Krugman - possibly his most absurd piece ever

[Debit One]

Some of the lowlights:

The big bad event of last week was, of course, the Supreme Court hearing on health reform. In the course of that hearing it became clear that several of the justices, and possibly a majority, are political creatures pure and simple, willing to embrace any argument, no matter how absurd, that serves the interests of Team Republican.

For on Thursday Republicans in the House of Representatives passed what was surely the most fraudulent budget in American history.

The trouble with the budget devised by Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, isn’t just its almost inconceivably cruel priorities

So what are we to make of this proposal? Mr. Gleckman calls it a “mystery meat budget,” but he’s being unfair to mystery meat. The truth is that the filler modern food manufacturers add to their products may be disgusting — think pink slime — but it nonetheless has nutritional value. Mr. Ryan’s empty promises don’t. You should think of those promises, instead, as a kind of throwback to the 19th century, when unregulated corporations bulked out their bread with plaster of paris and flavored their beer with sulfuric acid.

For a lasting budget deal can only work if both parties can be counted on to be both responsible and honest — and House Republicans have just demonstrated, as clearly as anyone could wish, that they are neither.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/op...economics.html

Partisan. Hack.

[MickerHawk]

Insightful, demonstrative, concise. I really like the lack of conjecture and his use of examples.

[Gushawk]

The embed linked TPC piece was actually much better:

http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/20...y-meat-budget/

[Fair and Balanced]

Originally Posted by MickerHawk

Insightful, demonstrative, concise. I really like the lack of conjecture and his use of examples.

You should write a letter to the editor.

[Santa Anna's Leg]

Originally Posted by Debit One

Some of the lowlights:
The big bad event of last week was, of course, the Supreme Court hearing on health reform. In the course of that hearing it became clear that several of the justices, and possibly a majority, are political creatures pure and simple, willing to embrace any argument, no matter how absurd, that serves the interests of Team Republican.

Even if he's right, and they are approaching it from a political perspective, the supreme court is the only place in our government where a civil, intelligent debate on the health care law has happened in the last four years.

[FrodoTBaggin]

I like how it only serves team republican but the lib justices voting that it's constitutional aren't serving team democrat.

[Fair and Balanced]

Originally Posted by FrodoTBaggin

I like how it only serves team republican but the lib justices voting that it's constitutional aren't serving team democrat.

It's similar to saying that all decisions we like are based on the constitution and ones we don't are the work of evil activist judges.

[Rolo Tomassi]

Originally Posted by Fair and Balanced

It's similar to saying that all decisions we like are based on the constitution and ones we don't are the work of evil activist judges.

Show us the place in the Constitution where it provides for a Right of Privacy.

[ISUFan98]

I love how when the libs get smacked down by the Court, they say it's because the USSC is "politicized."

[FrodoTBaggin]

Originally Posted by ISUFan98

I love how when the libs get smacked down by the Court, they say it's because the USSC is "politicized."

Ed Zachary

[Mr. Hawk]

Originally Posted by Fair and Balanced

It's similar to saying that all decisions we like are based on the constitution and ones we don't are the work of evil activist judges.

I'm not sure how many times this has been explained, but this analysis requires a distorted view of what constitutes 'judicial activism'.

[Gushawk]

Originally Posted by Mr. Hawk

I'm not sure how many times this has been explained, but this analysis requires a distorted view of what constitutes 'judicial activism'.

How do you feel about Constitutional limits on punitives? Judicial activism?

[Santa Anna's Leg]

Originally Posted by Mr. Hawk

I'm not sure how many times this has been explained, but this analysis requires a distorted view of what constitutes 'judicial activism'.

The current case? Please explain. And in the context of court rulings on gay marriage, if you would.....

[PipeDaddy]

Originally Posted by Mr. Hawk

I'm not sure how many times this has been explained, but this analysis requires a distorted view of what constitutes 'judicial activism'.

Absolutely. If it isn't the SC's job to strike down an existing law that was produced by Congress and signed by the president that is deemed to be unconstitutional, then I must have failed my basic Civics course in high school. Now, that's definitely possible, but I don't recall doing so.

[ISUFan98]

Originally Posted by Santa Anna's Leg

The current case? Please explain. And in the context of court rulings on gay marriage, if you would.....

Let me.

The Iowa Supreme Court ruling that the Iowa DOMA is unconstitutional wasn't judicial activism.

The Iowa Supreme Court ruling that gay marriages were legal and could begin immediately was judicial activism.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court still remanded their landmark gay marriage case to the General Court (their state legislature) so they could craft legislation that squared with the justices' ruling.

If the USSC strikes down Obamacare, they aren't going to step in and say that single payer healthcare is permissible and should therefore be started immediately.

[newsbreaker]

Originally Posted by ISUFan98

Let me.

The Iowa Supreme Court ruling that the Iowa DOMA is unconstitutional wasn't judicial activism.

The Iowa Supreme Court ruling that gay marriages were legal and could begin immediately was judicial activism.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court still remanded their landmark gay marriage case to the General Court (their state legislature) so they could craft legislation that squared with the justices' ruling.

If the USSC strikes down Obamacare, they aren't going to step in and say that single payer healthcare is permissible and should therefore be started immediately.

Well done, specifically on the Iowa portion. This is a concise summation.

[Glen]

Originally Posted by ISUFan98

Let me.

The Iowa Supreme Court ruling that the Iowa DOMA is unconstitutional wasn't judicial activism.

The Iowa Supreme Court ruling that gay marriages were legal and could begin immediately was judicial activism.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court still remanded their landmark gay marriage case to the General Court (their state legislature) so they could craft legislation that squared with the justices' ruling.

If the USSC strikes down Obamacare, they aren't going to step in and say that single payer healthcare is permissible and should therefore be started immediately.

BO's statement yesterday would qualify the bolded as judicial activism. A piece of legislation enacted by a majority of a democratically elected legislature is, according to him, per se constitutional. Dangerous.

[JasperDeKimmel]

Originally Posted by Rolo Tomassi

Show us the place in the Constitution where it provides for a Right of Privacy.

Be careful playing such cards. For, where in the Constitution will I find that the courts have the power of judicial review?

[Slyhawk]

Originally Posted by Glen

BO's statement yesterday would qualify the bolded as judicial activism. A piece of legislation enacted by a majority of a democratically elected legislature is, according to him, per se constitutional. Dangerous.

I caught that too. I would like to point out he taught Constitutional law. Gives me warm and fuzzies.

[Santa Anna's Leg]

Originally Posted by Glen

BO's statement yesterday would qualify the bolded as judicial activism. A piece of legislation enacted by a majority of a democratically elected legislature is, according to him, per se constitutional. Dangerous.

Did he really say that?

[ISUFan98]

Originally Posted by Santa Anna's Leg

Did he really say that?

Ultimately I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.

[Santa Anna's Leg]

Originally Posted by ISUFan98

“Ultimately I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,”

Ok. That's not as bad as what glen said. Good

[Hacksaw Jim Duggan]

I'm pretty sure Alito has to hate this administration. I remember during his confirmation Biden was putting on a show. He did something like gave some speech to Alito then put on a ball cap during some tirade. Also the cable networks love showing a state of the union speech where dems are cheering a point made by President O like Arsenio Hall"s auddience and the camera just shows Alito shaking his head in disgust.

[newsbreaker]

Originally Posted by Glen

BO's statement yesterday would qualify the bolded as judicial activism. A piece of legislation enacted by a majority of a democratically elected legislature is, according to him, per se constitutional. Dangerous.

Everyone who studied con law under him should be given a letter of apology and a refund.

[BuffettHawk]

Originally Posted by Hacksaw Jim Duggan

I'm pretty sure Alito has to hate this administration. I remember during his confirmation Biden was putting on a show. He did something like gave some speech to Alito then put on a ball cap during some tirade. Also the cable networks love showing a state of the union speech where dems are cheering a point made by President O like Arsenio Hall"s auddience and the camera just shows Alito shaking his head in disgust.

Yep. Alito's confirmation took place right before the 2008 election. Candidate Biden and candidate Obama had to bust out their best dog and pony show.

[MickerHawk]

Originally Posted by Santa Anna's Leg

Ok. That's not as bad as what glen said. Good

Well, maybe, except for that incredible lie about how this was "passed."

[BuffettHawk]

Originally Posted by ISUFan98

Ultimately I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.

LMAO at this statement.

[ISUFan98]

Yes, the Supreme Court has never overturned a law that was passed by a "strong majority," whatever that is.

[MickerHawk]

222-203 is a pretty huge majority to deem and enact a bill.

Did anyone mention that this was a Republican idea? Obviously it's constitutional if the Heritage foundation came up with the idea a decade ago.

[Glen]

Originally Posted by Santa Anna's Leg

Ok. That's not as bad as what glen said. Good

[Santa Anna's Leg]

Originally Posted by Glen

Don't be dumb.

[Mr. Hawk]

Originally Posted by Gushawk

How do you feel about Constitutional limits on punitives? Judicial activism?

Yes

[Mr. Hawk]

Originally Posted by Santa Anna's Leg

Don't be dumb.

Except Glen is correct. Obama's statement is quite close to 'what Glen said'.

[Glen]

Originally Posted by Mr. Hawk

Except Glen is correct. Obama's statement is quite close to 'what Glen said'.

Of course it is.

[Santa Anna's Leg]

Originally Posted by Glen

Of course it is.

While assigning value to it because of its legislative mandate, he's not claiming it implies constitutionality.

[ISUFan98]

Originally Posted by Santa Anna's Leg

While assigning value to it because of its legislative mandate, he's not claiming it implies constitutionality.

Calling it "unprecedented" and "extraordinary" implies a belief that the law is indeed constitutional.

[newsbreaker]

Originally Posted by ISUFan98

Calling it "unprecedented" and "extraordinary" implies a belief that the law is indeed constitutional.

The word unprecedented certainty implies that, imo. A law could pass unanimously and that wouldn't affect the constitutionality of the act.

[Santa Anna's Leg]

Originally Posted by ISUFan98

Calling it "unprecedented" and "extraordinary" implies a belief that the law is indeed constitutional.

No, it doesn't. You guys don't have to try making everything into the worst thing that ever happened.

[Santa Anna's Leg]

Originally Posted by news

A law could pass unanimously and that wouldn't affect the constitutionality of the act.

Exactly.

[newsbreaker]

Originally Posted by Santa Anna's Leg

Exactly.

The exercise is determining the constitutionality of the law. It certainly isn't unprecedented to overturn a law on those grounds. Therefore, what makes such an action unprecedented here? He gives one basis, and that is the nature in which the law was passed, ie, the majority it secured. Since the inquiry is into constitutionality, the only implication is that the majority passage affects the constitutionality of the act itself.

He is saying it is unprecedented to overturn a law (it isn't) which was enacted by a large majority (irrelevant). The majority is the element that is being used to affect the underlying decision and make the ruling unprecedented. Ergo, he believes that a large majority confers or indicates constitutional status. He's wrong.

Otherwise the statement makes no sense.

[MickerHawk]

Originally Posted by Santa Anna's Leg

Exactly.

Ow, your head. Please explain why Obama cited the fictition majority passage in his statement if you're admitting it doesnt apply.

[Santa Anna's Leg]

Originally Posted by newsbreaker

He is saying it is unprecedented to overturn a law (it isn't) which was enacted by a large majority (irrelevant).

It's a political statement, not a legal one. No one is dumb enough to make the argument you guys are claiming. That's why I was worried...

[ThePracticalPundit]

Originally Posted by Rolo Tomassi

Show us the place in the Constitution where it provides for a Right of Privacy.

Show me what rights the Constitution provides.

[Mr. Hawk]

Originally Posted by Santa Anna's Leg

No, it doesn't. You guys don't have to try making everything into the worst thing that ever happened.

ctrl-c
ctrl-v

[newsbreaker]

Originally Posted by Santa Anna's Leg

It's a political statement, not a legal one. No one is dumb enough to make the argument you guys are claiming. That's why I was worried...

Then the statement is equally stupid and makes no sense, in addition to being wrong. Laws with stronger majorities than this have been struck down in the past (ie, it isn't unprecedented), and for the statement to have your interpretation he still has to believe that a political reality must factor into the underlying analysis of constitutionality, which it does not and should not.

You're doing the very thing you're accusing us for doing, which is bending over backwards to see something that isn't there.

[Santa Anna's Leg]

Originally Posted by newsbreaker

You're doing the very thing you're accusing us for doing, which is bending over backwards to see something that isn't there.

No, I'm not. Sure, his statement is inaccurate. Thrown it in a corner with all the other hyperbolic statements made to play to the public.

He surely believes the law is constitutional. But he's not speaking to that in this statement. He's simply saying that it was something that the public and their representatives agreed on and it would be a shame for it to go away.

[Mr. Hawk]

Originally Posted by Santa Anna's Leg

He surely believes the law is constitutional. But he's not speaking to that in this statement. He's simply saying that it was something that the public and their representatives agreed on and it would be a shame for it to go away.

That only makes sense if you don't read his entire statement (i.e., not just the part you quoted). The theme of the entire statement is the constitutionality of the law. Thus, your interpretation is substantially weakened.

Do I think Obama really thinks that those factors make it constitutional? No. I'm sure he understands the general principles of con law. But he's intentionally conflating those issues in this statement, and that's just as bad.

[Santa Anna's Leg]

Originally Posted by Mr. Hawk

That only makes sense if you don't read his entire statement (i.e., not just the part you quoted). The theme of the entire statement is the constitutionality of the law. Thus, your interpretation is substantially weakened.

Do I think Obama really thinks that those factors make it constitutional? No. I'm sure he understands the general principles of con law. But he's intentionally conflating those issues in this statement, and that's just as bad.

Maybe, I've only read what you guys have quoted.

I certainly hope he's not being intentionally deceptive in the way you describe.....but if he is, fuck'm.

[newsbreaker]

Originally Posted by Mr. Hawk

That only makes sense if you don't read his entire statement (i.e., not just the part you quotes). The theme of the entire statement is the constitutionality of the law. Thus, your interpretation is substantially weakened.

Do I think Obama really thinks that those factors make it constitutional? No. I'm sure he understands the general principles of con law. But he's intentionally conflating those issues in this statement, and that's just as bad.

Correct. He's combining the two very different subjects to mislead and persuade the public, who qute likely don't know better. He is also sharpening the "judicial activism" sword for latter offensive use.

[MickerHawk]

Originally Posted by Santa Anna's Leg

He surely believes the law is constitutional.

Not a safe bet for a guy who had to be talked out of an angry penchant for revolutionary Marxist overthrow in college.

I doubt very much that he would care about constitutionality, only what he can get away with.