Tune in to a Smart Discussion on Vinson’s Ruling (Bumped)
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]
Update: The show is on now. I will be on soon.
Update: Okay, done. I think I did a reasonable job. And it appears that you can listen to the recording here and decide for yourself.
I have been contacted by John Smart who runs a net-based “radio” talk show and he has graciously invited me to be a guest on his show. He said his show will start at 6 pm Pacific time (which is 9 pm Eastern) and at that time you should tune in, here, if you are so inclined. Afterward it will be in the site’s archive and you can even listen somehow on Itunes.
He seems left of center, but more importantly he seems to be principled. Consider for instance this passage from his blog discussing the decision:
It defies ALL logic – from the left, right or center – to claim that non economic activity is economic activity. Not buying an apple is not the same as buying an apple. If we can’t agree on this small bit of reality then we’re cooked. The sad, sick, fact here is that those on the Obama Apologist Faux Left don’t give a rat’s a– about logic. They don’t give a rat’s a– about the precedent the mandate sets. Or won’t until the same logic forces them to by war bonds or stock in G.E. under some future GOP admin. They don’t give a rat’s a– about the law or civil liberties. They care about 2 things: Control and Adoring Obama.
And despite that flash of anger and coarse language, my impression is he is generally a calm and cogent man—not some shock jock. So hopefully this will be fun law-nerd talk and I can keep things interesting. Or I will crash and burn. Which might be fun listening in its own right, sort of like video of a car accident.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
Why would a future GOP admin require people to buy stock in GE?
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 2/1/2011 @ 8:09 amIs GE/Jeff Imelt going to change sides in the near future?
Yep–since Jeff Imelt is clearly in bed with the Obamaites, I see a mandate to buy GE stock before 2012–not after.
Mike Myers (0e06a9) — 2/1/2011 @ 8:13 amI’ve made the war bond arguments to my lefty friends a number of times. None of them had a cogent reply as to why the government didn’t require the populace to purchase them during WWI or WWII.
Flashman (a43532) — 2/1/2011 @ 8:20 amA lot of lefty talking heads are already out in force this morning saying, “See, it shoulda been single payer”. “See, they shoulda just put everybody on Medicare.” As the Obama bots start to understand that Vinson is correct about the Constitution and that the current HC law is not defensible, we’re going to see a whole new wave of pressure to go the single payer (socialized medicine) route.
Have fun on the show tonight, Aaron. But gird your loins!
elissa (d23327) — 2/1/2011 @ 8:21 amAD
i thought about that but i figured maybe he just didn’t know that.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 2/1/2011 @ 8:33 amThe idea that non-economic activity is economic activity would seem to go quite well with a Marxist economic view of society.
Just say’in.
Amphipolis (e01538) — 2/1/2011 @ 9:34 amAW – careful that you do not allow them to frame the narrative. Or point out how they are doing so.
JD (109425) — 2/1/2011 @ 9:54 amI’d really like someone to debunk the whole “it’s just like states forcing people to buy automobile insurance” argument.
First, states don’t do that. When I lived in CA I recall I was required to show financial responsibility. As an alternative to buying insurance I could post a bond.
I know for a fact that per the Texas Transportation Code Section 601, liability insurance is just one way to show the required financial responsibility. I can post a surety bond, deposit cash or a cashiers check with a county judge, etc.
I have never lived in a state that forced me to buy a product from a private company. If I chose to drive, I was required to show that I’d be financially responsible for any accidents I may cause. I wasn’t forced to buy anything, although that’s how I and 99.99% of drivers choose to comply with the requiremnt.
But then, the Obamacare individual mandate has nothing to do with requiring me to prove I am responsible for myself, as they dishonestly would have you believe when making their “cost shifting” argument. It is about forcing people who currently don’t participate in the “cost shifting,” more accurately “wealth transfer” scheme, to pay for the health care of all those millions of people they are adding to the system. Not their own care. You’d be surprised; there are still people who pay out of pocket for their own health care. And it’s far less expensive than an annual insurance premium when you pay cash at point of service.
Also, the idea that the government can regulate inactivity means there is no regulatory scheme a citizen can opt out of. By that logic, if I choose not to open a business, I can be regulated by the federal and state agencies that license and regualate businesses. After all, doesn’t my choice not to participate in business effect commerce?
Essentially, the government’s arguing that no one has the option of choosing not to engage in an activity it can regulate. All it needs to come up with some flimsy rationale that through non-participation you’re effecting that regulated activity, and bingo! You’re participating against your will.
Under this rationale, what part of my life can’t they regulate?
Steve (f66e61) — 2/1/2011 @ 12:09 pmSteve, states are not limited to enumerated powers. The Federal government is. That’s the debunking of the analogy.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/1/2011 @ 12:58 pmSteve, you have to put up a $50,000 bond or cash in Texas if you don’t have auto liability insurance and want a registration for your car. And I don’t care whether it’s a federal or state requirement. The federal government is not limited to just enumerated powers.
Jim (631851) — 2/1/2011 @ 1:54 pmListening now, Aaron.
I believe this guy’s blog and show will become regular listening for me.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/1/2011 @ 6:12 pmGuys, I understand what I have to put up if I don’t want to by auto insurance. And I understand the difference between the feds and the states.
What I don’t understand is why we let the false analogy stand.
If the Obama admin mandate is “just like” the state action on auto liability coverage, why can’t I just be required to prove financial responsibility and not buy anything from anybody?
I can do that with the state requirement.
The point is that what the Obama admin is doing is not at all similar to what they say it is similar to.
Steve (f66e61) — 2/1/2011 @ 6:18 pmListening now. When will he shut up and get you on?
Patterico (c218bd) — 2/1/2011 @ 6:25 pmJim, you are just flat out wrong.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/1/2011 @ 6:28 pmBarcky Obumblef@ck is not far enough left for these people. Private insurance is horrible. Horrible. Government should save us.
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/1/2011 @ 6:29 pmExactly right. Single payer is almost certainly constitutional. The only drawback there is that socialized medicine of the Medicare/Medicaid sort is so financially impossible that even the few sane Democrats would reject that path.
iconoclast (bbd5ee) — 2/1/2011 @ 6:30 pmHe pronounced it right.
And yay! Aaron is finally coming on.
Patterico (c218bd) — 2/1/2011 @ 6:31 pmI am not civil.
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/1/2011 @ 6:32 pmTake all the palaver about having to purchase auto insurance and put it over to the side.
Now, listen to the libertarian’s plea that he should not have to fasten his seatbelt when driving. It’s none of the government’s business. He should belt in only if he so chooses.
He is, after all, only hurting himself if he gets into a crash while not buckled up. So what if he caused the accident. He has mandatory car insurance to cover damage to others, though no health insurance for himself because you just can’t mandate it, constitution-wise.
Right?
But wait. When he gets strapped and buckled onto an ambulance gurney after having been flung through his windshield, and then medi-vaced to a trauma center, my personal, financial interests come into play.
Mr. Libertarian isn’t even conscious, and can’t decline life saving attempts. The trauma center will work on his lonely little Ayn-Randian frame all night long, trying to save him. Never mind that he has no health insurance.
His bill will be in the tens of thousands. Wait, no actually, because insurance companies charge the uninsured exponential/multiples above rates charged to those with health care insurance, it might be over a hundred K.
And those costs will make my health insurance rate goe up. And probably, thanks to Mr. Libertarian wreaking havoc on others on the highway, my car insurance rate will, too.
Thanks a lot, asshat.
Wrong.
Larry Reilly (0e1b2d) — 2/1/2011 @ 6:33 pmD’oh! Aaron mispronounced my last name.
And I am a raging conservative!
Patterico (c218bd) — 2/1/2011 @ 6:33 pmJim wrote:
What?! I mean seriously dude, do you have the slightest clue what you’re talking about? That’s about like saying “water is not made of hydrogen and oxygen”, or “the USA is not a republic”.
Milhouse (d84b40) — 2/1/2011 @ 6:33 pmFinally. ObamaCare as is barely got passed. Why did these guys ever think it could have gotten through with a public option? Lunacy!
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/1/2011 @ 6:34 pm“And I am a raging conservative!”
I thought you were a candy azzed rino?
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/1/2011 @ 6:36 pmMawy is a clown. If that analogy were apt, auto insurance would cover tire changes, oil changes, routine maintenance, filling the gas tank, and mechanical issues. Mawy should have to lease oxygen from the rest of society.
The blank act of blank. Nice.
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/1/2011 @ 6:36 pmLarry Reilly, nobody forced you to pay all that money. You did it because you wanted to; why on earth should someone else pay for it? What gives you the right to make someone else pay for it? If you do force him, what makes you different from a common mugger?
Milhouse (d84b40) — 2/1/2011 @ 6:39 pm“And those costs will make my health insurance rate goe up.”
OBAMACARE IS THE ONLY SOLUTION – EXCEPT IT IS DRIVING COSTS UP!!!!!!!
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/1/2011 @ 6:40 pmNot buying vegetables effects the overall vegetable market therefore the government can force you to buy vegetables that the government has approved of in advance.
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/1/2011 @ 6:44 pmCongresscritters will not make me eat anything I do not want to eat. Ever.
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/1/2011 @ 6:47 pmLarry Reilly is giving Nancy Pelosi’s meat curtains a tongue bath for dinner.
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/1/2011 @ 6:53 pmSOme of his commenters are just ADORABLE in their thinking that SSI isn’t trillions in debt.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/1/2011 @ 6:59 pmWell done, Aaron! So what were the 2 exit questions?
DRJ (fdd243) — 2/1/2011 @ 7:01 pmA.W. did a good job.
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/1/2011 @ 7:02 pmthanks drj, patrick, daley.
Sorry, so how do I pronounce your last name, Patrick?
DRJ, the last two questions were about predicting how it would come down in the S.C., and how soon.
I forgot to answer the second one.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 2/1/2011 @ 7:07 pmKman has 6 stereos listening to this program right now. It’s the perfect format, as no reading is required.
Well done, Aaron.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/1/2011 @ 7:08 pmI found it interesting how Smart genuinely professed not to understand a number of the points before you explained them to him. Maybe that explains the poor general quality of our trolls.
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/1/2011 @ 7:10 pmSorry, so how do I pronounce your last name, Patrick?
“Limbaugh.”
Patterico (c218bd) — 2/1/2011 @ 7:10 pm“Limbaugh.”
I thought it was “Levin” you frakking pragmatist!
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/1/2011 @ 7:12 pmWhat I have wondered is why single-payer advocates do not try enacting it at the state level.
At the state level, there would be no Article I concerns. (There are only a few Article I restrictions on states, and enacting single-payer health care is not prohibited.)
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 2/1/2011 @ 7:13 pmPatrick
Oh, I thought it was “Levin.” 🙂
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 2/1/2011 @ 7:13 pmDaley
GMTA. “Levin.”
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 2/1/2011 @ 7:14 pmEjercito, because no state has enough Left wing nutjobs to accept single payer.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/1/2011 @ 7:17 pm“At the state level, there would be no Article I concerns.”
Michael Ejercito – You miss the point. Liberals want to control your life from a central point. Dispersing control to the states dilutes that objective and is not acceptable, which is why such alternatives were rejected during debate.
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/1/2011 @ 7:17 pmMichael – Also states which has tried mandates or quasi mandates, strict government controls, etc., have experienced disastrous results. Single payer is just another form of the same thing.
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/1/2011 @ 7:20 pmdaley
that being said, single payer is much more likely to survive constitutional scrutiny.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 2/1/2011 @ 7:24 pmTo clarify: Having auto insurance (or self-insurance) is not a requirement for owning a car. It is a requirement for driving a car on a public road or street.
If I own a car and only drive it only on private property, I’m not required to have insurance, registration, or even a drivers license. That’s why you don’t see license plates on cars racing in the Indianapolis 500.
Count de Money (4776a5) — 2/1/2011 @ 7:35 pmWhen I was listening, the radio show clicked off right after the host said he had 2 last exit questions — which is why I asked what they were. I assume that happened to everyone and not just me, although I did have to leave for a couple of minutes during the show so maybe that altered how long I could listen.
What did you answer to how you expect this to go in the Supreme Court, Aaron? You’ve been right about so much, I’d really like to hear what you think about that.
DRJ (fdd243) — 2/1/2011 @ 7:46 pmAt the state level, would not the central point be the state capitol?
Especially at the state level.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 2/1/2011 @ 7:47 pmHe figures 5-4.
I suspect 6-3 at worst, striking it down.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/1/2011 @ 7:47 pmThanks, Scott.
DRJ (fdd243) — 2/1/2011 @ 7:53 pmThat’s just not good enough for some of those who want a single central point.
Not to mention, most states wouldn’t go along with it.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/1/2011 @ 7:54 pm“At the state level, would not the central point be the state capitol?”
Michael – We could have 50 states doing different things. That’s not enough control.
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/1/2011 @ 7:58 pm“That’s why you don’t see license plates on cars racing in the Indianapolis 500.”
Count – Are you seriously claiming that Indy car teams do not carry liability insurance?
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/1/2011 @ 8:00 pmScott
Which liberal justice would strike it down? just curious?
certainly not kagan, that vegetables comment tells us her answer.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 2/1/2011 @ 8:00 pmI think at the very least Breyer will come against it, and I would think it isn’t outside the realm of possibility for another one to come with.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/1/2011 @ 8:09 pmScott
Okay, um, based on what? the guy seems to be a down-the-line liberal.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 2/1/2011 @ 8:12 pmdaley,
I’m sure they carry some kind of financial protection in case of adverse events. The point I was making was that this is in no way mandated by government at any level.
Count de Money (4776a5) — 2/1/2011 @ 8:13 pmThat’s not what he’s saying. It’s simply the case that the laws that apply on public roads are different than those on private ones, hence the obvious fact that many race cars aren’t street legal and aren’t even registered.
In fact, many of the requirements on these cars are due to insurance (which isn’t really like liability insurance). Any sane race track will have coverage, and the insurer will have requirements, such as license requirements (that may or may not include having a normal driver’s license).
Indy car teams don’t carry the kind of liability insurance on their race cars that you or I have on ours. In fact, it’s practically unheard of for a race car that collided with another to result in that particular type of claim. If a fan is injured, the event’s owner’s insurance is probably the place to place a claim (That they might then say you waived with your ticket’s boilerplate).
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/1/2011 @ 8:15 pmIf he is 100% “down the line”, how would one explain his vote to allow a statue of the 10 Commandments?
he is, I will admit, very liberal. I do not, however, think that he is so liberal as to believe that the government has the authority to force the purchase of something.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/1/2011 @ 8:17 pmThe driver would likely not be the one covering that. That would be the team owner. It would be a form of corporate liability insurance, not driver insurance.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/1/2011 @ 8:20 pmJust reading you guys guess the votes of what a lot of people say is a 5-4 issue really scares the crap out of me.
The entire notion of limited government rests on 5 men staying on the Court for the next few years. Should Clarence Thomas have a heart attack, or Kennedy retire, or Scalia get hit by a bus… the entire concept of limited government goes away.
This is not a good system. 9 justices is too few, if they wield this much power. I probably should shut up about this before Obama packs the Court (not beyond him, I bet).
I’d rather see 24 Justices serve 12 year terms, 2 Justices appointed every year (same process).
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/1/2011 @ 8:21 pmYou’d think. It seems like such a radical interpretation of the commerce clause that only a tiny number of judges would agree. We’ll have to wait and see.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/1/2011 @ 8:22 pmIf not even Hawaii and Massachusetts have enough left wing nut jobs to accept single payer, what does that imply for the nation as a whole?
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 2/2/2011 @ 8:52 pm