Slog Comments
In Which Goldy Proved a Better Constitutional Attorney Than Our Attorney General
1
Nice work, Goldy. Sincerely. But... because I gotta, I'm going to ask when you were ever concerned with seeming immodest.
2
Ha. No wonder that schmo McKenna doesn't want you anywhere near him.
How much did Washington State piss away pursuing his legal gibberish theory? Try not to miss at least one public opportunity to tell him, "Told you so!"
How much did Washington State piss away pursuing his legal gibberish theory? Try not to miss at least one public opportunity to tell him, "Told you so!"
4
....In Which Goldy Proved a Better Constitutional Attorney Than Our President (the Constitutional Law Professor)
Will Obama be apologizing to Goldy and George Stephanopoulos?
Will Obama be apologizing to Goldy and George Stephanopoulos?
6
Toby, you could have a Phd in astro physics and people will still find your blog entries about astro physics annoying and tripe.
7
That's the best explanation of the tax/mandate/incentive/whatever I've seen. Putting your own name in this post title is a new height of self-tootery that you probably deserve (maybe this once). No wonder McK fears you.
9
The way I see it, there's the Constitution, and next to it is goldy, then eight miles of crap, and then McKenna.
10
All that being said (and good job on calling it), Richard Posner has a nice, concise summary as to why the mandate could have been upheld on Commerce Clause grounds.
13
Sorry, Goldy.
Today Obama is reaffirming his position that it is NOT A FUCKING TAX......
And he said "you could go fuck yourself you pretensious douchedrip"
Today Obama is reaffirming his position that it is NOT A FUCKING TAX......
And he said "you could go fuck yourself you pretensious douchedrip"
14
@5, can you blame him? If my earliest efforts to blow myself had ever succeeded I don't suppose I'd find it easy to do much else either.
16
Goldy has no formal legal training, and can barely feed himself, but there is no question he is the Oliver Wendell Holmes of the Stranger.
17
As I was reading this post, off to the side a little bit is an ad saying: The Seattle Times endorses Rob McKenna.
Is that snark or irony?
Is that snark or irony?
22
@3 -- I can't believe the Legislative Branch passed a law and advertised it disingenuously!
I've never heard of such a thing!
I don't suppose you remember all of Obama's noise about how he was winning on his accomplishments but losing on his messaging. What did you think he was talking about?
I've never heard of such a thing!
I don't suppose you remember all of Obama's noise about how he was winning on his accomplishments but losing on his messaging. What did you think he was talking about?
23
Goldy:
You should start writing articles now on the ways McKenna will fuck-up when he's Governor. Two or three years from now I look forward to more blog posts about how you were right and no one would listen.
You should start writing articles now on the ways McKenna will fuck-up when he's Governor. Two or three years from now I look forward to more blog posts about how you were right and no one would listen.
24
Seems to me the result of all this could be for at least some states to enact single payer health care.
This would be because it is now in the interest of highly paid, but independent business owners to not have to pay the high costs of insurance or penalties.
This would be because it is now in the interest of highly paid, but independent business owners to not have to pay the high costs of insurance or penalties.
26
@21 Yes, I did nail Goldmark v. McKenna. Before the case was even filed. Read my original posts, and the briefings and opinion, and you'll fund much of the same case law and conclusions cited.
I also nailed the 2004 gubernatorial election contest, about four months before Judge Bridges finally ruled, explaining in detail why Rossi's reliance on Foulkes v. Hays would ultimately doom his case.
True, as @16 points out, I have no legal training, and my lack of legal vocabulary and procedural knowledge often shows through my analysis. But I have a good legal mind, and I'm damn proud of my track record reporting on legal issues.
I also nailed the 2004 gubernatorial election contest, about four months before Judge Bridges finally ruled, explaining in detail why Rossi's reliance on Foulkes v. Hays would ultimately doom his case.
True, as @16 points out, I have no legal training, and my lack of legal vocabulary and procedural knowledge often shows through my analysis. But I have a good legal mind, and I'm damn proud of my track record reporting on legal issues.
27
Your conclusion is incorrect, @24.
So is defeat a disaster for small business? Almost certainly not, though it may prove to be a disaster for NFIB’s main policy priority of low taxes.
The bill in fact contains substantial benefits (some might even say giveaways) for small businesses. That starts with a program already under way to offer special subsidies to firms with fewer than 25 employees that want to offer health benefits. As long as your employees earn less than $50,000 on average (law firms, medical practices, and other elite professional partnership are thus ineligible), you can get a tax credit to defray 35 percent of the cost of the insurance if you’re a for-profit firm, and 25 percent if you’re a nonprofit. When the law really gets rolling in 2014, those subsidies rise to 50 percent for for-profits and 35 percent for nonprofits.
Firms with fewer than 50 employees are also exempt from the “employer responsibility” provision of the law... That is supposed to deter firms from responding to the law by simply dropping existing insurance coverage. But the ACA doesn’t make small businesses pay that penalty.
Put the special subsidies and the exemption together, and the result is a law that’s pretty clearly a good deal for small businesses.
30
goldy?!
anybody there?
did you see Obama doubling down on the "ITS NOT A FUCKING TAX!" thing today?
comment?
anybody there?
did you see Obama doubling down on the "ITS NOT A FUCKING TAX!" thing today?
comment?
Comments (31) RSS