The O.C Trial - Will The Mandate Survive?

[pfife]

I know you are convinced that tax cuts don't stimulate the economy, but I'm inclined to think that
the economy, and as a result total revenue collection, would have lagged even further without those
tax cuts.

And we think the economy would have been even worse without the Stimulus bill.

[pfife]

Why do they accumulate the deficit from the Bush years and then add them on to the Obama year's deficits? A honest presentation would only show cumulative deficits from 2009-2012. Comparing Bush policies to the rosy CBO 2001 projections is awfully questionable as well.

The bottom line is that Obama inherited big deficits and added greatly to them.

Why is it awfully questionable to compare to CBO projections? Didn't I see you post something about the health care bill being much more expensive than initially predicted by the CBO, and you blamed Obama for it? Don't I have to endure people saying the stimulus is a failure because it didn't reach its stated goals?

[Gehringer_2]

I know you are convinced that tax cuts don't stimulate the economy, ..

But there are really two questions about the effect of tax cuts on the economy. The first is: Are they short term stimulative? And the answer is yes, because as long as the government doesn't cut spending to match, you've just put more money into circulation. The neo-Kudlows can ***** about Keynes all they want but the data is on his side on this one.

But the more debatable question is: Do tax cuts increase or decrease deficits in the longer term. And here the answer is IT DEPENDS. It depends primarily on what marginal rates the cuts made from. The 1981 reductions from 70% and higher marginal rates clearly brought money back into productive use that had been sheltering to no wider benefit which created growth which in turn helped drive higher net Federal revenues. But when marginal rates are already much lower, as they were when Bush II cut taxes in 2001, that is pure loss the government balance sheet, as proven by the ensuing explosion in the deficit. And even Reagan had to fine tune the big initial cuts several times later in his presidency because the revenue bonus was not as big as his admin had hoped.

[DaYooperASBDT]

That's a solid post G2. I do concur that you can cut taxes too deeply. But I do think it unwise to enhance the revenue side without gaining some Constitutional controls on spending. Everyone else has to balance their budget - so should the US. Otherwise how can you maintain faith in the greenback?

[DaYooperASBDT]

The ruling to be announced this Thursday, 6/28

Live blog: Supreme Court strikes down most of Arizona immigration law, upholds one part – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

[Gehringer_2]

The ruling to be announced this Thursday, 6/28

Live blog: Supreme Court strikes down most of Arizona immigration law, upholds one part – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

Another weird on from SCOTUS? If the initial story is correct, the ruling is that the Feds can't tell state cops not to ask about status, but the state can't do anything about what they learn but pass the information to the Feds, they have no authority to do any enforcement. So then what value remains in the power to ask? Sounds like our Solomons just went ahead and killed the baby on this one!

Or maybe I'd put it that the conservatives got the press release win (see Yahoo news leader: "AZ law "upheld" ) but the liberals got the law.

[shabba4detroit]

Or maybe I'd put it that the conservatives got the press release win (see Yahoo news leader: "AZ law "upheld" ) but the liberals got the law.

I'd say that the SCOTUS got it right and pigeonholers gotta pigeonhole. The result is neither liberal or conservative. The consequences may be interesting.

[Gehringer_2]

I'd say that the SCOTUS got it right and pigeonholers gotta pigeonhole. The result is neither liberal or conservative. The consequences may be interesting.

I agree that I don't see how they could not support Federal Supremacy. Though clearly Scalia was ready to toss the whole federal system in his dissent. I have this from the news instead of an original reading, but apparently he cited the right of states in the pre-civil war South to exclude free blacks from entry as a basis for supporting states rights in immigration. I think he's missing who won the war there.....

In Arizona dissent, Scalia blasts Obama

Arizona's entire immigration law should be upheld, Scalia wrote, because it is "entitled" to make its own immigration policy. At one point, he cites the fact that before the Civil War, Southern states could exclude free blacks from their borders to support the idea that states should be able to set their own immigration policies.

I used to think Scalia was a useful thinker on the court. Now I think he is becoming a pale stalking horse for the Koch's

[Truth]

Another weird on from SCOTUS? If the initial story is correct, the ruling is that the Feds can't tell state cops not to ask about status, but the state can't do anything about what they learn but pass the information to the Feds, they have no authority to do any enforcement. So then what value remains in the power to ask? Sounds like our Solomons just went ahead and killed the baby on this one!

Or maybe I'd put it that the conservatives got the press release win (see Yahoo news leader: "AZ law "upheld" ) but the liberals got the law.

Ha, the liberals got the law which is just a political calculation away from actually being enforced...as Obama pulls the plug on enforcement support to Arizona.

[Truth]

I agree that I don't see how they could not support Federal Supremacy. Though clearly Scalia was ready to toss the whole federal system in his dissent. I have this from the news instead of an original reading, but apparently he cited the right of states in the pre-civil war South to exclude free blacks from entry as a basis for supporting states rights in immigration. I think he's missing who won the war there.....

In Arizona dissent, Scalia blasts Obama



I used to think Scalia was a useful thinker on the court. Now I think he is becoming a pale stalking horse for the Koch's

You should probably read his opinion rather than relying on the press. And really, when the federal system is now being interpreted to provide the executive branch with the option of upholding the law, Scalia isn't the one tossing it overboard.

[Gehringer_2]

You should probably read his opinion rather than relying on the press. And really, when the federal system is now being interpreted to provide the executive branch with the option of upholding the law, Scalia isn't the one tossing it overboard.

Well I did look it over, and I have to say that I think he starts out his whole argument with a stupendous non-sequitor. The crux of his opening argument is that control of borders is a property of a sovereign and the states are 'sovereign' and thus have the right to control immigration. This is the same kind of semantic sophistry that led to the anthropomorphism of corporations to persons and is just as muddled. A state under the Federal system is obviously no longer a 'sovereign' in many of the senses of an independent nation, although the term is still used in federalism terminology to describe areas where the states do retain power. Scalia basically is arguing from the use of the term that somehow a state is still a sovereign in the pre-constitutional sense even though that basically does no less than un-ratify the constitution! He even goes so far at one point as to say that he believes the states would not have ratified if they realized they would lose 'sovereign' powers under a ruling like the majority's. How could a JOTSC be more wrong? The states knew exactly that they were giving ultimate sovereign power to a UNION, that's what the formation of the nation was all about. So next if Arizona wants to print it's own money and raise its own Army, Nino is all on board I guess since those are properties of a 'sovereign'.

[pfife]

You should probably read his opinion rather than relying on the press. And really, when the federal system is now being interpreted to provide the executive branch with the option of upholding the law, Scalia isn't the one tossing it overboard.

Scalia was wrong when he called it an executive order. It's not an executive order, its a deferred action. Here are Obama's executive orders, you will note that it is not there, precisely because it is not an executive order. Executive Orders | The White House


And, congress gave the president the option of upholding the law in the law that created the DHS in 2003.

Scalia should stop blogging from the bench.

[pfife]

Well I did look it over, and I have to say that I think he starts out his whole argument with a stupendous non-sequitor. The crux of his opening argument is that control of borders is a property of a sovereign and the states are 'sovereign' and thus have the right to control immigration. This is the same kind of semantic sophistry that led to the anthropomorphism of corporations to persons and is just as muddled. A state under the Federal system is obviously no longer a 'sovereign' in many of the senses of an independent nation, although the term is still used in federalism terminology to describe areas where the states do retain power. Scalia basically is arguing from the use of the term that somehow a state is still a sovereign in the pre-constitutional sense even though that basically does no less than un-ratify the constitution! He even goes so far at one point as to say that he believes the states would not have ratified if they realized they would lose 'sovereign' powers under a ruling like the majority's. How could a JOTSC be more wrong? The states knew exactly that they were giving ultimate sovereign power to a UNION, that's what the formation of the nation was all about. So next if Arizona wants to print it's own money and raise its own Army, Nino is all on board I guess since those are properties of a 'sovereign'.

I'm just glad we have Scalia here to mind read "sovereign states" before they joined the union in a hypothetical world that he created.

At least his argument was based in the constitution.... LOL Except for that part where it says Congress controls naturalization, which, of course, was in the constitution when all of the states joined the union.

He needs to quit blogging from the bench.

[Mr. DNA]

Jeez, what major institutions in this country (and world at this point) aren't a complete embarrassment? The Supreme Court is a bunch of Republican true believers and a handful of milquetoast moderates afraid to rock the boat. At least Washington DC will probably be covered in ocean water in 40 years, putting it out of its misery.

[Truth]

Well I did look it over, and I have to say that I think he starts out his whole argument with a stupendous non-sequitor. The crux of his opening argument is that control of borders is a property of a sovereign and the states are 'sovereign' and thus have the right to control immigration. This is the same kind of semantic sophistry that led to the anthropomorphism of corporations to persons and is just as muddled. A state under the Federal system is obviously no longer a 'sovereign' in many of the senses of an independent nation, although the term is still used in federalism terminology to describe areas where the states do retain power. Scalia basically is arguing from the use of the term that somehow a state is still a sovereign in the pre-constitutional sense even though that basically does no less than un-ratify the constitution! He even goes so far at one point as to say that he believes the states would not have ratified if they realized they would lose 'sovereign' powers under a ruling like the majority's. How could a JOTSC be more wrong? The states knew exactly that they were giving ultimate sovereign power to a UNION, that's what the formation of the nation was all about. So next if Arizona wants to print it's own money and raise its own Army, Nino is all on board I guess since those are properties of a 'sovereign'.

I don't think a Scalia opinion is understood by just "looking it over." He has a cogent argument, peppered with his usual bombast...which of course the media and blogs run with, not even able to project what a right wing executive branch might do with the same authorities Scalia is sounding off about. Here is the heart of it:

Arizona is entitled to have “its own immigration policy” — including a more rigorous enforcement policy — so long as that does not conflict with federal law. The Court says, as though the point is utterly dispositive, that “it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States.”. . . It is not a federal crime, to be sure. But there is no reason Arizona cannot make it a state crime for a removable alien (or any illegal alien, for that matter) to remain present in Arizona

[Gehringer_2]

I don't think a Scalia opinion is understood by just "looking it over." He has a cogent argument, peppered with his usual bombast...which of course the media and blogs run with, not even able to project what a right wing executive branch might do with the same authorities Scalia is sounding off about. Here is the heart of it:

But the rest of the court rightly realized that immigration is a matter of both law and policy, and thus there is really no room at all for the a state to legislate on the topic. But since he he didn't win the day on the actual argument, he (as you put it) bombasted his way to a lot of ancillary and really pretty silly arguments (do you really want to argue the rightness of your reading based on pre-14/15/16tt amendment treatment of ex-slaves?) that do nothing but weaken whatever respect you can have for any good logic he has to offer.

And his inconsistency on federal power issues is so epic a to leave little room to doubt that in recent years he is swimming in a political rather than legal mindset. How can anyone square his paean to state sovereignty in Arizona V US with the conservative majority decision in the Montana election law case?

[pfife]

I don't think a Scalia opinion is understood by just "looking it over." He has a cogent argument, peppered with his usual bombast...which of course the media and blogs run with, not even able to project what a right wing executive branch might do with the same authorities Scalia is sounding off about. Here is the heart of it:

Good point. It's much better understood by recognizing the first factual inaccuracy on which his whole house of deceit cards is built, and ignoring the rest as there are much more productive things to do with one's time, such as preparing for the end of the world in May of last year.

[mtutiger]

According to SCOTUSBlog and WaPo, the mandate will survive...

[belcherboy]

It looks like all the worry was for nothing. It stands!

[pfife]

I think the media doesn't really understand how court proceedings work. Asking tough questions has nothing to do with whether the judge is going to back it or not. That's Kennedy's job, whether he supports it or whether he's against it.

Much ado about nothing. His vote could go either way, but which way he goes isn't going to be discerned from the toughness of his questions.

I think the "mandate" eventually survives, because it's not really a mandate. You don't have to buy insurance. You just have to pay extra taxes if you don't.

take a bow coug

[pfife]

Oh, I don't think that they'll forget because it's going to get a lot of repetition in campaign advertising. LOL

it was forgotten

:)