9-0

[bigbird 60,578]

Thoughts on the SCOTUS travel ban vote?

[augolf1716 21,253]

Smart move by the SCOTUS to move it along by the time the complete case goes in front of the court it more then likely will be expired. The ban is for 90/120 days I believe. The admin. is working on a new vetting and expect to be completed before then. I'm sure they will be lawsuits 

[TexasTiger 12,991]

Sounds about right, on its face. Even though the President has broad powers on immigration, he overreached. The Ct deferred to what he had the authority to do, whether it's well thought out or not, and drew limits where obvious. The urgency argument seems gone, though. He's had the time stated the draft new procedures the administration said were planned.

[TexasTiger 12,991]

Good read on this:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-was-most-important-todays-supreme-court-immigration-decision

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

The SCOTUS vote once again goes against the liberal circuit and appeals courts which want to base their opinions on what they perceive an "evolving" Constitution to fit current social scenarios. The SCOTUS  on the other hand goes more by a strict interpretation and basically says if you wnat to change the Constitution do so in the prescribed manner......thru amendments.

[TexasTiger 12,991]

3 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

The SCOTUS vote once again goes against the liberal circuit and appeals courts which want to base their opinions on what they perceive an "evolving" Constitution to fit current social scenarios. The SCOTUS  on the other hand goes more by a strict interpretation and basically says if you wnat to change the Constitution do so in the prescribed manner......thru amendments.

The SCOTUS vote actually allows many of the folks denied entry into the US. It just lifts the total injunction.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

8 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

The SCOTUS vote actually allows many of the folks denied entry into the US. It just lifts the total injunction.

True but they must show that they meet the criteria given for allowable entry.

[bigbird 60,578]

52 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Good read on this:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-was-most-important-todays-supreme-court-immigration-decision

I particularly like these two excerpts

 

I detest much of the president’s norm-defying behavior and have been critical of it.  But I worry at least as much about norms related to our governance that have been breached and diminished as a result of, or in response to, Trumpism.  Trump has taken everyone (well, many of us) down a bit toward his screaming, exaggerating, temperature-raising, disrespectful, uncharitable, un-self-aware, norm-defying level—journalists, bloggers, Executive branch bureaucrats, citizens, and courts.  (This was happening to some extent before Trump; he may be as much an effect as a cause.  But the norm-defiance on all sides has accelerated under his presidency.) 

 

While Trump has clearly been provoked by others’ norm-defying behavior into some of his norm-defying behavior, he has been his own worst enemy from the outset of his presidency and has (in my view) dished out much more than he has taken in.  Also, I have no doubt that Trump “started it” in the immigration context with his sometimes-uncivil rhetoric on the campaign trail, his irresponsibly overbroad and poorly crafted initial Order, and his tweet attack on courts.

[TexasTiger 12,991]

1 hour ago, bigbird said:

I particularly like these two excerpts

 

I detest much of the president’s norm-defying behavior and have been critical of it.  But I worry at least as much about norms related to our governance that have been breached and diminished as a result of, or in response to, Trumpism.  Trump has taken everyone (well, many of us) down a bit toward his screaming, exaggerating, temperature-raising, disrespectful, uncharitable, un-self-aware, norm-defying level—journalists, bloggers, Executive branch bureaucrats, citizens, and courts.  (This was happening to some extent before Trump; he may be as much an effect as a cause.  But the norm-defiance on all sides has accelerated under his presidency.) 

 

While Trump has clearly been provoked by others’ norm-defying behavior into some of his norm-defying behavior, he has been his own worst enemy from the outset of his presidency and has (in my view) dished out much more than he has taken in.  Also, I have no doubt that Trump “started it” in the immigration context with his sometimes-uncivil rhetoric on the campaign trail, his irresponsibly overbroad and poorly crafted initial Order, and his tweet attack on courts.

It's thoughtful and even handed.

[bigbird 60,578]

42 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

It's thoughtful and even handed.

And is equally damning to all mentioned

[autigeremt 6,660]

On June 27, 2017 at 4:50 PM, bigbird said:

And is equally damning to all mentioned

Because all of them are foolish children given the reigns by emotional adults. 

[AuburnNTexas 7,167]

On 6/27/2017 at 4:50 PM, bigbird said:

And is equally damning to all mentioned

You are correct. There is no doubt that Trump is un-Presidential with his tweeting. But based on how some bureaucrats have leaked classified material to hurt him irregardless of if it might hurt the country and how some journalist have published pieces that were untrue and had already been vetted as untrue we are seeing kindergarten-er like behavior from both parties, some journalists, and some Bureaucrats.

[AU64 10,122]

On 6/27/2017 at 0:26 AM, TexasTiger said:

Sounds about right, on its face. Even though the President has broad powers on immigration, he overreached. The Ct deferred to what he had the authority to do, whether it's well thought out or not, and drew limits where obvious. The urgency argument seems gone, though. He's had the time stated the draft new procedures the administration said were planned.

Maybe or maybe not....9-0 makes it questionable.    But it's not uncommon for a President to test the boundaries.  Obama was deemed by SCOTUS to have over-reached a dozen or more times in his second term alone. 

Most of us watching the process at that time warned that Reid and Pelosi who supported these "executive orders" were going to regret that they ceded congressional powers to the President just because he was of the same political party.  They were opening Pandor's box to any future president to do the same or go further and foolish, politically motivated decisions by regional courts only make them partisan and and incompetent.    JMO but DT is just following what his predecessor was doing with laws or enforcement of laws that he disagreed with.

[TexasTiger 12,991]

46 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Maybe or maybe not....9-0 makes it questionable.    But it's not uncommon for a President to test the boundaries.  Obama was deemed by SCOTUS to have over-reached a dozen or more times in his second term alone. 

Most of us watching the process at that time warned that Reid and Pelosi who supported these "executive orders" were going to regret that they ceded congressional powers to the President just because he was of the same political party.  They were opening Pandor's box to any future president to do the same or go further and foolish, politically motivated decisions by regional courts only make them partisan and and incompetent.    JMO but DT is just following what his predecessor was doing with laws or enforcement of laws that he disagreed with.

The 9-0 was on limited portion of the ban, others targeted by the ban were allowed in. This ban was not designed with safety in mind. It was largely drafted by political strategists.  But Presidents are given quite a bit of leeway to be idiots. He will test those boundaries, no doubt.

[AuburnNTexas 7,167]

2 hours ago, AU64 said:

Maybe or maybe not....9-0 makes it questionable.    But it's not uncommon for a President to test the boundaries.  Obama was deemed by SCOTUS to have over-reached a dozen or more times in his second term alone. 

Most of us watching the process at that time warned that Reid and Pelosi who supported these "executive orders" were going to regret that they ceded congressional powers to the President just because he was of the same political party.  They were opening Pandor's box to any future president to do the same or go further and foolish, politically motivated decisions by regional courts only make them partisan and and incompetent.    JMO but DT is just following what his predecessor was doing with laws or enforcement of laws that he disagreed with.

I am one of the ones who said I agreed with what Obama was try to do with the Dream kids but by trying to protect them with executive order it was done the wrong way. I said I was glad that it was shot down. He basically was writing his own legislation if that had been upheld then those that don't like Trump would have even more reason not to like him as he would have even more power. There is a reason we have three separate branches to our government but sadly over the last 50 years both the Judicial branch through politically motivated interpretation (both sides) and the Executive branch have slowly usurped the legislative branches domain.

[AU64 10,122]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

The 9-0 was on limited portion of the ban, others targeted by the ban were allowed in. This ban was not designed with safety in mind. It was largely drafted by political strategists.  But Presidents are given quite a bit of leeway to be idiots. He will test those boundaries, no doubt.

 I guess over time we will see how many of DT's executive orders are overturned by SCOTUS....BO looks like the guy who did not respect the law or Constitution with his track record of lost appeals...many of which were overturned by big margins.

[TexasTiger 12,991]

41 minutes ago, AU64 said:

 I guess over time we will see how many of DT's executive orders are overturned by SCOTUS....BO looks like the guy who did not respect the law or Constitution with his track record of lost appeals...many of which were overturned by big margins.

One can argue Obama overstepped. However, many of his EOs came after being thwarted by a Congress that refused to function for partisan reasons. Trump has both houses of Congress. He should be able to pass laws, right?

[AU64 10,122]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

One can argue Obama overstepped. However, many of his EOs came after being thwarted by a Congress that refused to function for partisan reasons. Trump has both houses of Congress. He should be able to pass laws, right?

You would think.... but the GOP has no party discipline like the Dems....bunch of independent thinkers who don't respond to leadership or direction. who knows what they will do ?  

As for BO...if you write EOs that get overturned by the SCOTUS you know you have overstepped....and as noted, a bad precedence for the country to have a president who thinks he can write his own lawsi.  

Thus far DT has just tried to get courts and government agencies to enforce the laws already in existence.  Nobody should object to that.

[AuburnNTexas 7,167]

On 7/3/2017 at 7:56 PM, AU64 said:

You would think.... but the GOP has no party discipline like the Dems....bunch of independent thinkers who don't respond to leadership or direction. who knows what they will do ?  

As for BO...if you write EOs that get overturned by the SCOTUS you know you have overstepped....and as noted, a bad precedence for the country to have a president who thinks he can write his own lawsi.  

Thus far DT has just tried to get courts and government agencies to enforce the laws already in existence.  Nobody should object to that.

I am more of a conservative independent with a social conscience. You are correct that the Republican party is made up of a bunch of Independent thinkers hence no Party Discipline. It would be nice to see more Democrats who don't toe the Party line also. Maybe when they were creating the Affordable Care Act they wouldn't have pushed through bad legislation that they were going to try and fix later. Despite what they said they knew at the time cost were going to explode they were hoping to cover it over and fix it later. With more independent thinkers they might have taken ideas from the other side of the aisle and possibly come up with a solid Health Care plan.  What is sad is that I see the Republicans try to duplicate the mistakes the Democrats made by not listening to input from the other side of the aisle.

I read an article recently where it was saying that 25% of medical costs is administrative overhead, Multiple insurance plans, multiple billing processes that Doctors and hospitals must meet to get paid, another 10-20% is un-neeeded tests because of Doctors protecting themselves from lawsuits, and another 5-10% because of the high cost of Medical Malpractice Insurance. I am not sure how accurate the article is on the percentages but I do know that these areas do have an impact on our medical costs.

In the IT world we try and follow a simple maxim KISS (Keep it Simple Stupid) - Unless we actually address the cost of medicine in this country it doesn't matter whose plan gets enacted we won't be able to pay for it. We need to simplify the cost of doing business in the medical world.

[homersapien 11,423]

Yep.   

Maybe we should consider what seems to be working in other countries?  

[AU64 10,122]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

Yep.   

Maybe we should consider what seems to be working in other countries?  

You see to be making big assumptions about the quality of healthcare in many other countries....and over rating it. In a good part of Europe people..if they can afford to..also buy private insurance to make sure they get good and prompt care.

[AuburnNTexas 7,167]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

Yep.   

Maybe we should consider what seems to be working in other countries?  

We would be foolish not to look at all the models out there. There are good things and bad things in most of the countries health plans. Pick and choose pieces from other plans add some American ingenuity and we could probably come up with a very good plan or plans to give people options. Some countries allow Nurse Practitioners and Physicians Assistants to do more. I like the idea but it could open a medical practice to Litigation. As I mentioned above Litigation or the threat of Litigation can increase the number of tests done and also incur higher insurance rates for those in the Medical Industry. We need to lower litigation costs while still protecting patients where there is real medical Mal-practice. Single payer might be part of the solution but even in countries like Germany that has single payer they also have private medical insurance so it is not a panacea.

The problem is we have too many people on both sides of the aisle that have decided it is our way period. Np listening to ideas from other sides, no looking at other countries plans for ideas and only arguing about who pays and not the underlying costs.

[AU64 10,122]

19 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

We would be foolish not to look at all the models out there. There are good things and bad things in most of the countries health plans. Pick and choose pieces from other plans add some American ingenuity and we could probably come up with a very good plan or plans to give people options. Some countries allow Nurse Practitioners and Physicians Assistants to do more. I like the idea but it could open a medical practice to Litigation. As I mentioned above Litigation or the threat of Litigation can increase the number of tests done and also incur higher insurance rates for those in the Medical Industry. We need to lower litigation costs while still protecting patients where there is real medical Mal-practice. Single payer might be part of the solution but even in countries like Germany that has single payer they also have private medical insurance so it is not a panacea.

The problem is we have too many people on both sides of the aisle that have decided it is our way period. Np listening to ideas from other sides, no looking at other countries plans for ideas and only arguing about who pays and not the underlying costs.

The pick and chose concept is the problem...400 people ..each one thinking he or she knows best/

Furthermore I think a lot of Americans are totally misinformed about European systems...even Mr. Buffet and his single payer plan which I don't think exists in any large country. The US is quite different and plans that work in Belgium or Denmark do not automatically scale up for 300 million people including 10 million people here illegally. 

Good discussion in this article and notice that most big European countries do not pay 100% and also private insurance is pretty common to make up the differences or to assure prompt care.  Note that in France the people pay of health care tax of 20% in addition to their other taxes, VAT, etc. Try getting something like that passed in the US.  Somebody has to pay for this "free" coverage. 

 https://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2011/may/11/european-healthcare-services-belgium-france-germany-sweden

[TitanTiger 20,509]

20 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Furthermore I think a lot of Americans are totally misinformed about European systems...even Mr. Buffet and his single payer plan which I don't think exists in any large country. The US is quite different and plans that work in Belgium or Denmark do not automatically scale up for 300 million people including 10 million people here illegally. 

Japan has 127 million people.  Germany has over 81 million.  France and Britain both have over 65 million.  These are not small countries, yet somehow either through single payer or a system with single payer (or similar) and add on tiers, they have universal healthcare coverage.  All of them have lower GDP per capita than the US, yet they manage.  

We aren't just comparing countries like Denmark with 5 million people.

 

Quote

Good discussion in this article and notice that most big European countries do not pay 100% and also private insurance is pretty common to make up the differences or to assure prompt care.  Note that in France the people pay of health care tax of 20% in addition to their other taxes, VAT, etc. Try getting something like that passed in the US.  Somebody has to pay for this "free" coverage. 

 https://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2011/may/11/european-healthcare-services-belgium-france-germany-sweden

No one ever said it was "free."  They are saying that these other countries consistently have better health outcomes and longer life expediencies for far less money spent per person than we do.  Yes, that's with the higher taxes included.  Taxes go up to pay for the system, but the premiums you pay now cease to exist.

I'm not saying it's the only way, but it's the only way I've seen demonstrated so far to actually cover everyone and lower overall and per person costs.  

[AU64 10,122]

8 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Japan has 127 million people.  Germany has over 81 million.  France and Britain both have over 65 million.  These are not small countries, yet somehow either through single payer or a system with single payer and add on tiers, they have universal healthcare coverage.  All of them have lower GDP per capita than the US, yet they manage.  

We aren't just comparing countries like Denmark with 5 million people.

 

No one ever said it was "free."  They are saying that these other countries consistently have better health outcomes and longer life expediencies for far less money spent per person than we do.  Yes, that's with the higher taxes included.  Taxes go up to pay for the system, but the premiums you pay now cease to exist.

I'm not saying it's the only way, but it's the only way I've seen demonstrated so far to actually cover everyone and lower overall and per person costs.  

Germany uses private insurance firms....and premium or taxes...you act as if that is something different?   No matter how you look at it, it is prepaid medical care...and to think that the government is more efficient than private insurance carriers in processing claims.?  Surely you don't believe that....and I invite you to visit a VA hospital or two if you want to know how government runs healthcare.