Thursday, June 28, 2012

God Loves Criminals, Satan Doesn’t (Quasi-Open Thread, Vent Away Folks)

According to a new study, people who believe in Heaven commit more crimes than people who don’t. But people who believe in Hell commit fewer crimes than nonbelievers. Interestingly, this proves conservatism right. Read on. . .

This study was done by two professors at the University of Oregon and the University of Kansas. They studied data collected by the World and European Values Surveys conducted between 1981 and 2007 from 67 countries. This included 143,197 respondents.

After standardizing the crime rates in each country, the study authors came to the conclusion that people with a professed belief in Heaven and Hell had different crime rates. Specifically, they found that those who believe in Hell committed fewer crimes than average people, but those who believe in “a loving God” committed more crimes than average people.

So what does this tell us? Well, it tells us that liberals misunderstand human nature. Liberals believe that human nature can be changed by education, i.e. encouraging people to be better. But if that were true, then this study would have turned out differently. Think about it. This study isolated true believers from the rest of the population. Those people, presumably, are most susceptible to changing their behavior based on encouragement/ education because they believe that God has told them the way, and they believe he is offering them a reward for acting appropriately. Yet, not only did they not prove to be more law abiding, they actually proved to be more likely to commit crimes. That is the exact opposite of what liberal beliefs would predict. And if God can’t make true believers change their minds, then what chance does the government have changing minds?

Now look at the other group. This was the group which feared punishment. Through their belief in Hell, they were presented with the idea that if they did not behave, they would be punished. This resulted in a decrease in crimes. This is what conservatives have long advocated -- that human nature cannot be changed, but it can be controlled by providing negative consequences for misbehavior.

Putting this together tells us that it is hopeless to try to change human nature, but that human nature can be controlled. However, the only incentive which will result in such control is fear of punishment -- offering a reward will actually have the opposite effect. This flies in the face of liberalism, which claims that punishment is not effective, that only rewards can change behavior, and that human nature can be changed but, contradictorily, people are powerless to control their impulses.

As for why offering a reward would have the opposite effect, I suspect that anyone offering a reward is seen as unlikely to punish you. Indeed, if God will forgive you, then you really don’t need to worry about changing, do you? It’s the same way with the government. When a legal system only wants to reform you, it sends out the message that there is no longer any need to fear punishment and you can live as you wish. Ditto with an over-indulgent parent spoiling a child or a permissive boss losing control of the company. When there is no fear of a negative consequence, people take advantage of that.

So what all of this tells us is that liberalism reads human nature wrong in all areas (soft on crime, consequence free handouts, the elimination of shame, permissive child rearing), and not only will liberal policies fail, but they will make things worse by sending the wrong message.

But then, you knew that already.

OT: We're on ObamaCare and Holder contempt watch today. We highly recommend that everyone get some Tea and Birthday cake (Happy Birthdays T-Rav and tryanmax) and wait for the good news! And if tea isn't your thing, then prepare a Commentarama-tini! Bev will provide the recipes.

262 comments:

1 – 200 of 262   Newer›   Newest»
Tennessee Jed said...

maybe I just don't get this one; maybe it's too early in the morning--who knows? Wouldn't people believe in heaven and hell--not just one or the other? Don't people fudge their answers to people conducting studies? Regardless, I think liberals have a simplistic, albeit world view that is naive and wrong.

Let's hope the Obamacare burden is struck down in it's entirety today. If so, it will be the day our country just may have been saved from the brink

el gordo said...

Deep down inside, Liberals do believe in the power of punishment to deter or coerce. They are just uncomfortable with applying it to shoplifters or terrorists. They will use it on the classes, races and genders they dislike, when they say the wrong things or earn or consume too much. They will sometimes even use it on their own children and their own neighborhoods, since everyone is conservative about the things he knows best. But when it is YOUR shop that is robbed, well, solidarity with a shopowner doesn't make them feel sufficiently good about themselves.

Writer X said...

I'd love to see the questions on this "survey" and understand the people in their study.

I'll definitely be glued to my radio today.

AndrewPrice said...

They just said we should have an ObamaCare ruling within an hour! :)

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, This was a "values survey" done over almost 30 years, across countries. I haven't seen this particular one, but generally they ask a variety of specific questions about values and beliefs, and the people doing the asking aren't out to prove anything, they are just collecting data for others to use. Gallup does something similar each year.

In terms of separating Heaven and Hell, I know MANY Christians who don't believe in Hell, but do believe in Heaven. These are indeed the "loving God" crowd who also tend to believe God doesn't judge you. I don't know anyone who believes in Hell but not Heaven, but I have met many people who worry a lot about Hell and they tend to be people who see God as vengeful more than loving.

AndrewPrice said...

el gordo, That's a good point and that's one of the problems with understanding what liberals truly believe. They will often tell you that they don't believe in something like punishing people and will advocate positions along those lines, but will then apply a different standard when they really want something done.

It's the same way they claim to favor tax hikes and will vote for anyone promising tax hikes, but will then try to avoid paying taxes themselves. That kind of hypocrisy makes it hard to know what they really believe.

AndrewPrice said...

Writer X, I haven't been able to find the survey itself so I can't tell you what the questions are.

As with all such surveys, it's impossible to grasp the nuances with a quick short answer/multiple choice survey, but if the questions were carefully worded enough, then I actually don't doubt these results because they fit with my own experience with people.

Let's hope everything goes right today! :)

DUQ said...

Let's hope this goes well! Fingers crossed!

T-Rav said...

All Commentarians: Hear ye, Hear ye. For today, all rules pertaining to not drinking before noon have been suspended. Use your morning freedom wisely.

DUQ said...

On the Heaven/Hell thing, I too have met many Christians who only believe the parts they want to believe and ignore the rest. In many ways, that's very American actually. I know we've done the same thing to Buddhism and several Indian religions.

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, I have heard that as well. In fact, there's even a term for it: "cafeteria religion," because Americans take the parts they want and leave the rest. And I know this has been a point of contention with many Eastern religions.

And like you, I've seen similar things among Christians, with many picking out only the parts they like and coming up with all kinds of reasons to ignore the rest.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Excellent suspension of the rules! :)

AndrewPrice said...

Results are in...

Mandate struck down....

AndrewPrice said...

Drudge's headline says the mandate survives as a tax, and that Roberts joined the left wing part of the court.

DUQ said...

Drudge says Medicare provision is limited but not invalidated.

WTF?

T-Rav said...

Okay, who's right? Because I need to know before I detonate.

AndrewPrice said...

The AP now says the insurance mandate survives in 6-3 decision.

AndrewPrice said...

Unf*cking believable! My respect for this court and Bush-appointee Roberts just went to zero. F*cking statists.

DUQ said...

So there is no power our masters don't have.

T-Rav said...

How the hell did Kennedy dissent and Roberts uphold it? Seriously?

AndrewPrice said...

I can't find the decision itself, but this is a total shock. Apparently, the Congress can do whatever the hell it wants.

Ed said...

This is beyond shocking.

ScyFyterry said...

I had a lot of faith in this court. I don't understand how this could have happened? What reasoning could there possibly be to say that Congress has the power to force you to buy insurance? And is there any limit now?

ScyFyterry said...

This feels like one of those moments when you know they've broken the country in a way that won't ever get fixed again.

AndrewPrice said...

What do you mean Terry?

T-Rav said...

Okay, so everything I said the other week about the message in Ayn Rand's books being terrible and all? F@#$ that @#$%. Go Galt, what do I care! Blow the whole thing up!

ScyFyterry said...

I mean, this feels like one of those historical moments where the court says "all that stuff you couldn't do before, now you can do it" and like we will never go back. I think we're going to see all kinds of mandates now and the federal government is going to absorb consumers into the machine to make us cogs help their system work.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I can't disagree with you there. This strikes me as a declaration of war against the hard working people of America on behalf of the leeches and the government they use to extract what they want. I don't see where I have any obligation really to help out anymore.

AndrewPrice said...

Terry, That's an interesting perspective and you are absolutely onto something. This is a new power which they won't give back. And I have no doubt the government will happily use it to start rearranging the way we live.

ScyFyterry said...

I'm with T-Rav, Blow the whole thing up and start over.

T-Rav said...

The Court's reasoning, as I understand it at least, seems to be that this mandate is a very atypical tax, in that you can be taxed but can't have any penalties imposed on you for refusing to pay the tax. So...that means we can simply refuse to take the mandate and get away with it??? (Yeah, I'm just grasping at straws now.)

Tam said...

I'm on suicide watch

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, That's possible. And if that's the case, I will refuse to comply.

I still can't find a copy of the decision.

Doc Whoa said...

I'm stunned. I'm really stunned.

AndrewPrice said...

Tam, I know the feeling. Hang in there. Suicide is never the answer. . . homicide is the answer.

AndrewPrice said...

Doc, Me too. This is just an amazing kick in the teeth.

On the plus side, this should upset the public very much right in time for the election. Look for this to add 3-5% to Romney's vote assuming he comes out and blasts this law and promises today to repeal it.

AndrewPrice said...

This is two VERY bad decision by Roberts in a row. And both are pro-big government/big business. I am really starting to wonder if he wasn't a mistake. He's no liberal, but he's something worse -- a crony.

Kit said...

I think you need an open thread for this and the upcoming Holder contempt vote.

BevfromNYC said...

I won't pay anymore taxes. They can put me in jail...

AndrewPrice said...

Drudge is saying that you CAN'T just refuse to pay it. But I can't find that at his link. I still can't find the decision itself.

AndrewPrice said...

Kit, Just use this one, that's what it was intended for.

AndrewPrice said...

What I said the other day about death threats... forget that. Let these assholes live in fear.

Kit said...

Okay.

DUQ said...

Bev, I agree. Why pay. Let the government support me. If I'm going to be a slave, then they can pay for my life.

Kit said...

On the upside, you can laugh at the flip among lefties who have spent the past few weeks trashing out the court.

Doc Whoa said...

This is deeply depressing.

AndrewPrice said...

Kit, That's true. Although, sadly, hypocrisy means nothing to them.

Kit said...

Anyone know when the House of Representatives vote on Holder?

Kit said...

"This is deeply depressing."

Doc, it ain't over till its over.

AndrewPrice said...

Kit, I'm not sure. They are doing some other vote first.

I understand the Congressional Black Caucus is planning to walk out during the vote. . . because they support corruption.

Anthony said...

*Shrugs* Guess we figured Roberts wrong. Still, let's stay calm and not lose perspective.

President Romney and a Republican Congress in November can undo what the SC declined to do in June.

Heck, I believe this will hurt Obama by keeping an unpopular issue on the table.

BevfromNYC said...

Andrew - There is a link on Drudge to the opinion.

T-Rav said...

Amazing. Kennedy wrote the dissent for the conservatives and said that no part of this law should stand. Anthony Kennedy said that. Somehow, that just makes the heartburn even worse.

Doc Whoa said...

Kit, That's true, but this should not have happened. The Supreme Court is a joke. Their only job is to lend legitimacy to government powergrabs.

rlaWTX said...

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot????

I am seriously having a hard time wrapping my head around this one. Well, one thing - there's def a BIG campaign issue for all of the Tea Party Congressional candidates to run with...

holy frickin cow.

rlaWTX said...

T-Rav: "Anthony Kennedy said that."
- yeah, I saw that on NRO - what is up with that?

AndrewPrice said...

Got it, thanks Bev!

rlaWTX said...

OH yeah, happy birthday, Tryanmax & T-Rav! I hope you get a Contempt vote as a gift, cuz SCOTUS gives crap presents...

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, I too believe this will be a disaster for Obama. This picks a the very wound which wiped out his party in 2010 and I think this will get people on our side to turn out en mass to make sure this happens. I would bet this adds 3-5% to Romney's totals and costs the Democrats 2-3 more Senate seats.

That said, it is depressing that there are apparently no limits on how much power our government may claim.

Kit said...

Don't get depressed.

To quote Alfred Pennyworth, "Why do we fall? So we can learn to pick ourselves back up."

And here is a NSFW pep talk from Al of Deadwood (never seen the show, but love the clip)
LINK

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, "cuz SCOTUS gives crap presents"... so true! LOL!

rlaWTX said...

this line from an article about the SCOTUS decision made me smile:

“I think that a lot of people would be really pissed off, put it that way,” Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) said before the court’s oral arguments, when asked whether a decision upholding the mandate would energize the right.

Kit said...

the Contempt vote is at 12pm EST.

In one hour-ish.

Individualist said...

Andrew

You should probably set up aqn Open thread for the End of Freedom .. er .. upholding of Obamacare .. no .. End of Freedom is right!

I am sure many will want to rant... and rant they shall

BevfromNYC said...

Oh, they won't find him in contempt...why bother.

ArmChairGeneral said...

Supreme court ruling was one of dictatorial fascism and one that I truly hope will be overturned. Else what else did we fight the Nazis for in WWII? Sounds to me like many want our country to turn into Russia and Cuba with "from those according to their ability to those according to their needs" and the needs being decided by a all-knowing-all-powerful leader. Sounds like the atheistic left have chosen their god of mind control, double speak and thought police. Good job America. My grandfather and many other vets who served this country for your rights thank you for the bitch slap in the face handed down by SCOTUS. Welcome to USSA people.

Kit said...

"Welcome to USSA people."

It ain't over, yet.

T-Rav said...

Anyway. What's this article thingy about? God loves criminals and Satan doesn't? Well, that's good, because I'm thinking of doing some very criminal things right now....

ArmChairGeneral said...

That's true Kit.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Yes, God's big on criminals, but Satan has standards. ;)

Kit said...

Jonathan Adler at NRO has the silver linings to the ruling.
<a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/304260/lose-battle-win-war-jonathan-h-adler>LINK</a>

Kit said...

LINK

Kit said...

Read it, it might help some people's blood pressure go down. :)

AndrewPrice said...

Here's what Robert's said and it's intense doublespeak.

1. The mandate is not proper under the commerce clause because there is no commerce.

2. The mandate is not proper under the necessary and proper clause because Congress has no power to do this and thus cannot claim that passing this necessary and proper to carrying out such powers.

3. BUT... Congress can tax people who don't own healthcare, so this is ok as a tax.

That is a distinction without a difference, that they can't make you do something but they can punish you for not doing it.

George W. Bush said...

Miss me yet?

AndrewPrice said...

So as I read this, I could pass a law which says that "while it is not illegal to be gay, anyone who engages in gay sex must pay a tax of $10,000 per incident." And that is ok because it's not a punishment, it doesn't impose anything more than a tax, and it doesn't require anything of you except to pay the tax.

That's twisted.

T-Rav said...

Yeah, except Obama specifically said that this wasn't a tax. So either the Court wasn't listening or he doesn't know what the f@#$ he's talking about. (Either or both are entirely possible.)

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks for Roberts, George. Go back to Texas.

Rick Santorum said...

"So as I read this, I could pass a law which says that "while it is not illegal to be gay, anyone who engages in gay sex must pay a tax of $10,000 per incident." And that is ok because it's not a punishment, it doesn't impose anything more than a tax, and it doesn't require anything of you except to pay the tax.

That's twisted."

Hey, I like that idea!

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, This strikes me as doublespeak. This is semantics in motion.

AndrewPrice said...

I knew you'd like that one, Ricky. Maybe we should tax sweater-vest wearers.

Kit said...

Hey, George did give us Alito.

CrisD said...

Hi Andrew and all--
On my way to work but I wanted to check in and see comments on Obamanation!

I guess the consensus of our governing bodies is that we are broke and cannot dig our way out of it. Have to kill the golden goose.

Republicans, where are you?

BevfromNYC said...

So basically the SC has just ruled that as long as they call it a "tax", we have to pay for anything that the Gov't deems we should buy.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, Yes. That seems to be the ruling. I can't think of anything they couldn't require or ban this way, so long as they pretend to leave you with the choice.

AndrewPrice said...

Kit, If we keep going 1-2, then we will never fix the court. The left doesn't make mistakes about making sure they get hard-core leftists onto the court.

AndrewPrice said...

Hi Cris! Not only do they need to kill the golden goose, the want to desecrate the body.

I hope the Republicans start pounding this issue home immediately.

ArmChairGeneral said...

That is exactly right Bev and it's freaking scary.

rlaWTX said...

I have been being relatively non-political on facebook for a while because I just didn't want to deal with it all - just a founding father's quote here and there (that's not political anyway). Yeah, I've decided to light the fires this morning and going forward...

a cousin's poster post this morning (paraphrased) "YAY for SCOTUS - I can't get dropped from my insurance because I have asthma"
seriously - that's your take away from the hijacking of 1/5 of the US economy and forced purchases and... ARGGGGGGG!!!!

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, That's the classic example of how these people think. "I'm happy because the government is forcing others to do things I want."

T-Rav said...

Yep, "pretend to leave you with the choice" is the key phrase to explain all this. "You can choose not to comply, of course--you might not like the consequences of making that choice, but you can still make it."

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Unfortunately, this is the direction the court has been drifting in for decades. "Fees" aren't taxes. You can't "ban" something, but you can stop someone from owning it. And now, you can't make somebody do something, but you can punish them if they refuse.

It's doublespeak nonsense, meant to deceive.

ArmChairGeneral said...

It's 1984 in 2012.

AndrewPrice said...

ACG, It really does feel that way. You've got intense doublespeak coming from all parts of the government. It openly lies. You've got cameras appearing everywhere. Obama trying to declared detainees non-people. Drones being used to spy on the public. Perpetual war. Historical revision with the parts the powers that be don't like being scrubbed out.

It's pretty shocking actually.

ArmChairGeneral said...

I was talking with my friend who is a history teacher at a local Middle School and he told me something scary. It is officially in the history books for school that "The Civil War was when the South Attacked the North and the North freed the slaves." Nothing about how the north was the aggressor in reality by trying to control the south through taxes to any exports to the british because they wouldn't pay as much as the british and felt it was their right to force the south to do what they wanted. Laws like these start revolutionaries. Remember, we went to war against England for a 5% tax.

Individualist said...

Well

Here I go Again with modification to the US COnstitution. below is the text of teh 16th ammendment.

Roberts says that a penalty on an individual that does not buy insurance is a tax covered by the 16th ammenedment. I disagree but the issue at question is one the congress ahs been doing with the tax code for years.

Why should congress be allowed to give tax credits for people buying hybrids or going to school? Or for that matter that capital gains are superior to earning a paycheck. Yes I dissent from standard conservative rhetoric there. This is using the tax code which is supposed to simply collect revenue for the government and turning it into a method of controlling the activities of individuals through carrot and sticks. Telling people how to live is not the US government's job. If the 16th ammendment had limited the authority to do this then Roberts could not have made this ruling.

I propose the following modification of the 16th ammendment with original text below:

My proposal

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. The tax must be uniform with only the amount of income earned compared to the number of individuals in the taxpayers household being the only factor by which the rate of taxation may be altered."

16th Ammendment as written....

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

[edit] Other Constitutional provisions regarding taxes


Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:


The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Andrew and Lawhawk are better at writing the verbiage than I am being lawyers.

T-Rav said...

I've reached the conclusion that there is no reason for me to respect a court's ruling on any such issue. They keep making stupid decisions by getting into technicalities and splitting hairs, and they have gone from being a nuisance to a threat to American liberties. I have health insurance already, but should it be dropped for some reason, I will not be purchasing any, and I dare the Court or anyone else to tell me I have to.

ArmChairGeneral said...

Solution is to overturn the 16th amendment.

T-Rav said...

ACG,

WHAT?!?!?!?!?! ARE YOU SERIOUS?! ARE YOU SERIOUS? Show me the @#$%ing history book that says the god@#$% Civil War started because the South attacked the @#$%ing North! What piece of @#$% left-wing Communist mother@#$%er wrote that trite?! No wonder our country's so @#$%ed up; we've got bull@#$% like that educating our kids. @#$&$%!!!!

T-Rav said...

This has been another episode of "Fun With The Shift Key."

AndrewPrice said...

I'm thinking T-Rav may have seen his last birthday.... or at least his last "unmedicated" birthday.

Breath, my friend. Breath.

T-Rav said...

Tweet tweet....tweet tweet....I like donuts....

Kit said...

I thought the Civil War started because the South pitched a hissy fit when the elections didn't go the way they wanted, something easily predictable sense their vote was split among at least 3 different candidates.

And then fired on Fort Sumter because . . . because . . . hell, I've never figured that one out.

It made no logical sense.

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, That's the game they play. On the one hand, they claim taxes are only about raising revenue and are not meant as a tool for creating policy. On the other hand, they use tax policy to incentivize people to do/not do the things they want.

And that is what is causing all these distortions in the markets which are causing the economic problems and leading people to do stupid things economically.

AndrewPrice said...

Hmmm, donuts. Yum.

AndrewPrice said...

Kit, They fired on Fort Sumter because it offended their mothers in the Great Yo Momma So Rebel contest of 1861.

Koshcat said...

The more I think about it, the less surprised I am. It seems there is a history of the SCOTUS being reluctant to inhibit the federal government from imposing a tax. If I understand it correctly, that was exactly what the government was arguing. Rather than forcing you to buy a product instead you will pay a tax unless you buy the product and then you will be waved from the tax.

How to attack this is from the tax angle. Basically Obama is so dishonest with you he will lie to your face about not raising your taxes and then does it by calling it a fee (see California, etc). This actually strengthens the right's argument that Obama and the left are taxing you and the economy to death. Romney should not run on repeal. He should run on a larger fix of the whole thing.

I'm still not convinced it's constitutional because the bill orginated in the Senate and I thought revenue bills must originate in the house.

Kit said...

It pretty much gave Lincoln, who did not see the Southern government as legitimate and that it was nothing more than a legal fiction, the political will, at least in the short-term, to fight for bringing it back into the Union.

These were rebels who had fired upon a US military institution.

T-Rav said...

While I enjoy a fleeting moment of sanity, here's the PDF of the Court decision this morning. It's 193 pages, so read at your own risk; personally, the only reason I would print out would be if I run out of toilet paper. LINK

Also, apparently the Romney campaign raised over $100,000 in the 50 minutes following the decision. So...yeah.

Kit said...

I'm a southerner and I believe that secession was an illegal act without substantial moral or logical basis.

Kit said...

Watching the House debate on the contempt vote.

Kit said...

They are also commemorating birthdays.

Its like a contempt vote/general speeches mish-mash.

Kit said...

Its just General Speeches in the House.

Biggest topics are Supreme Court ruling and the upcoming Contempt vote.

AndrewPrice said...

Koshcat, This strikes me as a much bigger deal that any decision in a long time. This one seems to say that so long as we can find a semantic way to describe what Congress has done differently than what people are upset about, we'll do it and uphold the government. I can't imagine anything that will be unconstitutional now.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, That's good to hear. This needs to become a call to action because the public remains almost 60% opposed -- which is amazing given the length of time since this passed.

I agree with Koshcat though, don't just argue repeal, argue for a total remake/reform.

AndrewPrice said...

Kit, Have they mentioned T-Rav or tryanmax yet in the birthdays? ;)

CrispyRice said...

I'm still mostly sputtering and unable to form a coherent thought over here.

However, Andrew, I would request that you re-post your CommentaramaCare articles. It would be more than timely, particularly to remind the Republicans of the need to have an alternative amidst the cries of Repeal Repeal Repeal. :)

AndrewPrice said...

Crispy, That's a good idea. I'll put something together. :)

rlaWTX said...

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
I haven't followed the link yet...

T-Rav said...

Andrew and Kit, any mention of my birthday by Congress or anyone else in the government will now be taken by me as a personal insult.

Stupid Teleprompter-in-Chief was on TV just now. I didn't watch. Probably something about how it doesn't matter if the law's constitutional or not; it was "the right thing to do!" Stupid @#$%er.

rlaWTX said...

oops, got distracted by "fun with the shift key" and didn't see T-Rav had already posted a link...

Kit said...

The guy was mentioning his grand-mother's birthday.

No kidding.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Jerko In Chief is actually coming out here today or tomorrow. I guess he thinks it will help him win votes to distract fire fighters.

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, T-Rav is having a bit of a meltdown today and his shift key is paying the price. :(

Koshcat said...

I don't disagree with you, but I also don't want to see us waste energy crying and moaning about the decision. The law by trying to fix one problem causes 100s more. It is a bad law and even bad laws can be constitutional. Let's fix the bad law.

What would have happened if Kagan had recused herself, which I think she should have, and the final vote was 4-4?

T-Rav said...

@#$% you and your grandmother, Barack! @#$% you both with a pogo stick! (They still have those, right?)

rlaWTX said...

Andrew, maybe JIC thinks that his appearance will distract from his admin's reduction of fire-fighting capabilities, resources, supplies, and money.

LawHawkRFD said...

Anybody got any nitroglycerine? NO, I mean the kind you take for your heart, not the kind for blowing up buildings.

If nothing else, this decision upholds an ancient legal dictum: "Hard cases make bad law."

I have rarely been this far off-target in predicting a Supreme Court result, and I'm going to take some time to review how Roberts actually reached his conclusion. But we saw some warnings at oral argument, and I mis-read them.

Now matter how we try to spin it, this is a very bad day. But it's one big battle in a long war. It's up to us, the voters and the next administration to undo Obamacare. But my first big impression on the legal/Constitutional side is that the administration argued this was not a tax, and it's very strange for the Court to go outside the written and oral arguments to re-define those arguments. It's also dangerous.

CrispyRice said...

Thanks, Andrew!

I'm texting with a liberal friend of mine who (while jumping joy) is also man enough to admit that he's not thrilled with Obamacare either. I'd like to present him a reasonable, rational alternative when I see him again. :D

Kit said...

The debate is about to begin.

Koshcat said...

Andrew, you are so fortunate to have Obama visit you. He will fly up over the fire and his mere prescence will cause it to calm down and put itself out. He will then cause it to rain on Colorado saving us from this dreadful drought. Coloradans will be eternal greatful and overwhelmingly vote for him. Since matter is neither created nor destroyed, he will have to steal this from Texas.

AndrewPrice said...

Koshcat, That is a really good question. Normally, 4-4 decisions aren't considered binding on future courts and are usually sent back on some other grounds. I have no idea what would have happened if 4 said "yes" and 4 said "no." I would guess ties go toward constitutional, but wouldn't really be considered binding.

I agree about not wasting energy, but people do need to vent.

But in the end, we need to use this as a focal point to move forward and fix what needs to be fixed.

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, I think he's planning to command the fire to stop. He can do that, right?

AndrewPrice said...

Actually, rlaWTX make no mistake that Obama is only here because Colorado is neck and neck right now. If this was Georgia, he wouldn't say a word.

AndrewPrice said...

Koshcat, LOL! You are correct, Obama will heal the very earth around here. Poor Texas, but that's what they get for voting wrong.

As an aside, it really irks me that he's coming because he's going to cause traffic and other problems which really aren't needed with the fire and all.

LawHawkRFD said...

PS: We'll be discussing both issues all day. So keep commenting here, and join me in my misery at 4 PM Eastern Time on our open thread/comment/vitriol post.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, I agree completely. I never saw this decision coming, it flies in the face of everything that was argued by either side.

rlaWTX said...

an interesting take on the proceedings:
"There are conservatives like Roberts obsessed with reining in courts, largely from their Roe v Wade shell shock and other 1970s opinions. Conservatives like Scalia and Thomas are more interested in enforcing constitutional limits to protect liberty."

It kinda makes sense...

http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2012/06/28/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-in-the-court-decision/?singlepage=true

AndrewPrice said...

Crispy, No problem.

Here are the links to the proposal itself: CommentaramaCare. It's in four parts.

Here is the link to my critique of Obamacare: Report Card. This does a good job of exposing the BS idea that Obamacare will work.

And here are three articles outlining what's wrong with the current system: Defensive Medicine and Quality problems and Cost

Jen said...

T-Rav & Tryanmax, Happy Birthday!!!

Kit, I agree: It ain't over, 'til it's over, and it ain't over 'til the fat lady sings.

Andrew, thanks for the article, and letting us vent!

It's gonna be a hot one here today (100+), and there's gonna be HELL to pay for this decision!

Non-compliant.

tryanmax said...

Sorry I'm late to the party. Too busy enjoying my own, I guess! LOL!

First off, for the record, I am one of those Christians who believes in Heaven but not Hell, but not because I believe in a squishy, forgive-all God. I'm an annihilationist, meaning I interpret scripture to say that God will destroy the wicked (like it says), not grant them a twisted form of eternal life in flames.

On the SCOTUS decisions, the only good thing I can say is that this leaves Obama with this albatross around his neck until November. There is also the added fact that he sold it to the American people as something other than a tax but SCOTUS has declared it just that. I think if the Republicans characterize the ObamaCare tax as something like a "breathing tax," there is no way for the GOP to lose the White House or either House of Congress.

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, I'm not so sure I buy Roberts as reigning in the courts. I think he wants to undo some so-con issues from the past 40 years, but is otherwise very willing to let the government expand its powers in the economy and criminal matters. He is very much a "Big Government conservative."

AndrewPrice said...

No problem Jen! Good luck with the heat! :)

BevfromNYC said...

Of course, they have also essentially nationalized the health insurance industry too.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, It reminds me of the "pole tax" which brought down Margaret Thatcher. She tried to claim it wasn't a tax on existence, but it really was, just like this is now.

So you're kind of an in-between on this survey. You don't believe in Heaven, but you do see a vengeful God. Interesting. Most of the Christians I've met who don't believe in Hell, tend to see God as entirely benign and forgiving.

Kit said...

I thought it was the EU that brought down Maggie.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, That's how my doctor put it. He had to abandon his practice to join a hospital group because it was basically impossible for him to meet the new requirements. And while the government doesn't own the hospital groups, it tells them what to do in tremendous detail.

LawHawkRFD said...

tryanmax: As Shakespeare said, "What's in a name? A skunk by any other name would stink as bad" (or something like that). Tax, schmax. If you call a mandate a tax, it's still a mandate, and this decision essentially means that Congress is free to legislate anything, regardless of the Constitution. Congress created something so it could regulate it. That's nuts, and Roberts needs his head examined.

AndrewPrice said...

Kit, The big albatross was "the poll tax." That turned the public against her. The EU was like the nail in the coffin, which got her party to revolt.

rlaWTX said...

I like the headline at Daily Caller: "ObamaCare becomes ObamaTax"

T-Rav said...

I'm fairly certain that my optometrist went into early retirement as a direct result of ObamaCare. He announced it a few months after it got passed, and while he didn't say specifically why, I could read between the lines.

I wonder if the Left will say anything about the decline in physicians. Probably they'll just call them racists or something.

tryanmax said...

Hawk, I didn't say it was a really good thing. I'm just taking silver linings where I find them b/c

♪♫ it's mah birthday ♪♫
♪♫ it's mah birthday ♪♫
♪♫ We gon' party cuz it's mah birthday ♪♫
♪♫ We gon' sip Bacardi cuz it's mah birthday ♪♫

tryanmax said...

Hey T-Rav, I missed your rant against Ayn Rand. Which article did you post it under?

(And Happy Birthday, while I'm at it!)

Koshcat said...

You are right LawHawk, which means that the 16th amendment may be the most damaging part of the constitution, and probably impossible to remove.

tryanmax said...

Koshcat, LawHawk, I'd say it's a toss-up between the 16th and the 17th amendments.

T-Rav said...

tryanmax, I forget. But whatever, I take it back. Like I said, burn it all down.

And thanks! Happy Birthday to you too!

(P.S. Why not repeal both?)

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, It was the last open thread at the film site: LINK.

Individualist said...

Tyranmax

Happy Birthday

You have 10 minutes to go to the worker's lounge and have a peice of Sponge Cake ....

Then come back with your shovel and dig up them beets, Barack Obama needs another vacation, being the supreme leader is tiring work.

Seriously thojugh happy birthday

Koshcat said...

No doubt. The 17th led to passing the bill, the 16th allowed it to stand.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, My cardiologist sold to the hospital and my GP said he plans to retire and he seems well on his way to doing that.

Koshcat said...

I hope today's decision doesn't put a damper on your celebration, Tyranmax.

Individualist said...

T Rav Happy birthday to you too...

Only one participant in the worker's lounge at a time please coordinate with T Rav

All Hail Obama

tryanmax said...

Any word on Holder? Then I'll decide what kind of a birthday this is.

Individualist said...

To repeal Obamacare we need

60+ Senators
Majority in the house with just Tea Party candidates to overshadow any RINO's that might Reach Around the Aysle

and the Presidency - - can wee get this in 2012?

T-Rav said...

Thanks for the birthday wishes, Jen! Not quite the morning I was hoping for, but ah well.

T-Rav said...

Thanks Indi!

I think we need to give the Workers' Lounge a more glorious name, though. Something like "Lounge for the Vanguard of the Proletariat Revolution." Call it the LVPR for short.

ArmChairGeneral said...

Overturn amendment 16

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, We should be able to repeal it with 50 on a reconciliation vote. Otherwise, they can repeal it in parts through other bills. I don't know how difficult this will ultimately prove. But I can tell you we won't get 60 seats. I count 57 tops.

Kit said...

Maybe a few Dems scared of 2014 after 2 bad election cycles?

T-Rav said...

Best-case Senate scenario:

Current split 53D-47R

Add easy wins in NE, ND, MO, MT, narrower wins in VA, FL, and WI, maybe wins in HI, OH, and MI, and assume holds in MA and ME. That makes it 57R-43D. Presumably Manchin in WV could be persuaded to break ranks and also vote for repeal. That makes 58. Maybe we could squeeze out a couple more votes from other red- or purple-state Dems, but it'll be a tough row to hoe.

Kit said...

Here are some more optimistic takes on the aftermath of the SCOTUS ruling:

Weekly Standard
Red State

T-Rav said...

Oh. And donations to the Romney campaign since this morning's decision have now crossed the $1 million mark.

Kit said...

h/t Kenn Christensen at Threedonia.

Individualist said...

I call this comment "what was Roberts thinking" and this scares me but I might be able to follow a logical meme that forced him to vote the way he did though I HATE THIS BILL....

I will take the example of Mortgage interest deductions. Uncle Sugar like dirt, always has and wants you to buy a house cause the more Fanne Mae loans executed the larger Franklin Raines annual bonus....

So he allow you to deduct mortgage interest but not your rent. now one could argue that Uncle Sugar is using its ability to tax people differently to punish renters who pay a penalty (more taxes).

So if Roberts agrees to throw out the individual mandate then how does he separate the tax imposed their with mortgage interest deduction and scores of other carve outs exceptions in the Tax Code. He has to have a reasoning or his precedent will be applied there.

Maybe he could not think of a clear enough one.

It angers me in this becasue quite frankly I'd throw all that crap out the the tax code if I could. What can you do..... Lawhawk , Andrew tell me I am wrong.... -please

Tennessee Jed said...

get this through your heads people. Being a conservative is like being Charlie Brown trying to kick the football. We will never know John Roberts' real motivation. Maybe his family was threatened, maybe he just wanted to be loved by the beltway establishment cocktail circuit. This looks to me like Obama and Pelosi were tipped on the outcome. There is no sugarcoating this one. Freedom took a real hit today.

As far as the election goes, I don't have a good feeling. Liberals are a subgroup of communists that believe "the ends justify the means." They control far too much city election apparatus and certification boards. This was going to be close all along which is an invite to perpetrate election fraud. Obama already is unleashing armies of lawyers.

ArmChairGeneral said...

Your comment makes a lot of sense Indy but I really wish it didn't.

Kit said...

"Oh. And donations to the Romney campaign since this morning's decision have now crossed the $1 million mark."

Hm.

Koshcat said...

Guess what I just did? I read Andrew's article. Pretty interesting data although I would be careful putting too much faith in these kind of studies. I think there needs to be a careful balance between stick and carrot. Too much carrot and people become lazy and disrespectful; too much stick and they become angry and resentful. Each situation requires a different balance:

Illegal drugs - more carrot with less stick
Illegal drugs with robbery - more stick
Murder - lots and lots of sticks

AndrewPrice said...

Koshcat, LOL! I think that makes you one of the first! :)

I think you're right that it's a balance between carrot and stick. Too much stick and people react out of desperation, too much carrot and people take advantage of you. Somewhere in the middle, is the right level to keep people from thinking they can get away with anything, but just enough to make them want to change.

Unfortunately, our government tends to be all stick or all carrot.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, This one stinks and the election may well be a lot harder than it looks. The left will not go quietly into the night.

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, I think it's simpler than that. Robert's default position is to support the expansion of government and he will find the most reasonable excuse he can to do that.

Koshcat said...

Indy, that is exactly how I read it. I think the mortgage example is good and the child tax break is even better. *GASP* the government is forcing us to have sex and procreate against our will or we pay a penalty!

Easy to say now, but I was worried about the whole "it is a tax" thing. I don't think there has ever been a tax overturned, except maybe poll taxes.

What I take from it is yes, the federal government can do anything it wants to as long as it pays for it. So they are limited in telling the states what they can do without assisting in the payment.

Kit said...

Here is another evaluation of the ruling. Its not the end of the world and may, in some ways, have some good news.
LINK

He also points out the legislative backlash against Kelo.

rlaWTX said...

OOOOOH! Cake in the "Lounge for the Vanguard of the Proletariat Revolution"!!!!!!!

AndrewPrice said...

Folks, I'll be back in a few minutes.

T-Rav said...

He's going to get some of that LVPR cake. Obviously, no one tipped him off that the birthday people get dibs first.

Kit said...

Kenn Christiansen posted another link, at Slate where they say the following:
"Roberts' genius was in pushing this health care decision through without attaching it to the coattails of an ugly, narrow partisan victory. Obama wins on policy, this time. And Roberts rewrites Congress' power to regulate, opening the door for countless future challenges. In the long term, supporters of curtailing the federal government should be glad to have made that trade."

<a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/scocca/2012/06/roberts_health_care_opinion_commerce_clause_the_real_reason_the_chief_justice_upheld_obamacare_.single.html>LINK</a>

TJ said...

Boy with all these comments flying it's hard to get a word in edgewise! ;-)

Everyone has expressed themselves so well (no surprise there), so I will just simply say:

Happy Birthday T-Rav & Tyranmax!

If I try to comment on the other stuff, my keyboard is liable to melt.

Kit said...

LINK

Kit said...

Oh, its T-Rav's and Tyranmax's birthday?

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

rlaWTX said...

so, anything on the contempt hearing...?

T-Rav said...

Kit, two comments on your argument that Roberts is actually trying to help us out here.

1. I don't believe it.
2. Even if he is trying to help us out, that's not his job. His job is to make a ruling on whether or not a law is constitutional, which this is not. Using the SCOTUS for cloak-and-dagger partisan maneuvering is about as bad as using it for liberal activist purposes.

I'll look through the stuff more closely when I cool off a bit. But remember, constitutionality is the game here, not political capital.

Thanks for the birthday wishes!

T-Rav said...

Oh, and thanks as well TJ! Why do I feel so old at 24? :-(

rlaWTX said...

T-Rav, don't worry, that old feeling gets worse... ;)

TJ said...

24? That's not old - you're still a youngin!

Kit said...

"two comments on your argument that Roberts is actually trying to help us out here."

I didn't say that, I suggested it as a possibility or a possible outcome of his decision.

Kit said...

I'm not too happy with the ruling but I do want to see what can be made of it.

TJ said...

Oh and rlaWTX is right - it does get worse.

Kit said...

And it was Slate who put forth the "Roberts as an evil Republican genius" idea.

AndrewPrice said...

Kit, Legally speaking, this is a disaster for conservatism. This decision says the government has unlimited power.

Politically speaking, however, there are two upsides here.

1. This prevents Obama and the Democrats from pretending ObamaCare didn't happen and it keeps people from thinking that there is some check on what Obama can do.

2. This keeps up the pressure on the Republicans to repeal this correctly rather than just claiming that the Supremes have already done what had to be done.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 262   Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment