tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post8449923934952973414..comments2024-03-28T16:18:12.319-04:00Comments on the daily howler: TRIBE AND RACE: Yet this is us!<b>bob somerby</b>http://www.blogger.com/profile/02963464534685954436noreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-82748906936352525322013-11-25T21:37:21.065-05:002013-11-25T21:37:21.065-05:00Anonymous @3:08P,
May I call you Anonymous? Well...Anonymous @3:08P,<br /><br />May I call you Anonymous? Well, Anonymous, I'm going to cop to arrogance. And if you don't like my arrogance, you can go fuck yourself. Is that arrogant enough for you? If not reread this first paragraph until you're satisfied.<br /><br />I'm also going to cop to ignorance. I'm not a lawyer, and I make that clear. If that admission bothers you in light of my postings, please refer to the first paragraph.<br /><br />What's missing, of course is your demonstration that I am, in fact, wrong. Even the ignorantly arrogant (or is that the arrogantly ignorant?) can get things right. Apparently a shortage of gumption and an excess of distance from a law library are two factors. Perhaps a third is my lack of clarity in presenting my comments. I venture this in place of speculating on whether it's really your lack of reading for comprehension, and if you're unsure of my sincerity, I again refer you to the first paragraph of this comment.<br /><br />Just in case my writing wasn't clear enough, I will restate my claim. I am <i>not</i> arguing that the proposed 2014 waivers will be adjudicated as proper. If I did so, any lawyer would correct me in 10 seconds by pointing out that legal theory and precedents are fine, but cases are decided on the set of facts presented and accepted in court. And we don't know those facts yet. I am arguing that DAinCA is wrong in asserting that 1) Obama is granting waivers, 2) he's doing it for political reasons, 3) the waivers constitute violations of the ACA, and 4) the waivers are unconstitutional because they violate equal protection of the law.<br /><br />If my exchanges with DAinCA have led you to believe that I think the APA by itself will dispose of any questions of missed statutory deadlines, then I apologize. The APA sets up the framework and machinery for administrative agencies to issue the rules to implement a law. In the case of the ACA, this will be some part of HHS, which will grant waivers to insurance companies. Which is to say that Obama isn't granting the waivers, and if he's doing so by interfering in HHS procedures to score some "political" points, then DAinCA should have some evidence that he's doing so. Do you think this is a matter of some dispute? If so, I suppose I'll have to wait for you to find both gumption and gasoline to demonstrate the opposite.<br /><br />Courts generally allow wide latitude to agencies in their administrative procedures. Do you dispute this as well? Note that this general statement isn't enough to declare that the 2014 waivers will pass muster, but rather that a literal reading of the text of the ACA won't automatically tell whether a delay is legally impermissible, as DAinCA claims. To make such a determination a court would examine legislative intent (as you point out) as well as balancing the benefits of a delay against harm caused.<br /><br />Lastly, I have asked DAinCA to demonstrate that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment applies to the feds since the 14th Amendment applies to the states. It is, of course, a trick question.<br /><br />The law is a technical profession, and those who practice it untrained are not only unwise but also possibly in violation of it. But it's not such an abstruse subject that laity cannot understand it and offer cogent opinion. I understand that you think my understanding is lacking, and I would look forward to your corrections. Except that your car is out of gumption. Or something.<br /><br />I hope you appreciate that the points I'm making, which of course, might still be wrong, and I urge you to contemplate the wisdom of deadrat -- go back and read the first paragraph.<br />deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-86384487069807202802013-11-25T15:08:24.185-05:002013-11-25T15:08:24.185-05:00Deadrat, I hate to be the one to break it to you, ...Deadrat, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the APA has nothing to do about the statutory deadlines in the ACA. This is strictly a case of statutory interpretation by looking at the text of the statute and its legislative history. If I had the gumption I would drive the hundred miles to the State law library and get you the definitive answer. The *ucking APA has nothing to do with it. As a layman, I hope you appreciate just how wrong you are-as any lawyer would correct you in about 10 seconds. I hope you appreciate the fact that the law (and this is a legal question) is a profession which means that unless you are trained in it, it is wise to keep silent. I only bring this to your attention due to the sheer arrogance of your postings while being so ignorant yourself. Please contemplate with me the wisdom of Betram Russell-only the ignorant are sure. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-77868259828236315292013-11-25T11:15:32.041-05:002013-11-25T11:15:32.041-05:00Perhaps, but in this case, accurate.Perhaps, but in this case, accurate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-5452242426013795912013-11-25T03:06:47.886-05:002013-11-25T03:06:47.886-05:00JoshSN,
Does that mean I don't get full credi...JoshSN,<br /><br />Does that mean I don't get full credit?<br />deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-67116922764007322962013-11-25T03:05:03.438-05:002013-11-25T03:05:03.438-05:00Greg,
I didn't mean anything snarky with my q...Greg,<br /><br />I didn't mean anything snarky with my question about Paster/Pastor. It never occurred to me that it was a typo because you use the -er ending consistently. I thought I might be missing some pun-like joke. "Penultimate" means next-to-last, which is appropriate here. What do think it means?<br /><br />I wasn't aware that I needed your approval to respond to anything on this thread. Or everything. (Or EVERYTHING.)<br /><br />Sure, the WPE got a free ride. But that's because reporting is hard, and reporters don't do it anymore. They're lazy, so they write "even-handed" one-said-the-other-said pieces on substantive topics while they wait for the distractions of the next scandal.<br /><br />DAinCA is DAinCA, the archetypical, modern "conservative." If he can find a right-wing opinion he agrees with, he thinks he's confirmed the truth. Welcome to the evidence-free voter.<br /><br />I have no idea what you're talking about when you write "taking crap." TDH berates liberals for adopting conservative tactics, what I call "making crap up." Part of making crap up is what TDH calls "nutpicking," finding the craziest guy at the rally and pretending that everyone there is marching in lock step with him. Larry Klayman is such a guy, and here's what TDH said about him:<br /><br /><quote src="TDH" date="10/15/13"><br />Klayman has been a giant public buffoon since the Clinton era, when he filed 18 lawsuits against the administration. Last year,he filed a lawsuit to keep Obama off the Florida ballot, claiming he wasn’t a “natural-born citizen.”<br /><br />We’ll guess that Klayman is less a nut than a devoted chaser of money. Whatever his motives, there you see the pitiful comments he offered at the protest.<br /></quote><br /><br />Not tough enough for you? TDH didn't go on to say ignore him. He said don't pretend all your opponents are Klaymans or "pal around," so to speak, with Klayman.<br /><br />Here's the takeaway from this entry: "The 99 percent has always been easy to beat when it makes war on itself." If every Republican voter is a teahadist, and every teahadist is a Larry Klayman, and Larry Klayman is a stone racist, then you've branded a lot of people you don't know as racists. Even though their economic interests coincide with yours.<br /><br />OK, so you're not "just like them." But if you make up crap just like them, who are you?deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-27016386299102739682013-11-24T11:49:49.553-05:002013-11-24T11:49:49.553-05:00I want to compliment Al Sharpton. He is perhaps t...I want to compliment Al Sharpton. He is perhaps the first political leader of any race to publicly denounce the fad of "knockout" attacks by black youths. <br />http://nypost.com/2013/11/23/al-sharpton-condemns-knockout-attacks/<br /><br /><i>“Kids are randomly knocking out people [from] another race — some specifically going at Jewish people,” he said. “This kind of insane thuggery — there is nothing cute about that. There is no game play about knocking somebody out, and it is not a game. It is an assault and is bias, and it is wrong.”</i>David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-90499013594491318722013-11-24T10:49:29.426-05:002013-11-24T10:49:29.426-05:00And is there some reason for responding to my typo...And is there some reason for responding to my typo by misusing the word "penultimate?" In any case, since you are responding to EVERYTHING on this thread, I'll take it you concede my main point about Bush's free ride is correct and David in Ca is full of crap as usual, so far, so good. As for the TDH never calling for a "kinder gentler approach", I would submit to you that that is now largely what he does. At best, as has been pointed out many times, he alternately berates liberals for A) ruining everything by taking crap, or B) ruining everything by not taking crap. This is often amusing, but in the case of race somewhat less so. If you listened to the radio appearance Bob posted a link to earlier this year, the mod asked him, "Well, how do you respond to racism, when it is CLEAR and over the line?" and Bob said, like MLK you must take a firm stand when it IS clearly racism. Flash ahead to Larry Klayman a few weeks ago and Bob's "just ignore him" response. <br /> He can't have it both ways, particularly if he is going to appoint himself as a judge in these matters. No Bob, I am not "just like them." YOU are like so many lily white "nice" people who have looked the other way and allowed racism to flourish in this county. <br />Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288008924419574934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-50568003054275531892013-11-24T07:32:30.711-05:002013-11-24T07:32:30.711-05:00deadrat,
Well, that's a really minor example....deadrat,<br /><br />Well, that's a really minor example. Limbaugh is a major nat'l figure, while this guy was the assistant to a Mayor.JoshSNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08034864979736555692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-35097808969945916722013-11-24T04:56:22.639-05:002013-11-24T04:56:22.639-05:00Greg,
As far as I can remember, TDH has never tak...Greg,<br /><br />As far as I can remember, TDH has never taken the position that a "kinder, gentler approach" is a good idea when dealing with right-wingers. Can you quote TDH to that effect? TDH recommends that the left not stoop to the level of the right.<br /><br />Contrary to your claim, TDH has called out O'Reilly. Check the blog entry for 6/5/13. But if you're looking for a blog about the failings of the right, then you should look elsewhere. That's just not the main concern of TDH.<br /><br />Is there some reason for spelling "Pastor" with a penultimate "e"?deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-53715872914634558212013-11-24T04:43:19.074-05:002013-11-24T04:43:19.074-05:00DAinCA,
But of course, the word "fake" ...DAinCA,<br /><br />But of course, the word "fake" is your word to describe events that you never witnessed but were told about. By people like Rush Limbaugh.<br /><br />Not Harry Reid, because it turns out that once again you didn't check your sources and just assumed that Reid agreed with you. And, big surprise! You were wrong. Again. Still.<br /><br />BTW, write down the size of the smallest thing you can think of. Now divide that by the largest number you can think of. You've now got an approximation to how much I care about your smoke screen of the scourge of people "straining" to redefine normal conduct as racism. I hope it's OK with you that I'm just not up to commiserating with you about the dreadful state of "black youngsters." What a drag that must be. Good thing we own everything, huh?<br /><br />I'm talking about your racism. No, no, not the Ku Kluxer kind. Not the aggrieved and fearful Lionel kind, either. I'm talking about the smarmy condescension and arrogance that lets you to conclude that a black man really isn't black enough because of second-hand reports from his enemies about the meaning of his diction. It hasn't escaped my notice that you assume that a "white" accent, not the "Negro dialect," must be the truly "authentic" diction. Assuming here that Obama's diction actually changes all that much with the racial makeup of his audience. And that the word "authentic" means anything more than "David in Cal approves."<br /><br />"That's what the words mean." Isn't that the same excuse you gave for your complete misunderstanding of the law? You've got your private understandings that arise from your abyssal ignorance. Most people would recognize these as misunderstandings and don't allow them to survive contact with contrary evidence. Not you. You just move on to spewing the next load of unchecked nonsense.<br /><br />Why is that?deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-40000292065087232182013-11-24T02:31:45.624-05:002013-11-24T02:31:45.624-05:00You are right, deadrat. Nobody told me that Obama&...You are right, deadrat. Nobody told me that Obama's fake accent was inauthentic and phony. Nobody had to tell me. That's what the words mean.<br /><br />BTW here's another example of people <a href="http://dailybruin.com/2013/11/20/students-defend-professor-after-sit-in-over-racial-climate/" rel="nofollow">straining to define normal conduct as racism.</a> Some people claim that racism is expanding. IMHO, it's the definition of racism that's expanding.<br /><br /><i>Student demonstrators [at UCLA] alleged that there is a “toxic” racial climate in the graduate school [of education], including in Rust’s classroom... Rust said students in the demonstration described grammar and spelling corrections he made on their dissertation proposals as a form of "micro-aggression."</i><br /><br />Whoever it is that teaches black youngsters to have such ultra-sensitivity is doing them no favor.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-17597573751196917332013-11-23T23:39:23.498-05:002013-11-23T23:39:23.498-05:00DAinCA,
Harry Reid might be your source for Obama...DAinCA,<br /><br />Harry Reid might be your source for Obama's not using a dialect unless he wanted one, but Harry Reid is not the source for your contemptible conclusion that this makes Obama an inauthentic phony. Reid's point (reported in the book <i>Game Change</i>) was that Obama's diction (and light skin) would make him so acceptable to the white electorate that his race would be a net plus.deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-10202341836731108462013-11-23T23:10:23.526-05:002013-11-23T23:10:23.526-05:00After 9-11, George W Bush enjoyed a honeymoon with...After 9-11, George W Bush enjoyed a honeymoon with the Press Corp that extended, essentially until the "enough's enough" moment of Katrina. It was important to his fucking up the planet in a fashion unlike any other individual in our time. Even the obvious catastrophe of the invasion of Iraq received <br />"even handed" coverage, and Bob Somerby ran protection for the Bush White too, in his way, with his refusal to write seriously about the Scooter Libby send up. The Press had looked the other way in Bush's AWFUL background, the company wrecking and influence peddling that had defined his career, and which would play out predictably in his Presidency. David in Ca is a dishonest person at a very fundamental level as he well remembers all of this. Bill O'Reilly threatened to ruin the careers of anyone who was critical of the invasion of Iraq in real time. He was never called out for this by the Daily Howler, who has constantly forgiven or looked the other way at this kind of crap from O"Reilly. If the Daily Howler really believes a kinder, gentler approach with the right is a good idea, I would be able to respect that opinion a lot more easily if he tended to be honest about what the right actually does and says. When real examples of right racism (not mind reading tribal bellyaching) DO occur, he shrugs them off. So Paster Bob is stuck preaching to an ever dwindling choir. It's a waste. Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288008924419574934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-51677729799683027102013-11-23T19:54:41.408-05:002013-11-23T19:54:41.408-05:00The legitimate hardships for people like you no do...The legitimate hardships for people like you no doubt number fewer than incidents of voter identity fraud, which is close to zero in any case.<br /><br />History also tells us about the people who wish to restrict suffrage.<br /><br />Let me be clear, I'm imputing the "shiftless" label to you in a bit of snark. And you know whom I'm talking about. It's probably true that the voters you don't want on the rolls are more likely to vote Democratic, and it's probably true that the Democratic Party apparat is therefore interested in those voters. But that's also why you don't want them on the rolls.<br /><br />There's no evidence that the system is broken (except in the sense that people you denigrate vote), and you know what they say about things that ain't broken. deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-29079159641922639572013-11-23T15:51:37.685-05:002013-11-23T15:51:37.685-05:00You're correct about my knowledge of Obama'...You're correct about my knowledge of Obama's dialect being mostly 2nd hand, although I do also recall a seeing a video of him on TV or on the web talking to a black audience. I already told the source of my 2nd hand knowledge. As I said, my source of knowledge was Harry Reid, rather than some right winger.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-40929338429435374592013-11-23T15:29:30.480-05:002013-11-23T15:29:30.480-05:00i agree with deadrat. OTOH, has anyone emailed bo...i agree with deadrat. OTOH, has anyone emailed bob about the troll infestation? seems like a better option than complaining in comments... since who know if he reads his combox... Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-61659210000586663552013-11-23T15:02:40.188-05:002013-11-23T15:02:40.188-05:00DAinCA,
You're quite right that the administr...DAinCA,<br /><br />You're quite right that the administration will break some of the 2014 deadlines specified in the ACA. And I'll take your word for it that you're not a lawyer. Neither am I. But you're wrong when you say that you thought that violating a law means violating the law. If you're being honest with yourself, you'd admit that no thought went into it. Some right-wing source told you that Obama was violating the law, and you simply bought it.<br /><br />Let me be exact about what I've said about the ACA. That law like others contains the implementation instructions to the federal agency in charge to make "needful" rules. And the Constitution tasks the President with "faithfully" executing those laws. For disputes that arise when agencies in charge confront ambiguities or find themselves unable to meet deadlines, the court that has jurisdiction, the District Court for DC, has laid out guidelines for the leeway allowed those agencies in doing the "needful" and the "faithful."<br /><br />Neither of us knows whether the District Court for DC would issue a writ of mandamus should any specific deviation come before it. For my part, that's because it's impossible to know the future with absolute certainty. For your part, it's because you're completely ignorant of the cases that have come before that court. The kinds of deviations we're talking about haven't previously given rise to judicial intervention. In other words, the types of delays being discussed have been ruled properly within an agency's discretion in cases going back decades.<br /><br />Now, how is it that you don't know these things but are still convinced that Obama is acting illegally?<br /><br />Let me again distinguish between the announced 2014 waivers and the 2013 waivers for substandard insurance plans. The latter are directly contemplated in the law. I've asked you repeatedly to defend your claim that Obama deliberately violated the chain of command by interfering in the HHS waiver procedure and thereby broke the law and the violated the Constitution for political reasons. You've never even attempted to support this charge, and now you say you're finished with this topic? You never even started.<br /><br />On that other topic, I'm not sure what's got your panties in a twist over my snarky reply. So let me clarify my remark. Even after reading your various comments at TDH, I find breathtaking the sheer ignorance and arrogance it takes to judge someone's authenticity and genuineness from the <i>reports</i> of the person's diction. You can know nothing of Obama's interiority and I'm sure you know little of his life experience, just as I'm sure your knowledge of his use of "Negro dialect" is second-hand from people like Rush Limbaugh. What do you think, he talks like Uncle Remus in front of black audiences?<br /><br />I'm sorry if this sounds "racist" to you, but you're just slightly too pale, literally and figuratively, to declare who's authentically black enough. And while we're at it, you don't know me well enough to judge what I'm worthy of. You might want to stick to how worthy my arguments are. I realize that's a harder task since it would require marshaling evidence.deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-56007339479142516012013-11-23T13:40:14.314-05:002013-11-23T13:40:14.314-05:00For all of the excuses you offer, there are other ...For all of the excuses you offer, there are other ways in which the goal can be achieved. Mobile units (they exist), other outreach efforts. The fact is, it is known that a portion of potential voters you call "lazy and shiftless" and I call lazy simply will not make the investment of time you make to get your ID because they're lazy. <br /><br />Waiting until there is a significant enough problem that it makes differences in elections is a far dumber way to approach the problem than implementing the measures and addressing legitimate hardships in other ways. You want to wait until the integrity of the system is broken before fixing it. History tells us those fixes are always too little and too late.<br /><br />The legitimate hardships no doubt number fewer than incidents of voter fraud. The fact is, Democrats are interested in mining lazy and illegal voters because those voters vote for Democrats, and they are willing to block policies that discourage them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-56561515433480294892013-11-23T13:21:59.973-05:002013-11-23T13:21:59.973-05:00Again, your failure to understand things does not ...Again, your failure to understand things does not reflect on my logic.<br /><br />Let me guess. Like me, you're white and middle class. I can get a photo ID by going to my convenient DMV office a half mile from my home. It takes no more than 30 minutes if I have to get my picture retaken. Renewal takes about 10 minutes. Hard to even believe it's a DMV office. The office is open only on weekdays, but there are two nearby that have Saturday hours. If I needed a passport, that would be no problem either. The post office is only four blocks further than the DMV office. The fees for both the required certified copy of my birth certificate and the passport are as negligible for me as is the time and inconvenience of getting the documents.<br /><br />So things are easy for <i>me</i> to comply with and the effort requires extremely minimal effort for <i>me</i>. And, I'm guessing, for you. The difference between us is that I don't extrapolate my experience to the rest of the world, and I don't impute laziness to people who aren't as plugged into the system as I am. (By the way, didn't you mean lazy and shiftless?)<br /><br />Things are harder if say, you live on Chicago's south side. There's one office and it's open only during working hours. Things are also harder if you're older or if you live in rural areas or if you weren't born in a hospital or if you don't have a car or if you're homeless.<br /><br />If voter identification fraud were even a small problem, my views would be different. But it's not even microscopic, and God knows Republicans have been searching high and low for it. The irony is that when they look, they find Republicans like Charlie White, the former Secretary of State for Indiana.deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-56424978547658112242013-11-23T12:03:03.545-05:002013-11-23T12:03:03.545-05:00Again, your logic lacks. Perhaps black Democrats ...Again, your logic lacks. Perhaps black Democrats disproportionately suppress their own votes when rational measures to prevent voter fraud are put in place that are easy for anyone to comply with but require expenditure of extremely minimal effort, but that doesn't amount to Republicans suppressing votes. It amounts to something quite different. Democrats will be shy in admitting that they don't want photo ID's because they prefer protecting any potential of voter fraud over discouraging lazy people from voting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-61882164387739723302013-11-23T11:08:21.516-05:002013-11-23T11:08:21.516-05:00deadrat -- I think we have partial agreement. We ...deadrat -- I think we have partial agreement. We agree that in some cases the Administration isn't following the exact terms of ACA. I'm not a lawyer. I always thought that violating what a law says means one is violating the law. You say the ACA law (and others) includes boilerplate that allows the government legally to violate the words of a law, in some cases. You might be right. <br /><br />I don't know how a court would rule on any specific deviation from the words of the ACA law. I am finished with this topic.<br /><br />On another topic, deadrat, your authenticity comment, evidently attempting some sort of race-based snark, is unworthy of you. David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-86417023008869888892013-11-23T06:55:52.194-05:002013-11-23T06:55:52.194-05:00Yeah, Jeeves, how'd that work out for you? Go...Yeah, Jeeves, how'd that work out for you? Good thing we don't have to endure Clinton hatred and we've now entered post-partisan heaven.mmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-62353364816470561882013-11-23T05:05:29.874-05:002013-11-23T05:05:29.874-05:00DAinCA,
Once again, the problem is that you don&#...DAinCA,<br /><br />Once again, the problem is that you don't know what you're talking about. You're reading the text of the law (or rather someone has quoted the law to you), and you've found a deadline. You've then concluded that the deadline is set in stone and HHS is acting illegally in not meeting the deadline.<br /><br />This is not the way the law works. Agencies miss deadlines all the time. Do you need me to quote examples? The law that governs agency discretion is the Administrative Procedure Act (5USC551-559), and the ACA like most other laws contains boilerplate that grants the appropriate agency the authority to make all "needful" rules and regulations. Disputes about whether delays are needful end up in the District Court for Washington, DC, which has given guidance in evaluating delays that violate deadlines. It's called "a rule of reason," which requires examining Congressional intent in setting timetables, considering the effects of expediting delays, and balancing the harm to parties against the benefit of a delay. In particular the court has found that delays in economic regulation are to be given more latitude than delays that affect public health and safety.<br /><br />I know you think that a right-wing newspaper's unsupported opinion is dispositive, but it just doesn't comport with precedent. The matter will never get to court, not because the public won't care about "technicalities," but because the District Court for DC has already given guidance on those technicalities.<br /><br />Now, I think I've been diligent in countering your arguments about waivers to be granted in 2014 and beyond. Don't you think you should have the courtesy to answer my questions on the 2013 waivers? You've accused the President of violating the chain of command to make political decisions that are not only illegal but also unconstitutional. Can you back up that accusation? Why not start by answering my four questions. Do I need to post them again?<br />deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-57067962597385276912013-11-23T04:06:36.925-05:002013-11-23T04:06:36.925-05:00DAinCA,
When Obama uses the Negro dialect, he'...DAinCA,<br /><br /><i>When Obama uses the Negro dialect, he's being an inauthentic phony.</i><br /><br />I finally have no words to describe the depths of your ignorance. But I'm sure black people everywhere rejoice that <i>finally</i> there's a white person who can gauge their authenticity from their speech.deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-61796936195468098312013-11-23T02:35:58.950-05:002013-11-23T02:35:58.950-05:00deadrat, I have provided several explanations or e...deadrat, I have provided several explanations or examples of why some of the Administration's modification of ACA are illegal. Here's another:<br /><br /><i>Even if Obama wanted to extend the open enrollment period, he wouldn't be allowed to without an act of Congress — at least if he wants to follow the law he signed.<br /><br />Though the health care law granted the Secretary of Health and Human Services discretion to define dates for the open enrollment period to occur each year, it also specified that the initial enrollment period (i.e. the current one) had to be announced by July 1, 2012.<br /><br />Specifically, Section 1311 of the healthcare law reads, "ENROLLMENT PERIODS: The Secretary shall require an Exchange to provide for-- (A) an initial open enrollment, as determined by the Secretary (such determination to be made not later than July 1, 2012)."<br /> <br />Given that HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has already determined that the enrollment period must end on March 31 — and nearly 16 months has passed since she made that determination — extending the period would require an act of Congress to change the law.</i><br />http://washingtonexaminer.com/law-says-obama-cant-extend-obamacare-enrollment-period-without-act-of-congress/article/2537721<br /><br />As I've said before, for better or for worse, I think the Administration will get away with this action. The public will figure that it's better to ignore the technicalities of the law and do practical things needed to make it work. And, I don't think this matter will ever go to court.David in Calnoreply@blogger.com