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

[Glennfs]

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?

The Lochner era ended in 1937. In other words you got nothing.
As for SSI it is definitely a ponzi scheme. The reason ssi works is because you always have new people coming in and the government keeps increasing the amount of money coming out of your pay.
Ponzi schemes never fail as long as they keep new people coming in to pay the ones already there.

[JoeMemphis]

The Lochner era ended in 1937. In other words you got nothing.
As for SSI it is definitely a ponzi scheme. The reason ssi works is because you always have new people coming in and the government keeps increasing the amount of money coming out of your pay.
Ponzi schemes never fail as long as they keep new people coming in to pay the ones already there.

Ponzi schemes are illegal. They are no more legal for government than anyone else. So no. This isn’t a ponzu scheme. It’s a government entitlement program. That’s where it falls under the federal budget. It’s funded by tax dollars. It’s not insurance. There is no insurance policy. You don’t pay premiums. You don’t own anything. It’s just another government program funds by tax dollars. Perfectly legal.

[gounion]

The Lochner era ended in 1937. In other words you got nothing.
As for SSI it is definitely a ponzi scheme. The reason ssi works is because you always have new people coming in and the government keeps increasing the amount of money coming out of your pay.
Ponzi schemes never fail as long as they keep new people coming in to pay the ones already there.

See Joe? THIS is why the GOP wants Social Security ended by any means. They’ve been filling people like Glenn’s head with this bullshit for decades. He believes this shit, because they tell him to believe it. Just like the want the unions ended. And the court has the power to do that.

[gounion]

Ponzi schemes are illegal. They are no more legal for government than anyone else. So no. This isn’t a ponzu scheme. It’s a government entitlement program. That’s where it falls under the federal budget. It’s funded by tax dollars. It’s not insurance. There is no insurance policy. You don’t pay premiums. You don’t own anything. It’s just another government program funds by tax dollars. Perfectly legal.

Glenn won’t listen to you. He has been fed the lie for decades, so it doesn’t matter what the facts are.

[JoeMemphis]

Glenn won’t listen to you. He has been fed the lie for decades, so it doesn’t matter what the facts are.

That’s okay. He’s entitled to his opinion. As far as I know he isn’t part of the judiciary nor do I think he has any legislative authority.

As you pointed out nobody is challenging the legitimacy of these programs in the courts.

[JoeMemphis]

Glenn won’t listen to you. He has been fed the lie for decades, so it doesn’t matter what the facts are.

Maybe the lie he has been fed is that this was insurance and not just another entitlement program.

[gounion]

Maybe the lie he has been fed is that this was insurance and not just another entitlement program.

There are ways to look at it. It is also known as a “social insurance” programs like they have in other countries.

But in no world is it a Ponzi scheme.

[gounion]

That’s okay. He’s entitled to his opinion. As far as I know he isn’t part of the judiciary nor do I think he has any legislative authority.

As you pointed out nobody is challenging the legitimacy of these programs in the courts.

Oh it’s been challenged. The courts just haven’t paid attention to it. But if the court wants to rule, the right will set up a case to do it. Look at all the abortion cases. And gee it’s settled law too isn’t it?

[JoeMemphis]

Oh it’s been challenged. The courts just haven’t paid attention to it. But if the court wants to rule, the right will set up a case to do it. Look at all the abortion cases. And gee it’s settled law too isn’t it?

Well if it’s been challenged there would case history out there. You have shown one case that has stood unchallenged for 80 years. The programs have more to fear from uncontrolled growth than they do challenges in court.

As far as Roe is concerned, my personal opinion, won’t be overturned. The right to privacy is pretty much settled law. What I think may happen if anything is an adjustment to the viability standard. The argument can be made that medical knowledge and techniques have advanced so that viability is achieved earlier than when Roe was first decided. I highly doubt the court will overturn Roe entirely. As I said, JMHO.

[gounion]

Well if it’s been challenged there would case history out there. You have shown one case that has stood unchallenged for 80 years. The programs have more to fear from uncontrolled growth than they do challenges in court.

As far as Roe is concerned, my personal opinion, won’t be overturned. The right to privacy is pretty much settled law. What I think may happen if anything is an adjustment to the viability standard. The argument can be made that medical knowledge and techniques have advanced so that viability is achieved earlier than when Roe was first decided. I highly doubt the court will overturn Roe entirely. As I said, JMHO.

There are hundreds of thousands of cases every year. No way to hunt those down. Most would be turned down at the first level. If the court wants to overturn something, then organizations allied with the federalists will put up a test case, and it will be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, who will agree to hear it.

You don’t understand how the system works, do you?

Don’t you think the bankers would love to have it privatized so they could get their mitts on all that money?

And as for Roe, it’s done. They wouldn’t have agreed to hear the Mississippi case otherwise, because Roe is settled law, right?

Right?

[JoeMemphis]

There are hundreds of thousands of cases every year. No way to hunt those down. Most would be turned down at the first level. If the court wants to overturn something, then organizations allied with the federalists will put up a test case, and it will be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, who will agree to hear it.

You don’t understand how the system works, do you?

Don’t you think the bankers would love to have it privatized so they could get their mitts on all that money?

And as for Roe, it’s done. They wouldn’t have agreed to hear the Mississippi case otherwise, because Roe is settled law, right?

Right?

I do know how it works. I know that SCOTUS doesn’t take just any case and I know that those two programs are not unconstitutional. You haven’t shown a single legal argument that would make it past a district court without being overturned. On what grounds? That the government can’t tax? That the goovernment can’t spend? Further you have ignored a recent case in the Robert’s court regarding the ACA which held that the government can in fact tax and the government can in fact spend. That was the basis of one of the opinions that allowed the ACA to stand. So I place little to no weight on a weak argument that just because the court could that it would for no reason. I don’t think liberal justices think like that and I don’t think conservative justices think like that.

As for Roe, I told you my opinion. I haven’t changed it since this morning.

[gounion]

I do know how it works. I know that SCOTUS doesn’t take just any case and I know that those two programs are not unconstitutional. You haven’t shown a single legal argument that would make it past a district court without being overturned. On what grounds? That the government can’t tax? That the goovernment can’t spend? Further you have ignored a recent case in the Robert’s court regarding the ACA which held that the government can in fact tax and the government can in fact spend. That was the basis of one of the opinions that allowed the ACA to stand. So I place little to no weight on a weak argument that just because the court could that it would for no reason. I don’t think liberal justices think like that and I don’t think conservative justices think like that.

As for Roe, I told you my opinion. I haven’t changed it since this morning.

So, Joe, tell me. On what basis did the courts keep knocking down laws on minimum wage, and child labor? Over and over and over?

And why are those laws Constitutional NOW?

And I predict you need to have some dressing on hand, because it's obvious the court took the obviously (currently) unconstitutional Mississippi case to overturn Roe. Otherwise they would have refused to hear it. Because Roe is settled law, right?

Something is only settled law until the Supreme Court decides it isn't. That's what you refuse to admit.

[Bludogdem]

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:

Just the “sausage making “ Sam. Not to worry.

[Bludogdem]

Well if it’s been challenged there would case history out there. You have shown one case that has stood unchallenged for 80 years. The programs have more to fear from uncontrolled growth than they do challenges in court.

As far as Roe is concerned, my personal opinion, won’t be overturned. The right to privacy is pretty much settled law. What I think may happen if anything is an adjustment to the viability standard. The argument can be made that medical knowledge and techniques have advanced so that viability is achieved earlier than when Roe was first decided. I highly doubt the court will overturn Roe entirely. As I said, JMHO.

“Court granted certiorari to the petition on May 17, 2021, limiting the case to the single question "Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional." The case is expected to be heard on December 1, 2021.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_v._ ... ganization

Interesting aspect. The case was first discussed at the start of the session. They didn’t grant certiorari until may 17. And then only within the above framework. If this Court was all fired up to repeal Roe why did it take so long to get the 4 votes to grant certiorari. Seems like a Court hell bent on revoking Roe would have had the 4 votes day one.

[gounion]

“Court granted certiorari to the petition on May 17, 2021, limiting the case to the single question "Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional." The case is expected to be heard on December 1, 2021.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_v._ ... ganization

Interesting aspect. The case was first discussed at the start of the session. They didn’t grant certiorari until may 17. And then only within the above framework. If this Court was all fired up to repeal Roe why did it take so long to get the 4 votes to grant certiorari. Seems like a Court hell bent on revoking Roe would have had the 4 votes day one.

That's all it takes to knock it down. That question is the statement of settled law.

If it's settled law, why would they take the case?

[JoeMemphis]

So, Joe, tell me. On what basis did the courts keep knocking down laws on minimum wage, and child labor? Over and over and over?

And why are those laws Constitutional NOW?

And I predict you need to have some dressing on hand, because it's obvious the court took the obviously (currently) unconstitutional Mississippi case to overturn Roe. Otherwise they would have refused to hear it. Because Roe is settled law, right?

Something is only settled law until the Supreme Court decides it isn't. That's what you refuse to admit.

I gave you my opinion on Roe and I also told you why I think the court took the case. Nothing has changes since I posted that today.

I don’t think I said what the court could or could not look at. I did state that the courts don’t look at just any case and they certainly don’t overturn cases considered settled law for the hell of it. This isn’t a third world judicial system and these justices, liberal and conservative are serious people.

[gounion]

I gave you my opinion on Roe and I also told you why I think the court took the case. Nothing has changes since I posted that today.

I don’t think I said what the court could or could not look at. I did state that the courts don’t look at just any case and they certainly don’t overturn cases considered settled law for the hell of it. This isn’t a third world judicial system and these justices, liberal and conservative are serious people.

The right could put up a case, which would be dismissed on every level, and then appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court, who would then take and overturn the case. It's that simple. If you can't understand that, you don't understand the system.

Or you'll just ignore reality, because it's me that explained it to you.

[JoeMemphis]

The right could put up a case, which would be dismissed on every level, and then appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court, who would then take and overturn the case. It's that simple. If you can't understand that, you don't understand the system.

Or you'll just ignore reality, because it's me that explained it to you.

I understand how it works. I understand your doomsday scenario. Just because you say it over and over doesn’t mean that’s what’s going to happen. Remember the Detroit bankruptcy case.
Remember your predictions back then. Remember how you claimed everyone was corrupt. The system was rigged. And on and on and on. Remember how none of what you predicted happened. It’s no different today. You didn’t know that system or those people anymore than you know how this works.

I imagine you can come up with all kinds of fiction. All kinds of “tedious conspiracy theories”. Everybody is on the take. Everything is rigged. And you are the good guy that predicted it all. Then you wake up and figure out it’s all in your head.

Don’t worry GoU. It will all be alright. There is no Dr Evil and you aren’t Austin Powers.

[Libertas]

Everything the Dems do helps everyone on this board and all Americans

Everything the cons do hurts everyone on this board and all Americans

And two dems are joining them...makes me real fucking angry

Anytime a con wants to challenge me, let me know...here it is:

When left and right disagree, the right is never right

[gounion]

I understand how it works. I understand your doomsday scenario. Just because you say it over and over doesn’t mean that’s what’s going to happen. Remember the Detroit bankruptcy case.
Remember your predictions back then. Remember how you claimed everyone was corrupt. The system was rigged. And on and on and on. Remember how none of what you predicted happened. It’s no different today. You didn’t know that system or those people anymore than you know how this works.

I imagine you can come up with all kinds of fiction. All kinds of “tedious conspiracy theories”. Everybody is on the take. Everything is rigged. And you are the good guy that predicted it all. Then you wake up and figure out it’s all in your head.

Don’t worry GoU. It will all be alright. There is no Dr Evil and you aren’t Austin Powers.

Oh, yeah, everything went fine. Remember all the people that were poisoned with lead in their water?

[JoeMemphis]

Oh, yeah, everything went fine. Remember all the people that were poisoned with lead in their water?

I’m sorry. I thought we were talking about social security and the Supreme Court.

[Glennfs]

So, Joe, tell me. On what basis did the courts keep knocking down laws on minimum wage, and child labor? Over and over and over?

And why are those laws Constitutional NOW?

And I predict you need to have some dressing on hand, because it's obvious the court took the obviously (currently) unconstitutional Mississippi case to overturn Roe. Otherwise they would have refused to hear it. Because Roe is settled law, right?

Something is only settled law until the Supreme Court decides it isn't. That's what you refuse to admit.

You mean between 1890 and 1937

[gounion]

You mean between 1890 and 1937

How different was the Constitution then and the Constitution now?

And how different was it in 1973 and now?

[Bludogdem]

How different was the Constitution then and the Constitution now?

And how different was it in 1973 and now?

Evolution of constitutional interpretation. In the 1800’s and early1900’s manufacturing was not considered interstate commerce by the Supreme Court. So labor regulations for manufacturing belonged to the state.

Viability today vs 1973 is different and creeping lower in the gestational period.

[gounion]

Evolution of constitutional interpretation. In the 1800’s and early1900’s manufacturing was not considered interstate commerce by the Supreme Court. So labor regulations for manufacturing belonged to the state.

Really? All the decisions in the Lochner Era were based upon Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3?

Viability today vs 1973 is different and creeping lower in the gestational period.

Oh, and how has the right's view of Roe changed since 1973? They accepted it in 1973, right? It was a unanimous decision, right? All justices agreed with the viability argument, and the reason they want to knock down Roe is based upon lowered viability?