You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 07, 2016, 02:43:58 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: What's in the news?  (Read 174048 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline consortium11

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1325 on: June 25, 2015, 01:48:31 PM »
I'm actually of a couple of minds about this... although the majority of my issues (as such) are me speaking with my lawyer hat on.

First, I'm fairly happy Obamacare remains because I like elements of Obamacare in principle. When discussions about healthcare systems come up I tend to mention my support for the Swiss approach (private insurance but each insurer must provide a basic package which covers a selection of things and which they cannot make a profit on, with the government giving subsidies to those who can't afford even the basic package); in the rough comparisons between different systems we have it gives the same or better results than most others at less cost. For all its flaws Obamacare does follow a similar set-up.

Secondly, this complaint was basically the definition of a technicality; it was an attempt to essentially decapitate the act because of one clause being poorly worded and some sloppy definitions. If Obamacare is to be repealed or replaced it shouldn't be on the basis of a technicality; it's too important for that.

With my legal hat on:

There's a school of judicial interpretation of statue related to "mischief". This isn't a fancy term for judges causing trouble; it's an approach to interpretation where when a judge is called upon to interpret a statute he looks beyond merely the pure text and instead looks at what "mischief" the statute was intended to correct in the first place. An example from the UK relaters to sex work; a law was passed which made it illegal to "loiter or solicit in the street for the purposes of prostitution" but sex workers were calling down to men from balconies. When arrested they claimed that as they weren't "in the street" the law didn't apply to them. The judge looked at the discussion in parliament behind the statute, decided that the purpose of the act was to prevent the mischief of harassment from sex workers and basically quashed the loophole.

I have mixed feelings on the mischief act. On one hand it prevents those loophole issues mentioned above. On the other hand, is it really the job of the courts to correct the legislative's poorly drafted bills? Or on a wider sense to basically guess (however well informed) what they meant? As a general rule the way statue-based law works is that it's based on statues interpreted by the judiciary. But the mischief method isn't a judge interpreting the statute, it's them interpreting the intentions behind the statute. That's a different and far wider thing.

In this case the issue comes down to this: tax credits were available to anyone enrolled in an insurance plan "through an exchange established by the State". But 34 States don't have their own exchanges, instead having a federally established one. Does a federally established exchange count as being established by the State? The act itself would suggest not; in the definitions section "State" is defined as being "each of the 50 states and the district of Columbia" which doesn't include the federal government. Thus, looking purely at the technical wording of the act tax credits shouldn't be available to the residents of states which only have a federal exchange.

The majority basically used the mischief method. The "mischief" the ACA set out to right was the poor access to and high costs of healthcare (it may or may not achieve those aims but that is the purpose). Strictly following the wording and thus preventing people in certain states from getting tax credits would have gone against that purpose and thus the wording is changed. But as Scalia points out (and agree with him or not, he writes clearly and entertainingly) it's a challenge to find a more plain limitation than "established by the State" (if it is established by the State it's allowed, if it's not it isn't) and State in turn is clearly defined. Using the mischief approach here is to say that those words no longer have any meaning. Moreover in other sections of the ACA there is a distinction drawn between "exchanges" in general (i.e both federal and state exchanges) and "exchanges established by the State". That being the case it seems clear that "exchanges set up by the State" is not simply shorthand for "all exchanges, federal or state established". In addition the US tends to use a less wide version of the mischief method; only when the wording is ambiguous should the purpose of the act be considered. Here the wording isn't ambiguous, it's clear and it clearly excludes people in states with federally established exchanges from getting tax credits.

Frankly, I prefer Scalia's reasoning. Which I really dislike doing. Because as above I don't want the ACA repealed and, if it is to be repealed or fail, it shouldn't be on the basis of something like this. But his reasoning is clear, to the point and convincing. The majorities is fudged and trying to bend things as much as possible to suit their view.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1326 on: June 25, 2015, 02:08:25 PM »
The use of the phrase 'the State' can be interpreted a number of ways in legal matters. 

Law and politics

    State (polity), the organization of the body politic; could also be a legal person
    Sovereign state, a sovereign political entity in public international law
    Nation state, a state which coincides with a nation
    Member state, a member of an international organization such as the United Nations
    Federated state, a political entity forming part of a federal sovereign state such as the United States, Australia, India and Brazil
    "State", is in some contexts virtually synonymous with "government", e.g., to distinguish from private entities

In the last entry there, it appears that it could be used to refer to either a state or a federal entity, as the intent of that definition would then be to distinguish it from private insurance exchange.

Offline consortium11

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1327 on: June 25, 2015, 02:10:49 PM »
The use of the phrase 'the State' can be interpreted a number of ways in legal matters.

Not in the ACA; it defines what it means by "State" and when a statute defines a term you can't substitute others in instead.

Offline Ironwolf85

  • Eletronic Scribe of naughty things.
  • Lord
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2010
  • Location: New England Somewhere I won't tell you
  • Gender: Male
  • Here to have fun, Role play, and maybe get laid
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1328 on: June 26, 2015, 09:25:48 AM »

Offline consortium11

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1329 on: June 26, 2015, 09:36:17 AM »
Unfortunately today appears to be a day defined by terrorist attacks:

27 people, primarily tourists, killed in a Tunisian hotel

In France a man has been decapitated in what appears to be an Islamist attack.

The Islamic State are claiming credit for a bomb at a Shia mosque in Kuwait that appears to have killed at least 10.

So far only the third one has been officially claimed by the Islamic State but it may be worth noting that these come only a couple of days after an Islamic State spokesman called for jihadis to attack "infidels, Shias and apostate Muslims" over Ramadan.

Offline Sara Nilsson

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1330 on: June 26, 2015, 09:47:25 AM »
Unfortunately today appears to be a day defined by terrorist attacks:

but to make the day better, the Supreme Court in USA declared gay marriage legal! so at least this dark day has a silver lining for sure

Offline Cycle

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1331 on: June 26, 2015, 09:59:22 AM »
but to make the day better, the Supreme Court in USA declared gay marriage legal! so at least this dark day has a silver lining for sure

+1

Absolutely.


Offline Yugishogun

  • Giver of amazing items to all those in need
  • On Hiatus
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: Sheboygan, Wisconsin
  • Gender: Male
  • Elliquiy Arms! Maku Spark!!!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1332 on: June 26, 2015, 10:02:25 AM »
+1

Absolutely.

+100000000000000000000000

Offline Cycle

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1333 on: June 26, 2015, 10:08:04 AM »
I wonder if we can get Memories Pizza to cater the celebration party...  ;)


Offline Sara Nilsson

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1334 on: June 26, 2015, 10:09:37 AM »
I wonder if we can get Memories Pizza to cater the celebration party...  ;)

rotflmao!!!!

i am waiting for the texas pastor who said he would burn himself if gays were allowed to marry.. we can use him for the BBQ

Online Lustful Bride

  • "Logic is for Squares."
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Gender: Female
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1335 on: June 26, 2015, 10:13:03 AM »
Im happy about the supreme court ruling. Freedom for all!  XD

Hopefully now it can stop being such a hot button issue and the politicians can focus on other things such as the economy.

Offline Sara Nilsson

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1336 on: June 26, 2015, 10:20:19 AM »
Im happy about the supreme court ruling. Freedom for all!  XD

Hopefully now it can stop being such a hot button issue and the politicians can focus on other things such as the economy.

I like to think so, but I think the *bleep* will just keep crying louder at how we are ruining the country. I dont think the politics around gay marriage will die down anytime soon.

Offline Cassandra LeMay

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1337 on: June 26, 2015, 10:35:31 AM »
I like to think so, but I think the *bleep* will just keep crying louder at how we are ruining the country. I dont think the politics around gay marriage will die down anytime soon.
Sadly that's likely to be true. Just look at how many states are trying their best to torpedo abortion, despite Roe vs. Wade, the last few years. It's only a matter of time before some creative lawmakers find ways to put up new hurdles for gay marriage too, no matter today's Supreme Court ruling.

Offline Ironwolf85

  • Eletronic Scribe of naughty things.
  • Lord
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2010
  • Location: New England Somewhere I won't tell you
  • Gender: Male
  • Here to have fun, Role play, and maybe get laid
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1338 on: June 26, 2015, 10:47:43 AM »
"the economy is in the shitter, the income gap is wider than ever before, we have shootings, riots, crumbling infrastructure... but oh lordy lord gotta stop dem evil homo's"
>,<
see I'm generally a conservative fellow but I'm a realist, which is why I've been voting democrat.

Offline Sara Nilsson

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1339 on: June 26, 2015, 10:52:56 AM »
"the economy is in the shitter, the income gap is wider than ever before, we have shootings, riots, crumbling infrastructure... but oh lordy lord gotta stop dem evil homo's"
>,<
see I'm generally a conservative fellow but I'm a realist, which is why I've been voting democrat.

but the homos, the end of the world. rabble rabble.

its been funny looking at the fox news comments, so many saying this is the end of america

Online Lustful Bride

  • "Logic is for Squares."
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Gender: Female
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1340 on: June 26, 2015, 11:28:15 AM »
but the homos, the end of the world. rabble rabble.

its been funny looking at the fox news comments, so many saying this is the end of america

*slams face into desk* This is why we cant have nice things. Theres a powerful new terrorist organization out there, climate change, riots every other day, 3 terrorist attacks in one day but they think gay marriage is the end of America?

*facepalm* this is why I hate the media. And politicians. (both sides, gotta be equal in my hatred.  XD )

Offline Zakharra

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1341 on: June 26, 2015, 04:19:07 PM »
Not in the ACA; it defines what it means by "State" and when a statute defines a term you can't substitute others in instead.

 That's my problem with the ACA decision. It more or less throws out the rule of law and replaces it with 'it says what  I think it says. That a judge or judges can change the definition of a word to expand the coverage of a law because s/he wants it to. That is a very dangerous and scary road to follow since the same reasoning could be used to argue for or against other legal cases. Wit this ruling,. the law doesn't have to be precise anymore, just close enough the meaning can be twisted to cover other things.

but to make the day better, the Supreme Court in USA declared gay marriage legal! so at least this dark day has a silver lining for sure

 I read in another forum on how this decision opens up the real possibility for polygamy to be legalized. I believe the person quoted one of the judges who wrote (not sure if it was a dissenting justice or not) that the jump from legalizing gay marriages/SSM (same sex marriages) is a longer jump than legalizing polygamous marriages, and that much the same argument can be made, more easily, for legalizing polygamous marriages now since the bar has been crossed for SSM.

 Edit:  I found it. It's in the written dissent by Justice Roberts. Here is the link: http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/26/here-are-the-11-most-devastating-quotes-from-john-roberts-gay-marriage-dissent/

 And here is the snippet I saw:
Quote
Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one. It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2015, 04:27:49 PM by Zakharra »

Online Lustful Bride

  • "Logic is for Squares."
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Gender: Female
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1342 on: June 26, 2015, 04:27:44 PM »
I read in another forum on how this decision opens up the real possibility for polygamy to be legalized. I believe the person quoted one of the judges who wrote (not sure if it was a dissenting justice or not) that the jump from legalizing gay marriages/SSM (same sex marriages) is a longer jump than legalizing polygamous marriages, and that much the same argument can be made, more easily, for legalizing polygamous marriages now since the bar has been crossed for SSM.

Oh god I hope not, that will make it harder to stop those freaks who keep their families trapped in armored compounds, forcing them to keep no contact with the outside world while making them have child after child.

I cant think of any recent cases of it though so maybe im making it sound worse/ thinking of it worse than it really is.

Offline Aethereal

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1343 on: June 26, 2015, 04:46:29 PM »
Quote
its been funny looking at the fox news comments, so many saying this is the end of america
        All I can ask is, "But how will it even affect you, or anyone?"

OT: I really like the woman in mail you have as avatar.

Quote
Oh god I hope not, that will make it harder to stop those freaks who keep their families trapped in armored compounds, forcing them to keep no contact with the outside world while making them have child after child.
      I don't think the legality or lack of legality will really affect those people - not with how many other laws they're breaking with things like that. If anything, they'd avoid making things official like plague since otherwise people might start to wonder where the heck their wives are...

      Polygamy - be it polygyny, polyandry or some mix - can be healthy, the same way any other relationship can be healthy or unhealthy. Marriage as a good and romantic thing as mainstream in general is fairly new concept - in many cultures, for a long time, it was mostly about ownership and/or "trade between families"...

Offline Sara Nilsson

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1344 on: June 26, 2015, 04:50:45 PM »
OT: I really like the woman in mail you have as avatar.

https://elliquiy.com/elluiki/images/5/5e/SNknightess.jpg there is the full size.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1345 on: June 26, 2015, 04:58:36 PM »
Oh god I hope not, that will make it harder to stop those freaks who keep their families trapped in armored compounds, forcing them to keep no contact with the outside world while making them have child after child.

I cant think of any recent cases of it though so maybe im making it sound worse/ thinking of it worse than it really is.

The last case to hit the news was Warren Jeffs' convictions on accessory to child rape in 2011.  To the best of my knowledge, the FLDS (not to be confused with the mainstream Mormons/LDS) was the only group with the armored compounds, and those were seized by Texas officials last year:  http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/17/us/texas-yfz-ranch-seizure/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1346 on: June 26, 2015, 05:43:58 PM »
Also worth noting: Y'know, there are stable, long term polycules, some of whom I'm sure would appreciate legal recognition. Why exactly is this a terrible thing?

Offline Sara Nilsson

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1347 on: June 26, 2015, 05:57:43 PM »
one thing I havent been able to figure out, what about the US territories. I know it is already legal in Guam but what about Samoa, the virgin islands etc are they affected by this?

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1348 on: June 26, 2015, 06:05:31 PM »
Also worth noting: Y'know, there are stable, long term polycules, some of whom I'm sure would appreciate legal recognition. Why exactly is this a terrible thing?

Ayup.  The key thing is that the union is consensual (which also tosses the Jeffs cult out on its ear.)

Online Lustful Bride

  • "Logic is for Squares."
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Gender: Female
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1349 on: June 26, 2015, 06:05:43 PM »
one thing I havent been able to figure out, what about the US territories. I know it is already legal in Guam but what about Samoa, the virgin islands etc are they affected by this?

From what I heard from my mom (since she loves watching the news of Puerto Rico and loves to gossip) is that it looks like its also in effect there and its a US commonwealth so...I guess it works there too?

Ayup.  The key thing is that the union is consensual (which also tosses the Jeffs cult out on its ear.)

I guess il just be alittle more open about it. If they all consent and somehow figure out how to make it work then more power to them.

« Last Edit: June 26, 2015, 06:07:27 PM by Lustful Bride »