The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Friday in favor of the use of military funds for building new wall sections along our Southern Border. When the challenge was filed, I expressed doubt over its chances and said that I thought it would fail before the Supreme Court. It now has and the Trump Administration has a lot of money to build a lot of wall . . . just in time for the 2020 election cycle.
The ruling overturns over court rulings in the Ninth Circuit and frees up $2.5 billion from the Defense Department. Trump designates those funds as part of the $8.1 billion he was seeking for the wall.
The Supreme Court ruling is more of a reflection of the Congress failing to use its powers than the Executive Branch exerting its own. I have long maintained that the Congress is frittering away its power over the purse by appropriating hundreds of billions of dollars with little limitation or purpose stated in bills. There are billions slushing around the Executive Branch and the Trump Administration was doing what prior Administrations have done in shifting the funds as it deems fit.
This is yet another case of a disconnect with legal commentary. For over a year, legal analysts and advocates have expressed confidence that this lawsuit would succeed despite strong case law supporting the Administration on the use of the money. There will be continued litigation over the authority to start the construction in terms of private property claims, administrative procedures, and other issues.
The case has also reinforced the position of the Democrats in opposing any new wall, particularly many running for the presidency. That is precisely what Trump wants in making immigration the defining issue for the general election.
129 thoughts on “Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Trump On Funds For Border Wall”
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Suspended For Next 10 Rulings Following Supreme Court Bench-Clearing Brawl
WASHINGTON—Describing her conduct as incompatible with the values of the federal judiciary, authorities handed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg a 10-case suspension Thursday for her role in the Supreme Court’s bench-clearing brawl. “Article III Section 1 of the Constitution states that members of this honorable court ‘shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,’ and that’s certainly not what we saw out there today,” said James C. Duff, administrative director of the U.S. federal court system, issuing a decision that could have a major impact on the Supreme Court’s upcoming term, when it is expected to face a tough docket of big cases. “A review of courtroom sketches clearly shows that Ginsburg grabbed Justice Samuel Alito, put him in a headlock, and began smashing his face with a gavel. As such, she will be barred from participating in the next 10 rulings, though she will still be permitted to attend proceedings so long as she does not wear her Supreme Court robes.” Duff noted that Ginsburg had previously been suspended for showboating, having grabbed the courtroom’s American flag and waved it in the faces of the losing party as she celebrated a 5-4 victory in 2015’s landmark Obergefell v. Hodges case.
Estovir – I thought she was dead and no one had the nerve to tell her. 😉 I know she works out, so this is all in the realm of possibility. Damn those courtroom sketches, they will get you every time.
I am very disappointed that the Democratic Party has gone all in on illegal immigration. The attacks on BP agents and ICE are unconscionable. The rhetoric is uninformed and, frankly, malicious.
We need some relief from the high levels of illegal immigration. We cannot take care of the homeless we already have, who need expensive services like housing, mental health, and rehab. Why ever would we flood the country with entry level job seekers, and those in need of the most support services, when our infrastructure is already strained?
By their actions, it seems like the DNC cares more about felons than law abiding citizens (https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/albany/story/2019/05/07/senate-passes-bill-to-let-felons-serve-on-juries-1009680), and illegal immigrants over citizens and legal residents.
I used to be able to pick and choose aspects that I liked about each party. The Democratic Party has quite alienated me at this point. I’d vote for a trained ferret over any Democratic candidate for President. The alternative is a vote for Socialism, open borders, and higher taxes. Possibly the Green New Deal where we would be forbidden air travel and the economy would collapse. I don’t think our country can afford what the Dems are spending. The Democrats seem hell bent on repeating the Socialism experiment.
We’ve wasted so much time, where we could have been shutting down illegal immigration – physical barrier, deport those who have their court orders, find some way to deal with the lawlessness of sanctuary cities, track visa over stays, limit chain migration to immediate family, and parents, and try to find those prospects from around the world who want to assimilate, and would be an asset. They exist in all socioeconomic classes, in all countries, and religions. Encourage e Verify. Illegal immigrants should not qualify for any benefits. Think of all the money we would have to spend on priorities, like the homelessness crisis. Illegal immigration is entitled behavior, line jumping, and it proclaims that our country does not have the right to decide who, or how many, or what our benefits infrastructure can support. It means that those looking for work or housing just have to shove over. It depresses wages. A responsible immigration system would match immigration to the housing and jobs market, and keep the population stable. At some point in the future, we’ll end up with no more open space and not enough water otherwise.
We need to make it obvious that it is a waste of time and money to line jump the legal immigration process. The right way should be the only successful way.
Only when illegal immigration is finally stopped, can we then address the innocent children who were brought here by their parents. Who were handed over to coyotes and given some Plan B One Step to deal with their probable rape. Those kids were victims. But I will not support any permanent residency for them without stopping illegal immigration first, or it will become an incentive for more of it. We cannot induce parents to use their children as a ticket past our border, because that puts them in grave danger.
What a deceptive article. The Supremes just lifted a stay so that Trump can proceed while litigation continues. It ain’t over, folks
But he can start spending the $$ — and continue with his pet project — in the meantime?
Maureen Dowd calls out UNVARNISHED the Left for what they are: NASTY, and she predicts Trump will win 2020.
Spare Me the Purity Racket
WASHINGTON — After I interviewed Nancy Pelosi a few weeks ago, The HuffPost huffed that we were Dreaded Elites because we were eating chocolates and — horror of horrors — the speaker had on some good pumps.
Then this week, lefty Twitter erected a digital guillotine because I had a book party for my friend Carl Hulse, The Times’s authority on Capitol Hill for decades, attended by family, journalists, Hill denizens and a smattering of lawmakers, including Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and Susan Collins.
I, the daughter of a D.C. cop, and Carl, the son of an Illinois plumber, were hilariously painted as decadent aristocrats reveling like Marie Antoinette when we should have been knitting like Madame Defarge.
Yo, proletariat: If the Democratic Party is going to be against chocolate, high heels, parties and fun, you’ve lost me. And I’ve got some bad news for you about 2020.
The progressives are the modern Puritans. The Massachusetts Bay Colony is alive and well on the Potomac and Twitter.
They eviscerate their natural allies for not being pure enough while placing all their hopes in a color-inside-the-lines lifelong Republican prosecutor appointed by Ronald Reagan.
The politics of purism makes people stupid. And nasty.
My father stayed up all night the night Truman was elected because he was so excited. I would like to stay up ’til dawn the night a Democrat wins next year because I’m so excited to see the moment when the despicable Donald Trump lumbers into a Marine helicopter and flies away for good.
But Democrats are making that dream ever more distant because they are using their time knifing one another and those who want to be on their side instead of playing it smart.
House Democrats forced Robert Mueller to testify, after he made it clear that he was spent and had nothing to add to his damning yet damnably legalistic, double-negative report, because they were hoping the hearings would jump-start howls for impeachment.
But it’s hard to get the mad blood stirring with Muellerisms like “This is outside my purview,” “I can’t get into that,” “I don’t subscribe necessarily to your — the way you analyze that,” and “I’m not going to go into the ins and outs.”
I never want to hear about the “O.L.C. opinion” again.
The Republicans were impressively craven and hypocritical. They are sticking with Trump, and no pallid reminder of his turpitude, his trellis of obstructions and his unpatriotic embrace of foreign interference in our elections, will change that.
The always blockheaded Louie Gohmert shouldn’t even be allowed to hold the coat of Mueller, a war hero and respected public official. But Gohmert yelled such crazy stuff at the former special counsel that he appeared to be auditioning for a spot on Fox News’s “The Five.”
The hearings were shameful for Republicans thirsting for re-election and a failure for Democrats thirsting for impeachment. It was many underwhelming hours of members of Congress reading to Mueller and Mueller saying, Yes, that’s what I wrote. Or at least what somebody wrote.
The recipe for emotional satisfaction on the part of the progressive left is not a recipe for removing Trump from the White House.
The argument about whether Trump is impeachable is the wrong argument. Mueller settled that. We know Trump did things worthy of impeachment. That is not the question we should be asking. The question is: Should he be impeached?
The progressive Puritans think we must honor the Constitution and go for it because it’s the right thing to do.
You can argue that impeachment, morally and constitutionally, is the right thing to do. But you also have to recognize that, historically and politically, it is not the right thing to do because it will lead to disaster.
The attempt to impeach Trump is one of the rare cases in which something obviously justified is obviously stupid.
Unbelievably, Pelosi — long a G.O.P. target for her unalloyed liberalism — is derided by the far left for her pragmatism. But she has been through enough Washington wars to know that idealism, untempered by realism, is dangerous.
An impeachment could return Trump to power. The highchair king from Fifth Avenue would exult in his victimhood and energize his always-ready-to-be aggrieved followers.
It could also lead to Democrats losing the House as their moderates fall and help Republicans hold the Senate. No Republicans would vote for impeaching Trump and some Democrats might refuse as well. Even if the House acted, Mitch McConnell would smother it in the Senate, just like he did Merrick Garland.
It’s better to pull out Trump by the roots in the election and firmly repudiate him. The Democrats should focus on the future, not the benighted past that we have been relegated to under Trump.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign focused on what a terrible person Trump is. It turned out that enough voters knew that and didn’t care. They wanted a racist Rottweiler.
Now the Democrats are once more focused on what a terrible person Trump is. Message received, many times over.
The progressives’ cry that they don’t care about the political consequences because they have a higher cause is just a purity racket.
Their mantra is like that of Ferdinand I, the Holy Roman Emperor: “Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.” “Let justice be done, though the world perish.”
The rest of us more imperfect beings don’t want the world to perish. And maybe justice can be done, without losing the White House, the House, chocolate, high heels, parties and fun.
She called Trump a “racist Rottweiler”…. shut up Ms. Dowdy Spinster. You watch, les Deplorables will make sure Trump is reelected so you, and the rest of the DC establishment elite, suffer for four more years…four really loooooong years…under Trump. I can’t wait.
Thanks, sneering Maureen, for the book review. You got the ending right. You just missed the plot and the characters. Must be the great pimps on that daughter of a cop.
Yo no tingo dinero.
“Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Trump On Funds For Border Wall”
– Professor Turley
To be sure, the Supreme Court does not “rule,” the Supreme Court legislates.
The judicial branch is the second legislative branch under the “living,” “breathing” newspeak Constitution of the anti-American communists, aka liberals, socialists, progressives, democrats.
The Supreme Court and the entire judicial branch issue biased and subjective political “decisions” completely ignoring the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Courts have one simple duty under the Constitution: “…to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
Roberts did “… not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” Ridiculously, treasonously, Chief Justice Roberts commingled the definition of the words “state” and “federal” to forcibly impose the communistic and irrefutably unconstitutional redistribution of wealth inherent in Obamacare, for which Roberts should have been immediately impeached, convicted and severely penalized with extreme prejudice. And so it goes in the second legislative branch.
America is an hysterical, incoherent, chaotic and anarchistic maelstrom of rapacious parasitism which replaces fundamental law with “polling” of the greedy, leeching invading global masses.
Ben Franklin, 1789, we gave you “…a republic, if you can keep it.”
Ben Franklin, 2019, we gave you “…a republic, if you can take it back.”
Why in the hell is Congress & Trump/etc., & the Citizens surrendering up our, OUR!, Authority to these Nut Jobs in dresses , the Judiciary Branch, that think they a Gods over us.
What, everyone now has had to many untested vaccines & are to stupid to comprehend Article 3 powers of the USC? Those powers are very, very limited!
Why is there not 5000 or 10000 Congressmen now as the would be called for under the founders principle instead of the 456 Congress we now have no matter how large the population gets?
Why do we put up with so many city/state/federal bureaucracies 7 unconstitutional administrative courts???
Calm down, Oky, The court ruled ‘in favor’ of Trump.
Oky1 has his moments as do you, Shill.
For how many immigrants do you provide care, subsistence, help and so forth, Shill? Since you are supposedly in Hollywood you should have plenty of opportunities. Shame the conservatives on this forum by telling us how you walk their and your talk. The floor is yours.
No Wah Putz copy and paste dribble please
The dumbazzes in LA, elsewhere & even here have been b*tch about to many coyotes for years & have been killing them off.
Now LA is being overran with Rats… & things like spreading Typhus, Bubonic Plague, etc..
Hey dumbazzes, the coyotes were keeping your Rat problem under control until you killed off to many.
And your cities didn’t burn when Cali used help pay goat/sheep herders to glaze through the underbush & allow for some clear cutting for fire breaks.
I know, Commies would rather pay for healthcare employees & firefighters with taxpayer dollars then fix problems.
So what if the Totalitarians have turned all the blues cities into a living hell of homeless people & tents all up & down the sidewalks.
Seriously, the State Dept of someone needs to map out a list of the No Go zones in the US for travellers.
To bad for these special snow flakes but places like Baltimore, DC, Chicago, LA, NYC, Houston, San Fran, etc are Infested 3rd world type sh*itholes.
Help us & Pres Trump stop all these invaders & Dope dealers, etc., clean things up or STFU & get out of our way!
Boo Hoo, Bad Man calls out your Sh*thole Mess.
Estovir, you might be interested to know that my most conservative buddy built a very successful contracting business employing undocumented immigrants. But don’t worry, my buddy is a staunch supporter of Republican policies.
meaning: Your boyfriend is doing the good work of helping immigrants while you sit around and play on the internet and hence have no moral standing on this discussion
PIOUS CATHOLIC ESTOVIR RESORTS
TO HOMOPHOBIC INSULTS
In the rightwing media bubble the most persistent of myths is: ‘Only gay men are politically liberal’.
‘Real men are hard conservatives. They own guns and live away from cities. Liberals are pansies marching with feminists and voting for politicians solicitous of Blacks”.
I read this myth is intentionally promoted by rightwing media. A deliberate effort to link “Gays, Blacks and Feminists” when speaking of Liberals. The reasons are actually logical though horribly cynical.
To begin with it’s an effort to emasculate liberal ideas. Like, “Only gay men see the need for healthcare”. “Only gay men notice Climate Change”. “Real men realize temperatures are hotter all the time!”
The effort to emasculate liberals reflects the minds of bullies. Especially in small towns. The idea is to make White men reluctant to express liberal views. For fear they might be taunted with homophobic insults.
That’s ‘Use of Peer Pressure To Stifle Discussion’. Bully any guy expressing liberal views. It makes them shut-up!
And good Catholic Estovir, an anti-abortion activist splashes homophobic insults on Jonathan Turley’s blog. An example of the creepy guys waging war on women’s rights.
Funny how that goes. The same guys making homophobic jokes are seriously determined to restrict women’s rights. ‘Because that’s what real men do in Estovir’s mind. ..The mindset of nerds..!
It pisses me off Trump even gave them the time of day.
The Executive Branch/ Article 2 powers gave Trump all the authority he needed to Secure the Border without the supreme court’s permission.
Anyway, just more childish bullsh*it from the Commie states/congress/Trump & the courts.
Just remember that every time you see tomorrows headlines of all the kids/others that are being raped, robber, assaulted, murdered by these illegal invaders that are coming or are already here.
With most likely 40-50 million invaders already here I support putting a nice Bounty on them with a US drop off spot just inside Mexico.
Two weeks, with the Prez’s authority I believe I know the people & how to shut that Southern Border down in 2 weeks without having to harm anyone, excerpt maybe a few drug dealing nut cases.
The Military/Police have plenty of tools to work with, they are just not being allowed to use them.
Oky1 – the stopped adding new Congresspeople after they had to expand the Capitol Building and realized how many times they would have to rebuild it. One of the proposed Constitutional Amendments was 1 rep for every 50k citizens. Take the current population of your state and divide it by 50,000 (don’t count illegals) and that is how many representatives you would have in Congress.
Paul, et al:
Nothing says we owe congress an extra large marble mausoleum to meet in.
How about an Ag building with wood chips on the floor? LOL)
I think it was in letters traded between Adams & Jefferson commenting on the fact then they had no more then formed this govt that corrupt forces went to work tearing it apart.
So the original govt is long done, we don’t do honourable duals any more, but there will be a huge reset in the works no doubt.
Plenty of workers world-wide now work off site.
Just like with these out dated models of brick n mortar school buildings & what, millions of yellow schools buses.
There is no need now with the internet for so many buildings, teachers, administrators, buses or public paid for sport academies.
Teaching can been done in mass offsite. Happens everyday with Youtube & websites.
So on one hand certain areas can be reduced in other areas many more state/Fed reps would make it hard for Corps/foreign govts to bribe them & the reps would likely be more intune with the citizens they are supposed to be representing.
We’ll soon see just how violent the Deep state turns against us now they’ve lost to Trump yet again & see how a new govt starts shaping up.
Oky1 – I have thought they could meet from home and Skype. Vote electronically.
There are only a few prime ingredients we lack: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, Nathan Hale, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, Ben Franklin, John Hancock, John Jay et al.
As to the comment on the Supreme Courts timing take it up with them but it did show to get back to a Constitutional Center we need one more as a minimum to ensure or rights of citizenship.
not people, not persons, not groups, but of citizens
Here is an excellent article on why Congress fritters away its powers, why the military tends to get everything they want from all three branches of the so called government and in general what is going on in this nation:
“Years later, documents released by the FBI would show that Epstein became an FBI informant in 2008, when Robert Mueller was the Bureau’s director, in exchange for immunity from then-pending federal charges, a deal that fell through with Epstein’s recent arrest on new federal charges. In addition, former FBI Director Louis Freeh would be hired by Alan Dershowitz, who is accused of raping girls at Epstein’s homes and was once a character witness for Roy Cohn, to intimidate Epstein’s victims. As previously mentioned, Freeh’s past appointment as a judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York was orchestrated by Cohn’s law partner Tom Bolan.
Thus, the FBI’s cover-up of the Franklin case is just one example of the Bureau’s long-standing practice of protecting these pedophile rings when they involve members of the American political elite and provide the Bureau with a steady supply of blackmail. It also makes it worth questioning the impartiality of one of the main prosecutors in the Jeffrey Epstein case, Maurene Comey, who is the daughter of former FBI Director James Comey.”
why the military tends to get everything they want
Nonsense. You write that because you are neither Active Duty nor a Veteran, otherwise you would know better.
Military personnel get screwed for serving and once discharged with service related injury or malady, we treat them worse than our pets.
Members of Congress should be required to have served in the US Armed Forces in order to run for Congressional office. Their stories would be vastly different.
When the people in their collective capacity don’t have the power to determine the scope and cost of Federal Expenditures, and have that collective decision respected and implemented as they intend, then you are at a point of critical destabilization which signifies a Constitutional Crisis. Specifically this is an Article 1 Constitutional Crisis, but by extension this is also an Article 2 and 3 Constitutional Crisis.
Let’s list the areas of Government dysfunction:
1. No control over the revenue process, which includes no control over taxation, followed by no control over spending.
2. No control over the Legislative Process, which includes no Legislative Checks and Balances, and no involvement of the States which are the people in their collective capacity.
3. No Control over Representation, or the Elective Processes by which our Governing institutions are assembled.
4. No Continuity and Stability of Government, which includes the selection of the President with the intention and implied mandate to totally reverse everything which was done by a previous administration.
5. No possibility of controlling conflicts of interest or corruption within our Governing systems, or to remove those complicit in that corruption.
6. No control over Foreign Policy, where it is left to the whims of each successive President and their contrived administration, without the advice and consent of the States as they are assembled in the Senate as Equals, the Union.
7. No control of the distribution of Power to establish collective decision making.
The areas of dysfunction are not limited to the ones listed above, but those are enough to signify that we have a Structure and Assembly Problem which prevents the establishment of proper authority and the distribution of power in our Governing systems, basically everything in Article 1 of the Constitution.
Are we going to continue to ignore this crisis created by our own stupidity and arrogance, until we have a total collapse of our Government and Society, or are we going to wake up and Reestablish the Union as intended and directed by Article 1 of the Constitution?
I think that “We the People” need to decide, not a Individual, and Definitely Not Parties!
The fundimental issue is that far too much is decided “collectively” rather than individually.
Government is NOT as Barney Frank claimed – “what we choose to do together” it is what we are FORCED to do together”.
It is our churches and civic groups that reflect our collective free choices. If you disagree with the actions of the ACLU or Your church, you are not forced to contribute.
There are a few tasks that can not be accomplished absent force – those and only those are the legitimate domain of government.
All other action – collective or individual should be private and voluntary.
More political horse race BS from JT and blaming Congress, which by the way has one house controlled by Trump’s bitches. What a farce they are – remember the outrage over Obama executive actions – and what a farce JT is. This guy is shallower than the Great Salt Lake.
Those celebrating here will surely enjoy what President AOC does with this new found power some day.
Each of us has policies we want the Federal government to pursue.
Each of us opposes many of the policies that others wish the Federal government to pursue.
The structure of government our founders created, and the only one that is sustainable is that only those policies that can secure and hold sustained super majority support of the people can come to fruition.
Over 200 years both parties have worked to dismantle impediments to getting their own way while that control some portion of government to the extent that regardless of party it is now far easier and far more common for a powerful minority to get their way.
Turley is incorrect – or more accurate what he offers is insufficient. Congress must take back the powers it has delegated tot the executive.
But more generally it must be far far easier for a minority to thwart or even repeal an act of government, and far more difficult for anything short of a supermajority to act using the power of the federal government.
It should not matter which party controls the whitehouse or congress – because the powers of the government should be sufficiently limited that there is little of consequence for us to squabble over.
When we disagree over what should be done collectively through force, nothing should be done through collective force. We are still free as individuals and even collectively through churches, civic groups, … to do as we please without using force.
It should not matter which party controls the whitehouse or congress – because the powers of the government should be sufficiently limited that there is little of consequence for us to squabble over.
That is a valid point. Frederic Bastiat made a similar point in The Law.
The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.
If a nation were founded on this basis, it seems to me that order would prevail among the people, in thought as well as in deed. It seems to me that such a nation would have the most simple, easy to accept, economical, limited, nonoppressive, just, and enduring government imaginable — whatever its political form might be.
Under such an administration, everyone would understand that he possessed all the privileges as well as all the responsibilities of his existence. No one would have any argument with government, provided that his person was respected, his labor was free, and the fruits of his labor were protected against all unjust attack. When successful, we would not have to thank the state for our success. And, conversely, when unsuccessful, we would no more think of blaming the state for our misfortune than would the farmers blame the state because of hail or frost. The state would be felt only by the invaluable blessings of safety provided by this concept of government.
For the last 110 years as of this next January the citizens have struggled to maintain and regain those powers and that is the whole meaning of the counter revolution against those who would have us do otherwise.
Thus what I’ve termed the Constitutional Centrist Coalition came to life as a joining of responsible pro Constitutional Republic citizens. to protect those rights for themselves and others.
When use of force is indicated we shoud be able to rely on police and other local entities or we should change our local government On a ntional basis we have the protection of our military and their allegiance to our Constitution.
Constitutiona Independence and Freedom
Versus Socialist Fascist Slavery.
Take it back and use it instead of waiting for another George III or worse to apply their version.
and what is the name of this party and new goverenment you and Comrade Awk are contemplating? Surely it cannot be the one she rejected upon being ‘asked’ instead of required to sign the oath of office.
ADMINISTRATION DIVERTS FUNDS FOR BORDER WALL
WHILE DENYING FUNDS FOR HEALTHCARE
The Trump administration will not give Utah or other states generous federal funding to partially expand their Medicaid programs under the Affordable Care Act, funding that Utah hoped to receive after the administration earlier this year authorized the state to move forward on an expansion of the government health insurance program.
Utah received approval from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, under the Health and Human Services Department, in March to move forward with a Medicaid expansion to provide access to health insurance for up to 90,000 low-income adults. Under that agreement, the federal government will pay for 70 percent of the expanded program, with the state funding the remaining 30 percent. People have been able to apply for coverage since April 1.
Under the Affordable Care Act, the federal government may pay for more than 90 percent of the program, as it does in the more than 30 other states that have expanded Medicaid, and Utah hoped to receive such support. But Utah is different from other states that expanded health insurance because it decided to extend eligibility to a more limited number of residents than is permitted under the ACA.
The Trump administration does not plan to approve enhanced federal funding for any state that implements a partial Medicaid expansion, two senior administration officials said. The Obama administration also did not grant such funding for states that did not expand the program fully as the law envisioned, in an effort to encourage states to expand health insurance to as many residents as possible.
The reasoning from the Trump administration is different, however.
The administration is siding with 18 Republican attorneys general arguing in federal court that the entirety of the Affordable Care Act — which extended health insurance to some 20 million Americans through individual marketplaces and expansion of Medicaid — is unconstitutional. A decision f rom the Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit is expected in the coming weeks.
White House advisers on the Domestic Policy Council, Office of Management and Budget, and National Economic Council, which are controlled by conservative Republicans, were the staunchest opponents of allowing Utah to receive enhanced federal funding for its expanded Medicaid program.
Utah voters approved a ballot measure in November that would have fully expanded Medicaid as allowed under Obamacare to individuals earning up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level. The state’s Republican leaders overruled voters and submitted their own proposal to CMS to expand the program to residents who earn up to 100 percent of the federal poverty level, which is $12,490 a year for an individual and $25,750 for a family of four. The state also included a requirement that most Medicaid beneficiaries work or else lose their benefits, requirements that Kentucky and Arkansas tried to implement but that were blocked by a federal judge.
Edited from: “Trump Administration Is Rejecting Full Medicaid Expansion Funding For Utah”.
Today’s Washington Post
This is an interesting development. Utah is one of our most conservative states. Yet voters in Utah approved a ballet measure to expand Medicaid under Obamacare provisions. Then Utah’s Republican-dominated legislature tinkered with the ballot measure to impose conservative limitations on the expansion; presumably to make the legislation more appealing to the Trump administration. But their revised requirements were still too generous in the minds of administration officials. Trump wants to junk Obamacare in its entirety so ‘any’ expansion, however limited, is unacceptable now.
But the people of Utah shouldn’t worry because Trump has a ‘fantastic’ healthcare plan to be revealed at some hypothetical future date.
Or maybe we should just allow individuals to care for themselves,
and leave charity to charities.
There is no government guarantee that you will have food.
There is no government guarantee that you will have clothes.
There is no government guarantee that you will have shelther
These guarantees do not exist – because they are just as impossible as guaranteed healthcare.
There are only three ways that you can meet your needs in life.
Someone can through the benevolance of their hearts freely give to you what they choose that you need.
You can go out and earn what you need.
You can go out and steal it.
When government gives you something for free it is stealing for you.
That is no more moral because you managed to get alot of others – even a majority to agree.
If you wish to engage in charity – DO SO – give to others what is yours to give.
You get to make your own choices as to what to give and who to give it too.
When you convert charity into a government give away:
You destroy any merit that the giver might have.
There is no merit in having what is yours taken from you and given to another.
There is no merit in taking from someone else to give to someone you beleive needs it more.
There is no merit in advocating for this.
The entire arrangement is immoral and corrupt.
It is evil not good. Why do you expect it to bear good fruit ?
Why are you surprised when it always turns foul ?
Further the needs of others are infinite – unstatisfiable. And in fact the inability to sate our needs is critical to rising standards of living.
Regardless, you may view healthcare is your cause du jour. I may prefer to focus on children orphaned throughout the world.
Absent force we can each make our own choices.
When you act through government, only a few choices – those pushed by the most politically powerful are allowed.
Jbsay, this reads like one of those LSD-fueled rants that fringe conservatives embark on from time to time. What seems like profound wisdom under the effects of LSD is really a meandering hodgepodge of disjointed ideas.
Translation: I have never encountered thoughts like this originating from sources within my progressive worldview. Therefore I have no ability to compute them as valid and conclude they are right-wing garbage.
No, Olly, it’s just bad writing. There’s no real focus here. No beginning, middle or end.
It is an argument – one in response. Not literature or poetry.
It is valid or it is not regardless of your opinion regarding how it is organized.
Regardless, the central theme – is the central theme of classical liberalism.
Free Will exists.
Morality does not exist without free will.
The unjustified use of force to violate the free will of individuals is immoral.
All pretty simple.
Or similarly expressed by others
Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.
No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.
The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.
John Stuart Mill
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law
Jbsay, your initial comment is just using flowery verses to say “No one has a right to healthcare”. That’s the basic point, right??
But instead you’ve dressed up this point in an attempt to make it look like a steam of deep wisdom. Like something carved into the walls of the Lincoln Memorial, perhaps.
But still all you’re saying is: “No one has a right to healthcare”.
The idea seems to be that low-income Americans falling prey to cancer are just out of luck. They were too lazy to make enough money to cover the costs of cancer. That’s too bad for them but the rest of us can’t be bothered to pony up hard-earned tax money to equalize the healthcare system.
Determing what is an actual right, and what isn’t is pretty fundimental.
No, I am NOT merely saying “no one has a right to healthcare”.
I am saying no “positive rights” – rights that impose an obligation to act on others can exist.
Making something that imposes an obligation to act on others into a right is Unsustainable.
As to your emotional dive into artificial hypotheticals:
Are you claiming that ANYONE – rich or poor, who contracts cancer has a RIGHT to demand anything from others – merely because they have cancer ?
A right is something that is universal. EVERYONE has it.
If low-income americans have it – Bill Gates has it. Hitler has it,
poor africans have it.
If positive rights exist, and health care is one of those, then Bill Gates is free to demand of the entire country whatever care he needs at whatever costs to treat his cancer.
If it is a right – then he can force us to cure cancer for him – whether that is possible or not.
And so can Hitler.
Ans so can every single person in the world – right poor, the 1% that are better off than an american poor family,
and the 99% of the world that are not.
This is not about “lazy” or “poor”.
The word “right” has meaning.
Government IS justified in using force to secure actual RIGHTS.
I do NOT have a right to food, healthcare, clothing, shelter – or even life.
I DO have the right not to be accosted by FORCE by those who would take away my life, liberty or possessions.
These are FUNDIMENTAL.
It is not by accident that I can quote everyone from Locke, through Kant and Rawls saying nearly exactly the same thing.
If you have cancer or any other need you can not meet, ASK for my help. I will choose whether I am willing to give it.
I will choose whether I help my neighbor with cancer or a starving child in Africa, or ….
Regardless, there is no RIGHT involved.
Absolutley bad things happen to good people.
In fact if you have been alive long enough, bad things happen to all of us. We do not deserve those. they do not typically happen because we are lazy.
Sometimes we get help and sometimes we do not.
We can ask. But we have no RIGHT to make demands of others.
And ultimately all of us have the bad “luck” to die.
It is inevitable.
There is no right not to have cancer, not to be struck by lightning, not to be killed in a flood.
Nor is there a right to be good at music, or art, or math.
The world is not fair – get over it.
Attempting to correct that by FORCE as a matter of theory and as a matter of practice makes things WORSE not better.
While I have insisted that you can not use force unless it is justified, and I have insisted that you can not use force unless you have supermajority support.
I will add the hardest condition of all.
You can not use force unless it actually works.
You are fixated on medicare expansion and PPACA.
Can you show me in the data since 2009 some actual benefit of PPACA or medicare expansion ?
We are told that if Republicans repealed these things millions of people would die. Well in 2008 and before PPACA did not exist. Did the death rate plumet after PPACA was passed ?
Can you cite any health benefit – one that you can demonstrate with statistical evidence of PPACA ?
Obviously PPACA has some benefits – it is highly unlikely that even the US government can spend $200B/year with not a single benefit to anyone.
But can you find an actual benefit that is worth 200B ?
If none of this has shown any EVIDENCE of providing a benefit, why are we even having this discussion.
You are wrong as a matter of morality.
You are wrong as a matter of evidence.
And your arguments reflect this.
Myriads of fallacies – particularly guilt by association, mind reading, language mangling, mind reading and ad hominem.
I am here if you wish to have a real debate – using facts, logic and reason.
Jbsay, again you’re just using pseudo-philosophical double-speak to say, “No one has a right to healthcare”. You’re just one-trick pony in that regard.
In other words you know that, “No one has a right to healthcare” sounds harsh and indifferent to the poor. So you keep attempting to present it as deep wisdom. ..Like no one can see through that..??
I can probably find some promient progressives who have made similar remarks. John Rawls made many (but not all) of the same arguments I have made.
No doubt. Hill is not a progressive thinker. He’s a progressive follower demonstrating a complete lack of evidence he has devoted any time to understanding any other worldview. There is so much I don’t know, but the great thing is it is knowable and all I need to do is make the effort. It also takes the humility to be open for a change in thinking.
Olly, a change of thinking till we all believe, “No one has a right to healthcare’?
Good luck with that. The generational tide seems to be turning against that point of view.
Be careful when you confuse the rights of man with the rights you are thinking of.
The generational tide seems to be turning against that point of view.
Thats because they are the fattest, most noncompliant, sedentary, apathetic people. Ever. Of course they think its “their right”, considering they abdicated their responsibilities to practice preventative medicine eg. proper nutrition, exercise, self-care, etc
If you want a healthy, long life, that is in your hands before you succumb to heart disease, cancer and the usual chronic illnesses that are self-imposed.
Estovir, are you saying Boomers were the ‘last responsible generation’..?? If that’s what you think, take a look at the national debt. Boomers have been anything but responsible! The magical effects of tax cuts have never been realized.
Hill says: July 27, 2019 at 5:39 PM
Estovir, are you saying…
What is your BMI Peter? >30? > 35?
Be honest. You’re amongst family.
If you want expensive medical costs then practice preventative care today. Dont be yet another fat, sedentary American like 2/3 are today
Yeah Hill, be like our President, right Estovir?
Apparently in your world “points of view” are substitutes for facts.
It is entirely possible that you will “win” public oppinion – at the cost of trillions of dollars in reduced standard of living for all of us.
When government spends money with little or no benefit that is the effect – we are all less well off than we would be otherwise.
When we pay an enormous price for government mangled healthcare, that is resources we do not have to take our spouse to dinner, go to a ball game with our kids, get a better education so we can get a better job.
You seem to think that when you steal money there is no “social cost”. But the social cost is enormous.
Lincoln was able to fight the civil war with TOTAL govenrment spending below 10% of GDP. Today it is 40-50% depending on your state and local taxes.
There is litterally hundreds of economic studies of individual countries, groups of countries, developed countries, less developed countries, that demonstatrates that for every 10% of GDP that government spends, the rate of increase in standard of living is reduced by 1% of GDP. That the cost of “social programs” decreases the rate of increase by an additional 0.3%.
Absolutely as you further shift the country from a limited govenrment constitutional republic ever closer to pure democracy, you are likely to “win” many of these arguments.
At significant cost to all of us.
Peter, the democrats rightly own public trust on health care after a decade of empty promises and destructive behavior from the GOP. Public opinion among civilized nations – including the US – is that health care should be universal, so these righties are digging their own political grave by opposing it. Funny thing is the rest of the civilized world does provide universal care at 60% of what we spend and with essentially the same levels of patient satisfaction for care and results.
Absolutely – democrats have a long history of dangling shiny baubles infront of the electorate.
All too often even when we know that something is a very bad idea – we are prepared to support it – if we think (usually eroneously) that we will personally benefit.
Republicans are far from blameless. But the fundimental healthcare problem in the US and the world is GOVERNMENT.
Much of the world as you note has “universal” healthcare.
And in much of that world “universal” means little or nothing. Somalia has “universal health care” – if you have cancer would you head their for treatment ?
India has incredibly good and cheap healthcare for a developing nation – nearly as good as the western world.
They also have “universal healthcare” – but nearly all healthcare in india is delivered by a private healthcare system that is traditional fee for service.
One so good and cheap that Brits fly to india to get care that they are waitlisted until death in england.
Most of that civilised world you cite that has “universal healthcare” merely mandates that everyone has insurance and subjects them to real fines if they do not. The actual insurance as well as the actual healthcare in most of those nations is entirely private.
Most of those “nordic social democracies” with the cradle to grave social welfare system became “civilized countries” with high standards of living BEFORE implimenting these programs, all have seen the rate of increase of their standard of living stagnate after implimenting these programs. And now those countries are slowly trying to wean themselves from schemes that are popular, expensive and do not work.
You keep repeating this fallacy that equates being able to claim something is popular to claiming it is true.
You also continue to try to push this democrat/republican fallacy.
What is true is true – regardless of popularity or party affiliation.
What is false is false.
Further of all assertions competing to be adjudicated as truth – nearly all are false.
Do you wish to have a real discussion ?
Facts, Logic, Reason ?
If the generational tide turns towards racism, nationalism, fascism, genocide as it has many places and times in the past – is that a good thing ?
If I argued that the KKK was evil in 1920 would that argument be refuted by the fact that it shortly thereafter reached its apoggee of public support ?
Can you make a non-fallacious argument ?
If directed at me, I did not advocate for racism – that might have been kurtz or Estovir – or nationalism or fascism – yeah, kurtz and Estovir again – genocide, even the most serious Trumpers don;t get that far though kurtz hints that he’s ready for it – so maybe you weren’t talking to me. I do think that universal health care should be a right of civilized nations and welcome that being a popular position.
Olly, you were just presented with the facts on voter fraud which should have led you to an easy change of thinking. I wish you better results on your seeking humility.
I am not a conservative.
It sounds like one of those “fringe” arguments – like those made by
Thomas Jefferson. John Adam’s James Madison.
Or Locke, Mill and Thoreaux.
Or any of myriads of the great thinkers of the enlightenment.
LSD was not discovered until the 60’s.
Jbsay, let me guess: ‘You’re a Libertarian’.
And in your mind that makes you one of the ‘real liberals’. While people who call themselves ‘liberals’ are really ‘Nazis’. ..Yeah, yeah, I’ve heard this tripe before.
Does a “label” matter ? I can accept libertarian.
But the critical point is that I am not a “conservative” or on the “extreme right fringe”.
So you have made a false assumptions – you make them ALOT.
You also seem to think that you can read my mind “And in your mind that makes you …”
Even Christ judges people by their actions. Matt 25:31-46.
Yet you presume to know my mind.
I have not called you anything thus far – except fallacious.
You continue this nonsense of confusing snark and insult with argument.
Rather than continuing to tell me what I think.
I am pretty sure I know that better than you.
Address the actual arguments.
Facts, logic, reason.
With respect to labels like “fringe”, “conservative”, “Nazi”, “Liberal”, or “progressive” – YOU – in your posts here have made it clear that you are prepared to redefine these to suit your whim of the moment, without any regard for the actual meaning of the words.
I have mostly avoided words that it is self evident you are going to use deceptively. But ultimately we communicate with words – and the majority of us think in words. It is therefore important to use words accurately – particularly where you are seeking to justify the use of force against others.
Ambiguity, multiple and subjective meanings are for art, literature, poetry, fiction – all endeavors not involving the use of force.
If you want to take from me what is mine – my life, my liberty, my property, by force, you must justify doing so. That justification must be precise, acccurate, narrow and must be accepted not merely by a few, not even by a majority but by a supermajority of us.
Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all
John Rawls first principle.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think that John Rawls is considered a “libertarian”,
And yet his FIRST principle in his magnum opus “A theory of justice”
is the first principle of most libertarians.
Hayek, Freidman, Nozick, Rand, could and did say the same thing.
Rawls first principle is the first principle of the enlightenment.
And it is congruent to
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,”
Rather than arguing some fringe LSD induced conservative position.
I am making an argument that is the core of all significant western thought – except possibly marx. Though I would bet I can find a similar Marx quote.
Do you have an actual rebutal ? A valid counter argument ?
Insult is not argument.
If there is an error of fact or logic in my remarks – point that out.
While I have never taken a hallacenagen in the 6 decades I have been alive, Even if this was the LSD induced – it is still either true or false, a valid argument or a falacy.
Reponding to an argument with insults is fallacy.
BTW there is nothing “disjoint” about what I have said. It is pretty standard “enlightenment classical liberalism”. There is several millenia of thought that lead to it, and atleast 3 centuries of some of the worlds most respected thinkers that have polished it.
It is the foundation of the tremendous rise in the human condition in the past 300 years.
If thinkers like Franklin and Jefferson or the myriads of others I have offered are not persuasive for you.
Then try Hume, or Kant, or Nozick. Even Rawls comes very close to what I am saying.
Far from disjoint LSD driven fringe conservatism, my arguments are “main stream classical liberalism”
If you accept the millenia old concept of “free will” you are pretty much stuck with them as the only valid logical consequent, and if you do not accept free will – you have far worse problems.
Regardless, I would be happy to have a real honest and open debate about this – or many other topics of your chosing.
But if your idea of real honest open debate is ad hominem, guilt by false association, argument by insult and other fallacies, then I am not interested, and you have zero credibility.
Make an actual argument, with facts, and logic.
That is as classical liberal a response as one could imagine. Clear, logical, provable and civil.
Jean-Baptiste when debating with Peter Shill you have to put away fact, logic and intellect. He has none. Any position he takes involves explanations that are created one position at a time. He is totally conflicted.
Jbsay, are you a Libertarian, or not?
And ‘if not’, where do place yourself on the political spectrum?
Translation: I need to enter your data into this computer program thingy so it will spit out an appropriate response. Without it, I’m stuck just calling you a poo poo head.
Olly, we’re supposed to believe that jbsay is a Rip Van Winkle figure who’s been slumbering for 50 years? So he’s a total innocent with regards to contemporary politics? All jbsay knows are these deep words of wisdom from great classical thinkers. And now he’s dismayed to learn that contemporary cynics like myself suspect he has political leanings of some kind?
Jean-Baptiste, Peter doesn’t know who you are and never heard of you. He doesn’t need to know because he has that line graph that puts everyone where they belong. How low down on the intelligence scale Peter sits is unknown but we do know he is lazy.
Olly, Peter is ignorant when it involves different political ideas. He needs you to put it on a line so he knows how to respond. Everything to him is black and white. If there is gray or God forbid color he is in real trouble. He doesn’t even know his own ideology. He sits on that line because that is where he was told to sit.
“ADMINISTRATION DIVERTS FUNDS FOR BORDER WALL WHILE DENYING FUNDS FOR HEALTHCARE”
What ever point Peter is making is ignorant. The funds the President is using for the wall has to do with securing the nation. Those funds cannot be used for healthcare.
Alan, in diverting those funds from the Pentagon, Trump is arguing that ‘all’ federal funds are part of one big pot.
No, diversion is limited and controlled by statute.
olesmithy – I think you can divert within a department’s budget, but not department to department. If I remember correctly, the Trump Administration was making the claim that building the wall came under National Security and the Pentagon’s budget, hence, instead of buying $5000.00 toilets, he was going to use some of their money to build the wall. I think he has also made a claim that the Corps of Engineers might build it.
But… but…. but…. executive orders!! The constitution! Obama’s a dictator!
“…Trump has signed roughly 4.27 executive orders in each month of his presidency through June. His predecessor, Barack Obama, signed 276 executive orders in his eight years in office, or roughly 2.9 per month. George W. Bush signed 291 orders, or slightly more than 3 per month during his two terms in office.
According to the White House, Trump signed 30 Executive Orders in his first 100 days, 11 more than signed by Obama during the same time frame and 19 more George W. Bush. The closest president in terms of Executive Orders in the first 100 days was Lyndon Johnson, who put his signature to 26 actions….”
Anonymous1 – this just proves that Trump is a person who gets stuff done. Did you know that he has deleted 13 regulations for each one that has been created while he has been in office?
Well Paul if trolling Obama’s accomplishments is “getting something done” you might have something. Unfortunately it’s not, Wrecking one nuclear agreement while failing miserably to get another while going down on a murdering dictator is not win/lose, or win/win (in your dreams), it’s lose/lose. Excellent heath care, the free wall, end the debt…. ooh sorry for that sour note. I don’t know got anything?
This guy wrote the book, but he has not swung one deal with anyone but that tooth pulling exercise he went through to get an unwilling GOP House and GOP senate to cut taxes. What a slick operator he was on that. They didn’t know what hit them!
JanF fancies the Iran deal was something other than worthless.
US, Israeli, and IAEA confirmed it was working and Iran in compliance. That’s what nuclear deals do. Pass it on the Kim and his boyfriend
And TIA — the old SOT* — pretends that he understands the Iran deal and concludes that it was worthless.
Once upon a time, TIA was ‘Stepping on Toads’…and he was “Desperately Seeking Susan” at one point. He’s posted under a lot of different names because of the ‘spam filters’ — or so he says.
As written now, one can conclude that everything that follows his name is ‘absurd’. He spouts a lot of facts, but rarely backs them up. He’s a classic know-it-all.
TIA used to be *’Stepping on Toads’ or SOT, as he was called by some.
Paul, that many was actually taken from funds to rebuild a Florida Air Base destroyed by Hurricane Maria.
But if you think the Pentagon is squandering money on overpriced toilets, then perhaps you think the Defense Budget should be greatly reduced?
Hill – I think all government agencies should be more careful with their budget. I think they need to go to zero funding budgeting and work from there.
Not so, Peter. If you read the Supreme Court decision you will find where you are wrong. You have a tendency to make things up after the fact. There is no logical basis or basic principles in what you say. That tells people they shouldn’t believe a word you write.
Tendency? Is that like saying water has a tendency to be wet?
Hill is this blogs blind man, as in The Blind Men and the Elephant.
Alan, I’m not arguing that, Trump is basically arguing that.
This ruling, however, could have far-reaching effects. Presidents could use this as precedent to make end-runs around Congress with regards to spending.
Republicans might detest this ruling if future Democratic presidents use it for end-runs around Republican-dominated Congresses.
“Republicans might detest this ruling if future Democratic presidents use it for end-runs around Republican-dominated Congresses.”
Democrats and Republicans have used this logic many times in the past. This is not new. You argue only because Trump’s name is involved.
I think our Congress has abrogated its responsibility. That is why the Supreme Court has become so powerful and important . The Supreme Court of today is acting as a legislative branch of government. But it doesn’t stop there because the power of the people has been willfully transferred to the Presidency by Congress.
What we are actually seeing is your ideology at work destroying individualism and creating collectivism where power is becoming more concentrated in government along with big business. Government has become more important than the individual. That is the basic nature of fascism.
No. He is arguing that when funds are not budgeted for a clear purpose, particularly when they are budgeted for national security related emergence use that he can use them for national security related emergencies after declaring an emergency.
I would be happy to support more constraints on the presidents power to declare emergencies and to reallocate funds in an emergency, as well as narrowing what constitutes and emergency.
But based on the law as it currently is. Trump is acting withing the law.
I will be happy to support you in changing the law.
Changes that will apply equally to democratic presidents and governments as republicans.
But I will not support bogus arguments.
Or rules that only apply if you are a republican or democrat or Donald Trump
ADMINISTRATION DIVERTS FUNDS FOR BORDER WALL. WHILE DENYING FUNDS FOR HEALTHCARE
This is perfectly brainless Peter. We do do things other than visit doctors in this country and law enforcement (unlike medical case) is an actual public good. The amount of money in the pipeline for the Wall accounts for 0.1% of annual expenditure on medical and long-term care in this country.
Tabby, whatever merits the border wall might have, this country is not so poor that we can’t afford healthcare. And I posted this to note the administration’s priorities.
What’s more, your cynical dismissal of healthcare as any kind of need embodies the entire mindset of Trumpism; ‘Walls are more important than even fellow Americans’.
” whatever merits the border wall might have, this country is not so poor that we can’t afford healthcare”
But, Peter this country does have healthcare, perhaps the best in the world. What Peter wishes to do is to spend more money for no other reason than to take power from the individual and give it to the state. The ACA was packed with lies and made things worse. Insurance is not healthcare. It is a promise which can range from nothing to waiting on lines or to help pay for unexpected things one could otherwise not afford. Only the last option resembles health insurance.
Tabby, whatever merits the border wall might have, this country is not so poor that we can’t afford healthcare.
The revenues of enterprises providing medical and nursing care in this country currently run to about $2.5 tn, Peter. No clue why this ‘can’t afford health care’ meme is running around in your head. The political disputes are over the quantum of public financing, the regulatory archictecture governing the insurance market, and the modes of determining eligibility and re-imbursement.
Tabby, I must point out that the people of Utah, one of our most conservative states, felt a need to expand healthcare. However, the Republican-domintated legislature there, revised the ballot measure to make it more ‘conservative-friendly’. But the Trump Administration still says “No..!!”
So your smarmy, dismissive comment above (that plays disingenuous games with numbers) ignores the fact that even many conservatives feel that healthcare has to be more inclusive. One recalls that Kentucky, another deeply conservative state, was temporarily a model for Obamacare until a Republican governor came in and sabotaged KentuckyCare.
Cancer doesn’t discriminate between Liberals and Conservatives.
Insurance doesn’t cure cancer or anything else. Beware of Greeks bearing gifts. Everyone likes a gift and though the gift might have value in the end one generally pays excessively for the gift. If what you say is so then some conservatives in Utah haven’t read their ancient history.
But the Trump Administration still says “No..!!”
Peter, the federal government has no authority to tell the State of Utah they cannot spend their own tax revenues. You really shouldn’t rely on David Brock’s 27-year-olds-who-know-nothing for your talking points.
Tabby, another disingenuous point. You’re incapable of making sincere points of any kind. Sincerity is not in the DNA of Libertarians.
When the people of Utah passed that ballot measure, Obamacare was still the uncontested law. Under the provisions of Obamacare, the state would get federal funding to expand Medicaid.
But since Trump plans to junk Obamacare as soon as possible, he’s saying ‘No’ to Utah.
Instead Utah is supposed to wait until Trump rolls out his ‘fantastic’ healthcare plan that no one has ever seen.
Tell me, Tabby, do you honestly believe Trump has a ‘fantiastic’ healthcare plan?? Do you think Mitch McConnell has any plan???
Or do you think Republicans simply want to delay the inevitable as long as possible. The inevitable being the healthcare plan that Millennials develop in the not-so-distant future when they take over the country.
TIA you sucker. You’ve been had! The dude said the wall was gonna’ be free. You’re gonna’ pay for it and are celebrating. Are you always this easy a mark? Does your family let you out on the street without supervision?
A key assumption of the ACLU suit is that Congress’ powers to authorize spending goes so far as to “nullify” a law currently on the books by sabotaging its enforcement using non-appropriation of funds to the enforcing agency.
If and when that proposition is put before SCOTUS (or a lower Federal Court), I would expect it to be found to lack merit. The Exec Branch has a Constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”, and by implication, the Legislative branch has a shared, parallel duty as the appropriator of funds to support enforcement of all laws.
The obvious remedy, the one compatible with Constitutional architecture, is for Congress to change the law, and then make sure the new law is adequately funded for diligent enforcement by the Exec Branch. It’s naive to think that SCOTUS would uphold a new power of Congress to subvert law enforcement as an alternative to changing the law. But, that’s the kind of expedient thought-process the “resistance” indulges in these times.
This I’m eating up with a spoon. The judiciary should have very little role in resolving political disputes. It’s sweet to see the lawfare artists have their ass handed to them now and again. Start building.
It’s sweet to see the lawfare artists have their ass handed to them now and again.
Absolutely. It is refreshing.
If any of the current declared Democrat candidates gets elected, you won’t need a wall to keep people out — you’ll need a wall to keep people in,.
LOL RSA and true.
RSA, a few Democratic states like NY, NJ and CT already have financial walls or are building them to keep people in.
Really? How many people left when Obama was president?
How many of those people/obnoxious celebrities who announced they would move to Canada or elsewhere if Trump became president have actually left? How many will leave when Trump wins his second term?
“When the challenge was filed, I expressed doubt over its chances and said that I thought it would fail before the Supreme Court.”
I have heard a lot of the Supreme Court Justices speak and I think it was Stephen Breyer who said that sometimes a justice had to look at the outcome not just the law. That is why I have a poor view of the four dissenting judges. Had the law been the same but on an issue involving individuals that the four justices were sympathetic to their views would change.
Turley, though on the left, is a bit more honest and seems to recognize that the Supreme Court is supposed to decide on the law not on outcomes leaving outcomes to the legislative branch. Some people on the blog will consider Turley right wing because of his stance on this issue. This is because Turley follows the law rather than his feelings. Those disagreeing are lawless.
Disagree with Turkey and you are “lawless”. Interesting.
It’s Turley, not Turkey. I don’t agree with a lot Turley says but on pure free speech issues he is mostly correct or at least logical and consistant.
If you don’t follow the law and are inconsistant are you not lawless?
I agree with you. The thing is, Turley is consistently ‘collegial’, which means academic fraud will be treated with respect so long as it is perpetrated by someone in a distinct professional guild.
“Mister Gorbachov: Build UP That Wall!”
Oh. Did I say it wrong?
We need the Wall. This is not to keep people in Mexico but to keep them from pouring into Mexico so they can pour into the U.S. Trump needs to do something about Sanctuary cities and police who will not cooperate with ICE.
Round em up. Head em out!
The Wall is a farce. While he spends our tax dollars on this vanity project, he sides with Russia, shows his love for dictators and sells arms to Saudi Arabia.
But who is surprised that SCOTUS sided with Trump? Not me.
The Wall is a farce.
True. The answer however has been thoroughly rejected by Americans who don’t want to share, welcome, be Christ / Allah / Yahweh / feelzgoodz gawd to others. If Americans, both religious and atheists, had their skin in the shtick they claim to peddle, we would not be having the centuries old immigration crisis. Refugees have been arriving at Florida Coasts for over 50 years. Americans give the issue attention selectively. Americans have historically vilified all immigrants except when it came for their displacing Powhatan Native Americans in Jamestown circa 1607
“Lampedusa has been happening off the coast of Florida for the past 50 years. It merely ebbs and flows from our consciousness”
Miami Catholic Archbishop Thomas Wenski
While he spends our tax dollars on this vanity project, he sides with Russia, shows his love for dictators and sells arms to Saudi Arabia.
You would have to had fled a dictatorship to know Obama thoroughly embraced them. You are talking nonsense from DNC Talking Points. Russia was Hillary & Obama’s failure of 8 years. That is on them. Trump is engaging the Russians sans Hillary’s ridiculous reset button
Actually, physical barriers are not a farce. That’s why Democrats don’t want them.
I will be happy to join you in getting the US government out of the business of dealing arms.
Let Boeing, and Raytheon do their own sales and marketing.
There has not a US president in more than 100 years that has not cozied up to dictators. Washington warned us to avoid foreign entanglements.
Wilson had to get into WWI and as a consequence rather than the honest brokered peace that would have resulted without us, Wilson guaranteed a peace that would result in Hitler and an angry Germany and WWII.
We should not try to police the world. Lots of countries are screwed up. We can not fix them. Those countries will not improve until their people demand it.
There is little we can do. Certainly not cozying up to their oppressors.
But that behavior is nothing new. Inarguably Obama sucked up to the Iranian Mullahs in embarrasing ways. I will consider the argument that Trump is no better. But inarguably he is no worse.
Trump is sucking up to Russia ? That is why US pilots in Syria have repeatedly nearly come into direct conflict with Russians ? Why tensions between the US Navy in the Med and the Russians have not been higher since the cold war ? Why the Trump is selling arms to despots – like all the countries surrounding rusia ?
Why Trump has approved pipelines, allowed the US to become energy independent, and offered to backstop numerous EU countries against Russian threats to cut off their gas supplies ?
Putin is of consequence for only two reasons:
Russia still has the worlds largest stockpile of nuclear weapons.
The US might provide military aide and other support to Russia’s neighbors to resist Russian agression, we are NOT sending our children to fight Russians just outside Russias front door. As amazing as the US military is we are not able to take on Russia on their front door without resorting to nukes.
There are plenty of things to piss over about Trump without making up nonsense.
I Don’t like the wall design. Looking at the great wall of China, the Vatican wall & Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s wall around his $120 million, 700 acre property in Hawaii.
Marky also spends $22 million/year in private security. Must be some angry Facebook users out there.
Mark Zuckerberg sued native Hawaiians for their own land
Jerry, don’t expect any liberals to defend Zuckerberg.
Wall to keep native people from their own lands.?
The 9th Circuit takes another loss. I wonder if they have a private W-L board in their robing rooms? Does the 9th see itself a temporary legal speed bump for the Administration?
The Ninth Circuit is a Sanctuary Circuit. They blew all their fuses.
Comments are closed.