07:52 PM Response to Original message |
46. She should not be allowed to do so. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bluenorthwest (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 07:58 PM Response to Original message |
48. What is this even about? Is this aggression so passive that |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 08:31 PM Response to Reply #48 |
51. Do you believe that a President can refuse to defend any law that presiden't doesn't like? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jgraz (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 08:52 PM Response to Original message |
53. It doesn't matter what we "believe" she "should" do. The law is clear. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 08:55 PM Response to Reply #53 |
54. How about answering the question? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jgraz (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 08:58 PM Response to Reply #54 |
55. I just did. The law is clear. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 09:08 PM Response to Reply #55 |
56. Based solely on the President's or DOJ's belief? n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jgraz (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 09:15 PM Response to Reply #56 |
57. Nope. Based on the law. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 09:22 PM Response to Reply #57 |
60. "Unless you can point to an actual law, there is no obligation to appeal." |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jgraz (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 10:53 PM Response to Reply #60 |
62. Clinton declined just such an appeal with zero consequences |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 11:30 PM Response to Reply #62 |
64. That is not actually true. They appealed, but said in the appeal they actually agreed with the lower |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jgraz (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 11:36 PM Response to Reply #64 |
67. If true, you're splitting the thinnest of hairs |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 11:46 PM Response to Reply #67 |
68. That statement was not on appeal. That was immediately before the bill was signed |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jgraz (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-15-10 12:46 AM Response to Reply #68 |
74. Again, your hairsplitting is irrelevant |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-15-10 12:54 AM Response to Reply #74 |
75. You think the US government wouldn't have standing in a facial challenge against US law? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jgraz (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-15-10 01:09 AM Response to Reply #75 |
76. So you're saying that Obama himself could have brought a lawsuit against DADT? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-15-10 01:32 AM Response to Reply #76 |
78. If I were saying that, I wouldn't be being serious. But I happen not to be saying that. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jgraz (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-15-10 01:36 AM Response to Reply #78 |
79. So explain how a President can "find" a judge to overturn any law he wishes. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-15-10 01:43 AM Response to Reply #79 |
80. A President doesn't have to find a judge -- an ideological zeolot of the President's party will do |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jgraz (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-15-10 01:19 PM Response to Reply #80 |
85. At the very least, you agree that the admin does not have to mount a vigorous defense, right? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
alfredo (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 09:16 PM Response to Original message |
58. They are appealing, but arguing DADT is unconstitutional. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
cbdo2007 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 09:18 PM Response to Original message |
59. Sorry but I really don't even understand the question. I don't know Palin's beliefs. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 09:23 PM Response to Reply #59 |
61. My hypothetical presupposes that Palin believes Medicare is unconstitutional. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AsahinaKimi (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 11:02 PM Response to Original message |
63. Wait, wouldn't that be her majesty the QUEEN PALIN? After all... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Touchdown (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 11:33 PM Response to Original message |
65. I never use the word "FAIL" because I think it's overused and cliche. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 11:58 PM Response to Reply #65 |
71. The funny thing is, the fact that you are so uncomfortable with a yes or no question that you can't |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Touchdown (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-15-10 12:40 AM Response to Reply #71 |
72. Really? And how do you feel about that? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-15-10 12:42 AM Response to Reply #72 |
73. Not really. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Touchdown (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-15-10 01:32 AM Response to Reply #73 |
77. Now I see. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Radical Activist (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 11:51 PM Response to Original message |
69. I don't want a dictator who can ignore laws passed by Congress. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
JonLP24 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-15-10 01:25 PM Response to Reply #69 |
86. Right |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BlueCheese (897 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-15-10 01:46 AM Response to Original message |
81. How far does she have to appeal it, in your opinion? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-15-10 01:52 AM Response to Reply #81 |
82. If there is a plausible defense under current doctrine |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BlueCheese (897 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-15-10 02:57 AM Response to Reply #82 |
83. Obviously... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-15-10 10:17 AM Response to Reply #83 |
84. Sure, that would be fine. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
frylock (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Oct-15-10 01:42 PM Response to Original message |
87. DOJ Declines To Appeal Ruling Allowing Christianists To Proselytize In Parks |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Wed Apr 24th 2024, 07:15 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC