Pres Biden gives update on $1.75T spending bill, infrastructure plan | WATCH LIVE

[gounion]

Nothing to respond to. At best yours are nothing but tedious conspiracy theories.

Has any GOP leaders tried to change Social Security as we know it in the last 20 years? Like a President or a Speaker of the House?

Well?

[JoeMemphis]

Pretty damned easy. Have a state AG bring suit against Social Security and/or Medicare. SC gives them standing, then knocks it down. As soon as it’s in Court, they can do whatever they want.

Again. On what legal grounds?

[gounion]

Again. On what legal grounds?

That it’s unconstitutional. That’s all they need. Get it through your head - the Supreme Court can do ANYTHING.

[sam lefthand]

Has any GOP leaders tried to change Social Security as we know it in the last 20 years? Like a President or a Speaker of the House?

Well?

It's only been 17 years since they tried that.

[gounion]

It's only been 17 years since they tried that.

Go ahead and say who.

[JoeMemphis]

That it’s unconstitutional. That’s all they need. Get it through your head - the Supreme Court can do ANYTHING.

Bullshit. What part of it is unconstitutional? On what grounds? You are no so stupid to believe that “please overturn this it’s unconstitutional is a legal argument”. You have to explain the how. How is it unconstitutional. Government can tax. Government can spend. How do you call that unconstitutional without ruling the entire federal system is unconstitutional. That’s all they do.

On what grounds. It’s your theory. Support it.

[gounion]

Bullshit. What part of it is unconstitutional? On what grounds? You are no so stupid to believe that “please overturn this it’s unconstitutional is a legal argument”. You have to explain the how. How is it unconstitutional. Government can tax. Government can spend. How do you call that unconstitutional without ruling the entire federal system is unconstitutional. That’s all they do.

On what grounds. It’s your theory. Support it.

Tell me, did they bring suit and take it to the court when it first passed?

Answer is YES. They can use the same argument they did then.

Did four justices voter that it was unconstitutional? Yep, they did. They can just recycle those arguments, get five votes and it’s done.

[JoeMemphis]

Tell me, did they bring suit and take it to the court when it first passed?

Answer is YES. They can use the same argument they did then.

Did four justices voter that it was unconstitutional? Yep, they did. They can just recycle those arguments, get five votes and it’s done.

Social security and Medicare were passed by the legislature and signed into law by the President. Those programs were not created by the courts. So try again. What is the basis of the legal argument that would be used to outlaw social security and Medicare? What’s the argument?

[sam lefthand]

Go ahead and say who.

Bush’s First Defeat
The president has lost on Social Security. How will he handle it?

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/200 ... efeat.html

George W. Bush’s plan to remake the Social Security system is kaput. This is not a value judgment. It’s a statement of political fact. In the months since the president first presented the idea as his top domestic priority, Democrats in Congress have unexpectedly unified in opposition to any reform based on private accounts. Several Republican senators whose votes would be needed for passage are resisting private accounts as well. And public opinion, which has never favored any form of privatization, is trending even more strongly against Bush’s scheme. At this point, there’s just no way that the president can finagle enough votes to win.

This means that Bush is about to suffer—and is actually in the midst of suffering—his first major political defeat. After passing all his most important first-term domestic priorities (a tax cut, an education-reform bill, domestic security legislation, another tax cut), Bush faces a second term that is beginning with a gigantic rebuke: A Congress solidly controlled by his own party is repudiating his top goal. It’s precisely what happened to Bill Clinton, when Congress rejected his health-care reform proposal in 1993. As the Clinton example shows, such a setback doesn’t doom an administration. But how Bush handles the defeat is likely to be a decisive factor in determining whether he accomplishes any of the other big-ticket items on his agenda.

The first question to ask is whether Bush can face up to defeat. Not whether he can acknowledge defeat publicly: Few presidents are capable of graciously admitting their screw-ups, and this one is more reluctant to do so than most. The issue is whether Bush can acknowledge to himself that’s he’s belly-flopped on Social Security. If he can’t, the endgame is likely to be fairly ugly for the GOP. Bush will expend more political capital twisting the arms of senators in a fruitless cause.

More at the link.

BTW This mistep by Bush in 2004 and 2005 is in my opinion what set up a great win for Democrats in the Senate in 2006, and an even better win in 2008 with Obama, and that was instrumental for getting Obamacare passed. So in a way it was a gift.

[gounion]

Social security and Medicare were passed by the legislature and signed into law by the President. Those programs were not created by the courts. So try again. What is the basis of the legal argument that would be used to outlaw social security and Medicare? What’s the argument?

That much you know. But you obviously don't know that suit was brought, and it was only upheld by a 5-4. \Medicare was another issue, that was during the Warren Court, and they knew they wouldn't get the court to knock it down at that time.

[gounion]

Bush’s First Defeat
The president has lost on Social Security. How will he handle it?

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/200 ... efeat.html



More at the link.

BTW This mistep by Bush in 2004 and 2005 is in my opinion what set up a great win for Democrats in the Senate in 2006, and an even better win in 2008 with Obama, and that was instrumental for getting Obamacare passed. So in a way it was a gift.

Sam, you are EXACTLY right! You get the gold star for today.

Yes, this was when they realized that the Big Lie wasn't working, that the American people - including conservatives - WANTED Social Security. They want it strengthened for the future. And it was a big loss for GW, and Ryan's stance also hurt when he ran for VP with Romney, even though he renounced it.

So, they know the only way to kill it is to kill it in the courts. And if they get a supermajority, that's the kind of thing they'll go after.

[JoeMemphis]

That much you know. But you obviously don't know that suit was brought, and it was only upheld by a 5-4. \Medicare was another issue, that was during the Warren Court, and they knew they wouldn't get the court to knock it down at that time.

Okay. So tell me what legal argument will be used to attack social security and Medicare. I can tell you what was argued in ACA. I can tell you how they will attack Roe. You have no clue as to social security. You can’t name a single case in court and you can’t name a single legal issue. Not one.

That’s what makes for a baseless argument. As was said this is nothing but tedious conspiracy theory.

[gounion]

Okay. So tell me what legal argument will be used to attack social security and Medicare. I can tell you what was argued in ACA. I can tell you how they will attack Roe. You have no clue as to social security. You can’t name a single case in court and you can’t name a single legal issue. Not one.

That’s what makes for a baseless argument. As was said this is nothing but tedious conspiracy theory.

So, here's the case. My memory was faulty, it was 7-2, but that was after several major cases that was upholding the New Deal, so they knew they were all losers. The two dissenting judges, and this shows how beat down they were by this time, they didn't write a dissent, just one sentence at that end that said they believed that Social Security was "repugnant to the Tenth Amendment." So that would be the legal basis.

And interestingly, the First Circuit Court of Appeals had knocked down Social Security as unconstitutional. So they can sure go there for their arguments.

And let's remember that a lot of folks like Glenn still says it's a Ponzi Scheme.

[JoeMemphis]

So, here's the case. My memory was faulty, it was 7-2, but that was after several major cases that was upholding the New Deal, so they knew they were all losers. The two dissenting judges, and this shows how beat down they were by this time, they didn't write a dissent, just one sentence at that end that said they believed that Social Security was "repugnant to the Tenth Amendment." So that would be the legal basis.

And interestingly, the First Circuit Court of Appeals had knocked down Social Security as unconstitutional. So they can sure go there for their arguments.

And let's remember that a lot of folks like Glenn still says it's a Ponzi Scheme.

Well I think you can rest easy. Arguing that social security and Medicare are unconstitutional after they have been in existence for decades based on a 7-2 SC decision where the 2 dissents were all of one sentence long regarding the programs are repugnant to the 10th amendment is pretty “weak tea” as you say. Real weak tea. Not really an argument at all and I highly doubt such a case would see the light of day. That is not much of a legal argument.

Further, the case you posted wasn’t a SC case. It was decided at the Appellate level it appears. It never made it to the SC.

So the argument was even weaker than I first thought. I doubt such a case would make it out of district court today.

[gounion]

Get it through your head: They don't NEED a strong case. The court can do whatever the fuck it wants. Let's remember, the Warren Court not only knocked down segregation, it ordered states to use busing to fix the problem. If they've got five votes, their power is pretty much absolute.

They don't have to give a shit for precedent either. They aren't held by it at all. Let's remember that they had YEARS of precedent that any labor law, like laws for wage and hour, safety and child labor was absolute an any restriction was unconstitutional. The Lochner Era. Yet the court overthrew all those precedents and declared the New Deal Constitutional.

So a new court could go back and declare, piece by piece, that the New Deal is unconsitutional.

I noticed you ignored the fact the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals had knocked down Social Security.

Look, here's the thing. It's not going to happen this term, or in the next couple of years. But it's on the GOP wish list. First two big things this next term is abortion and gun rights. The right has been demanding these for a long time, and the Court will grant their wish.

After that, it's going to be about setting up some cases down the line for the Court to rule as they wish. Now, they may need another judge or two to get it to where they can start dismantling the New Deal. And, if Dems hold power, they could start to shift the power back.

Could a right-wing judge flip now that they are in office? Well, there's a lot of precedent for that, mostly of right-wing judges flipping to liberal. Warren was the biggest surprise of all, and Eisenhower called his nomination "the biggest damn-fool mistake I ever made".

What's interesting is that a liberal justice almost never switches.

The right has been disappointed over and over with judges that don't vote as they want once they're on the court. That's why the Federalist Society was formed - to build a solid bench of justices that were far-right ideologues, and would be far less likely to flip.

Some folks are wondering about Kavanaugh. A few are wondering about Gorsuch.

Next set of cases to change our nation? Well, first on the list is voter rights, gerrymandering and elections. Give the GOP the power to KEEP their power by restricting who can vote. The ACA, kill it off. Another big one is something to take away union rights from the workers. They'd want that before they want Social Security and Medicare.

But you can bet every right-wing lobbyist and organization are looking for cases to tee up to let the court do a lot of damage to our nation.

[JoeMemphis]

Get it through your head: They don't NEED a strong case. The court can do whatever the fuck it wants. Let's remember, the Warren Court not only knocked down segregation, it ordered states to use busing to fix the problem. If they've got five votes, their power is pretty much absolute.

They don't have to give a shit for precedent either. They aren't held by it at all. Let's remember that they had YEARS of precedent that any labor law, like laws for wage and hour, safety and child labor was absolute an any restriction was unconstitutional. The Lochner Era. Yet the court overthrew all those precedents and declared the New Deal Constitutional.

So a new court could go back and declare, piece by piece, that the New Deal is unconsitutional.

I noticed you ignored the fact the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals had knocked down Social Security.

Look, here's the thing. It's not going to happen this term, or in the next couple of years. But it's on the GOP wish list. First two big things this next term is abortion and gun rights. The right has been demanding these for a long time, and the Court will grant their wish.

After that, it's going to be about setting up some cases down the line for the Court to rule as they wish. Now, they may need another judge or two to get it to where they can start dismantling the New Deal. And, if Dems hold power, they could start to shift the power back.

Could a right-wing judge flip now that they are in office? Well, there's a lot of precedent for that, mostly of right-wing judges flipping to liberal. Warren was the biggest surprise of all, and Eisenhower called his nomination "the biggest damn-fool mistake I ever made".

What's interesting is that a liberal justice almost never switches.

The right has been disappointed over and over with judges that don't vote as they want once they're on the court. That's why the Federalist Society was formed - to build a solid bench of justices that were far-right ideologues, and would be far less likely to flip.

Some folks are wondering about Kavanaugh. A few are wondering about Gorsuch.

Next set of cases to change our nation? Well, first on the list is voter rights, gerrymandering and elections. Give the GOP the power to KEEP their power by restricting who can vote. The ACA, kill it off. Another big one is something to take away union rights from the workers. They'd want that before they want Social Security and Medicare.

But you can bet every right-wing lobbyist and organization are looking for cases to tee up to let the court do a lot of damage to our nation.

I believe the case you cited was an appeals court ruling.

But justices don’t overturn precedent just for the hell of it. Could they if they choose to completely abandon judicial ethics and temperament. Yes sure. But I don’t think that will happen. You may not agree with all their decisions. I certainly don’t. But they are serious people.

So why would we trust a liberal court to respect precedent anymore than a conservative court. How are we to know that liberal justices won’t get drunk with power and rule from the bench. After all, according to you, they can do whatever they choose? So if you really think that’s how it works, why should we trust a group of ultra liberal tyrants anymore than we would trust a group of ultra conservative tyrants?

IMO, they take their jobs and the oaths seriously. I don’t agree with some of their opinions but I do think they all are serious thoughtful people. Both liberal and conservative.

Edit to add: Reading this on my phone. Your link did refer to a 1937 SC case upholding constitutionality of Social Security.

[sam lefthand]

Two Politico articles about this subject today. I read them back to back. This first one I only read about half of it before scrolling back up to the top to see who the snipe was who wrote it:

Jayapal warned Klain not to push an infrastructure vote. Then chaos ensued.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/10/2 ... aos-517711

Turns out it's snipes, three muckraking snipes, "HEATHER CAYGLE, SARAH FERRIS and LAURA BARRÓN-LÓPEZ."

They weren't the Three Musketeers.



Then I read POLITICO Playbook: Why Joe Biden already won By RACHAEL BADE It seemed OK:

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/pl ... won-494900



Here's the Three Musketeers with muskets:

[Glennfs]

Get it through your head: They don't NEED a strong case. The court can do whatever the fuck it wants. Let's remember, the Warren Court not only knocked down segregation, it ordered states to use busing to fix the problem. If they've got five votes, their power is pretty much absolute.

They don't have to give a shit for precedent either. They aren't held by it at all. Let's remember that they had YEARS of precedent that any labor law, like laws for wage and hour, safety and child labor was absolute an any restriction was unconstitutional. The Lochner Era. Yet the court overthrew all those precedents and declared the New Deal Constitutional.

So a new court could go back and declare, piece by piece, that the New Deal is unconsitutional.

I noticed you ignored the fact the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals had knocked down Social Security.

Look, here's the thing. It's not going to happen this term, or in the next couple of years. But it's on the GOP wish list. First two big things this next term is abortion and gun rights. The right has been demanding these for a long time, and the Court will grant their wish.

After that, it's going to be about setting up some cases down the line for the Court to rule as they wish. Now, they may need another judge or two to get it to where they can start dismantling the New Deal. And, if Dems hold power, they could start to shift the power back.

Could a right-wing judge flip now that they are in office? Well, there's a lot of precedent for that, mostly of right-wing judges flipping to liberal. Warren was the biggest surprise of all, and Eisenhower called his nomination "the biggest damn-fool mistake I ever made".

What's interesting is that a liberal justice almost never switches.

The right has been disappointed over and over with judges that don't vote as they want once they're on the court. That's why the Federalist Society was formed - to build a solid bench of justices that were far-right ideologues, and would be far less likely to flip.

Some folks are wondering about Kavanaugh. A few are wondering about Gorsuch.

Next set of cases to change our nation? Well, first on the list is voter rights, gerrymandering and elections. Give the GOP the power to KEEP their power by restricting who can vote. The ACA, kill it off. Another big one is something to take away union rights from the workers. They'd want that before they want Social Security and Medicare.

But you can bet every right-wing lobbyist and organization are looking for cases to tee up to let the court do a lot of damage to our nation.

The Lochner Era 1890-1937 yep that's relevant in 2021
Limiting who can vote that's a joke.
There is no more gerrymandering today than ever. Facts don't matter to liberals. We have a 50/ 50 Senate and a House where the democratic party is in the majority.
Take away union rights from workers. Please workers have already decided not to join the political organization known as organized labor.
Eliminate the ACA well that one has already been decided and the ACA won.
Eliminate ssi and Medicare what is sad is that you actually believe that tin foil hat issue

[gounion]

The Lochner Era 1890-1937 yep that's relevant in 2021
Limiting who can vote that's a joke.
There is no more gerrymandering today than ever. Facts don't matter to liberals. We have a 50/ 50 Senate and a House where the democratic party is in the majority.
Take away union rights from workers. Please workers have already decided not to join the political organization known as organized labor.
Eliminate the ACA well that one has already been decided and the ACA won.
Eliminate ssi and Medicare what is sad is that you actually believe that tin foil hat issue

And Roe v Wade is already decided.

And with computers, it's very easy to gerrymander far more than ever before.

Look, this is why you want these justices. So they'll legislate from the bench. Give you guys the things you can't get at the ballot box. Like Bush tried to privatize Social Security. The people rebelled. So, have the court do it.

[gounion]

I believe the case you cited was an appeals court ruling.

But justices don’t overturn precedent just for the hell of it. Could they if they choose to completely abandon judicial ethics and temperament. Yes sure. But I don’t think that will happen. You may not agree with all their decisions. I certainly don’t. But they are serious people.

So why would we trust a liberal court to respect precedent anymore than a conservative court. How are we to know that liberal justices won’t get drunk with power and rule from the bench. After all, according to you, they can do whatever they choose? So if you really think that’s how it works, why should we trust a group of ultra liberal tyrants anymore than we would trust a group of ultra conservative tyrants?

IMO, they take their jobs and the oaths seriously. I don’t agree with some of their opinions but I do think they all are serious thoughtful people. Both liberal and conservative.

Edit to add: Reading this on my phone. Your link did refer to a 1937 SC case upholding constitutionality of Social Security.

It was the appeals court that KNOCKED DOWN Social Security. So your whole argument falls.

The GOP has demanded that the court overturn precedent for years.

Oh, yeah, and Kavanaugh was soooo serious and thoughtful during his hearings. And the man lied under oath.

These are the people you lionize.

[JoeMemphis]

It was the appeals court that KNOCKED DOWN Social Security. So your whole argument falls.

The GOP has demanded that the court overturn precedent for years.

Oh, yeah, and Kavanaugh was soooo serious and thoughtful during his hearings. And the man lied under oath.

These are the people you lionize.

So why should we trust the court at all. According to you they have unchecked power over us all. What’s to say a more liberal court won’t get drunk with power? You don’t care for conservatives. You don’t trust conservatives. Why should I or any other conservative trust liberal justices to act any more professionally. Because evidently according to you, justices don’t have ethics and they don’t behave professionally. We can’t trust them.

Quick question. Has the constitutionality of social security been challenged in the courts since this ruling in the 1930’s?

[gounion]

So why should we trust the court at all. According to you they have unchecked power over us all. What’s to say a more liberal court won’t get drunk with power? You don’t care for conservatives. You don’t trust conservatives. Why should I or any other conservative trust liberal justices to act any more professionally. Because evidently according to you, justices don’t have ethics and they don’t behave professionally. We can’t trust them.

No, I don't think we can trust the court - period. They have too much power. They can do whatever they want, no matter what the American People want. That's what happened during the Lochner Era. There should be reforms made.

Quick question. Has the constitutionality of social security been challenged in the courts since this ruling in the 1930’s?

Not that I know of that's made it to the Supreme Court. That doesn't mean it hasn't been challenged.

After all, the GOP has contended forever that it's a Ponzi Scheme. That's what Glennfs believes. Do you think it's a Ponzi Scheme?

[JoeMemphis]

No, I don't think we can trust the court - period. They have too much power. They can do whatever they want, no matter what the American People want. That's what happened during the Lochner Era. There should be reforms made.
Not that I know of that's made it to the Supreme Court. That doesn't mean it hasn't been challenged.

After all, the GOP has contended forever that it's a Ponzi Scheme. That's what Glennfs believes. Do you think it's a Ponzi Scheme?

If it were insurance or an investment scheme it would most likely be illegal in those forms. However, it’s an entitlement program and nothing more. The government can tax. The government can spend. As you have pointed out, this was affirmed by the SC in the late 30’s and to our knowledge has not be challenged in court. So from a legal perspective, it sounds like settled law.

From the legislative perspective, the program is tracking to run out of money in the next decade or so. The entitlement part of the annual budget is more than the discretionary part of the budget and growing. Politicians of both parties have proposed reforms and alternatives and very little has changed. I doubt much will change until the program goes from generating surpluses to running in deficits from a cash perspective. Until then, it’s the third rail of politics and won’t be touched or reformed. Nothing will be done until it becomes a crisis. Business as usual.

[gounion]

Roe is settled law too. That doesn’t mean it’s not about to get overturned. What you won’t admit because it’s me saying it, is that the Supreme Court can do whatever it wants to do. Doesn’t matter how settled the law is.

[JoeMemphis]

Roe is settled law too. That doesn’t mean it’s not about to get overturned. What you won’t admit because it’s me saying it, is that the Supreme Court can do whatever it wants to do. Doesn’t matter how settled the law is.

Because I don’t share your opinion. I do think whether something is settled law matters to the court.