Questions for the Gorsuch hearings
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-03-2017, 11:32 PM (This post was last modified: 19-03-2017 11:36 PM by Stevil.)
RE: Questions for the Gorsuch hearings
(19-03-2017 09:40 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Corporations are not "providing health care". They offer insurance coverage so their employees go to their providers, and the cost is paid by the corporation, as part of their compensation package. Some executives want to interfere, and pick what kinds of heath care they want the employees to get.
As far as I understand it, the corporations are required to offer certain health insurance packages. They do it buy purchasing specific packages from certain insurance providers. There are some packages that the owners and directors aren't morally comfortable in purchasing on behalf of their employees.

I can understand their concerns. It seems draconian that the govt forces them to offer these packages. Most of the developed world don't force this upon corporations. It is problematic and I understand why.

I also understand your issue in that women aren't covered for important things, and I see this as a problem too. I don't see the answer being to force corporations to purchase those packages. I think the govt needs to provide decent health care such that people don't need it, they can purchase if they want even better coverage and corps can choose to offer better ones to entice employees, but I don't see the answer as to forcing corporations to do it and expecialy to offer certain coverage which goes against their core values. (no matter how fucked their values are)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2017, 07:09 AM (This post was last modified: 20-03-2017 07:52 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Questions for the Gorsuch hearings
----------------------------------------------

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2017, 10:58 AM
RE: Questions for the Gorsuch hearings
I would love him to answer the following:

Do you support an originalist perspective of the constitution even though the founders in the Federalist Papers clearly did not want their opinions to be considered in the future when interpreting the constitution?

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2017, 05:55 PM
RE: Questions for the Gorsuch hearings
(19-03-2017 05:08 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  I think I see your confusion, which I believe I can clear up.

Corporations are accorded certain "rights" under the constitution, such as the right of free speech and unrestrained religious "practice". Such rights are absolute, inviolate and cannot be diminished or waived.

That's not how it works.

Let's talk Political Science.

The Hopi Tribe...never changes, right? It's the same people all the time. The Hopi people are immortal.

No, of course not.

We need to make a distinction between the groups of many different peoples and the groups those people create, and how they relate to other such groups.

That is a political science theory known as Entity Theory.

Entity Theory is the origin of corporations.

What is implied by Entity Theory? Sovereignty. That's what allows Entities to enter into agreements or pacts with other Entities. This sovereignty may be limited.

Now, let's talk Medieval History and Religion.

After the collapse of the [Western] Roman Empire, you see the formation of distinct Entities by towns, cities and villages, and also later with trade guilds and trading companies.

The Imperial Roman Catholic Church then begins to push its hegemony and exert control over those Entities. In fact, you arrive at a point where the Church claims it is the only Entity on Earth with the authority to grant permission for lesser Entities (towns, villages, guilds etc) to exist.

As an aside, some commentators on the Book of Revelations claim the Papal Seal is the "Mark of the Beast," since without the Papal Seal, you are persona non gratis or a non-entity.

Now, let's talk Political Science and Medieval History.

Later, you have the Nobility also claiming they have the authority to confer power upon an Entity. As the Nobility evolves further and the feudal system solidifies, these towns, cities, guilds and trading companies are viewed as a threat to the supremacy of the Church and the "State."

The Church and the Nobility join forces to crush any challenges to their authority, but that sets up the later conflict between the Church and the States.

That leads to the evolution of Concession Theory.

Technically, corporations are a franchise of the State. That's why it's called Concession Theory, since the State is actually conceding certain limited powers to the corporation.

What powers might those be?

What did corporations do? They boarded their ships and sailed to other foreign States to conduct trade. Effectively, corporations functioned as a "State Department." It was the corporations making foreign policy, instead of the King/State.

And, now, British Colonialism.

How was America colonized? By the granting of charters to form all manner of corporations and municipalities, and even colleges (see Dartmouth College). Then you had groups claiming to be corporations/Entities via grant by colonial governors.

What happens when British rule ends? The States move to take over the power of granting charters or articles of incorporation.

And now we can get into the Case Law.

A very important case was Dartmouth v Woodward. The chief justice of the US Supreme Court at the time was Marshall, who said:

A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it, either expressly, or as incidental to its very existence.

That view (read the entire decision) led to the belief that corporate charters could only be granted if the corporation performed a public service. If you read these early articles of incorporation, you;ll see they go to tremendous lengths to justify their usefulness to the public.

Which brings us to Amesbury Nail Factory Co. v. Weed, 17 Mass. 53 (1820)

In spite of the 1st Amendment's prohibition on establishing religion or preventing the free exercise thereof, Massachusetts permitted taxation to support churches.

Amesbury argued that the nail factory had no soul and so the tax didn't apply. The court ruled that the factory benefits in the same way an individual benefits from any tax, and so the tax must be paid.

That leads to Goodell Mfg. Co. v. Trask, 28 Mass. (1831).

The argument here was that since none of the shareholders lived in the church parish, the company could not be taxed. The court ruled that "a corporation is an independent legal person" and subject to the tax.

And then we end up with Citizens United.

I just thought I'd show how religion messes up everything.

The enemy numbered six hundred - including women and children - and we abolished them utterly, leaving not even a baby alive to cry for its dead mother. This is incomparably the greatest victory that was ever achieved by the Christian soldiers of the United States. -- Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mircea's post
20-03-2017, 06:35 PM
RE: Questions for the Gorsuch hearings
I suggest they also ask him, since he claims to be an "originalist", "how exactly his philosophy, and methodology, using an *original reading* of the Constitution, under which the Founders felt perfectly comfortable to enslave other human beings, and allow rampant discrimination, and unequal treatment of whole classes of people, including women, can produce in 2017 a properly correct result, in light of the fact, that an "originalist reading" would have slavery still in existence today, and not permit women to vote".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
22-03-2017, 09:59 AM
RE: Questions for the Gorsuch hearings
His qualifications aside, Gorsuch seems to subscribe to the school of thought that his job is to apply the letter of the statutes and nothing more. Insane. Proof positive that attending the best schools does not always an education equal. He would have absolutely upheld slavery statutes without batting an eyelid back in the day. A monster.

He also comes across as obtuse and dishonest. He will happily delve into his political activities as a 9 year old, and refuse to discuss his adult politics, "because he does not want to touch politics". He applies his own rules selectively.

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2017, 10:28 AM (This post was last modified: 22-03-2017 11:15 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Questions for the Gorsuch hearings
I loved how those 2 senators from Minnesota (Franken and Klobuschar) held his feet to the fire, on Tuesday. The woman, Amy Klobushar is a REALLY brilliant attorney, (I hear she used to be either a Federal Prosecutor or a County Attorney ... man she is one smart cookie). Franken made him look really stupid and uncomfortable, on the "Frozen Trucker" case, and she ain't done with him yet. Tongue

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
22-03-2017, 10:34 AM
RE: Questions for the Gorsuch hearings
(22-03-2017 10:28 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I loved how those 2 senators from Minnesota (Frankin and Klobuschar) held his feet to the fire, on Tuesday. The woman, Amy Klobushar is a REALLY brilliant attorney, (I hear she used to be either a Federal Prosecutor or a County Attorney ... man she is one smart cookie). Frankin made him look really stupid and uncomfortable, on the "Frozen Trucker" case, and she ain't done with him yet. Tongue

"But the plain meaning rule has an exception. When using the plain meaning rule would create an absurd result, courts should depart from the plain meaning. It is absurd to say this company is in its rights to fire him because he made the choice of possibly dying from freezing to death or causing other people to die possibly by driving an unsafe vehicle. That's absurd. Now, I had a career in identifying absurdity. And I know it when I see it. And it makes me, you know, the -- it makes me question your judgment. " - Franken Big Grin

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
22-03-2017, 10:47 AM
RE: Questions for the Gorsuch hearings
(22-03-2017 10:34 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(22-03-2017 10:28 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I loved how those 2 senators from Minnesota (Frankin and Klobuschar) held his feet to the fire, on Tuesday. The woman, Amy Klobushar is a REALLY brilliant attorney, (I hear she used to be either a Federal Prosecutor or a County Attorney ... man she is one smart cookie). Frankin made him look really stupid and uncomfortable, on the "Frozen Trucker" case, and she ain't done with him yet. Tongue

"But the plain meaning rule has an exception. When using the plain meaning rule would create an absurd result, courts should depart from the plain meaning. It is absurd to say this company is in its rights to fire him because he made the choice of possibly dying from freezing to death or causing other people to die possibly by driving an unsafe vehicle. That's absurd. Now, I had a career in identifying absurdity. And I know it when I see it. And it makes me, you know, the -- it makes me question your judgment. " - Franken Big Grin

Yep. He doesn't see his job as requiring him to actually think. And he keeps going, "it's the law". What's the point of a judge if all they do is quote statute? Why not just replace them with a shell script?

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes tomilay's post
22-03-2017, 11:51 AM
RE: Questions for the Gorsuch hearings
(22-03-2017 10:28 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I loved how those 2 senators from Minnesota (Franken and Klobuschar) held his feet to the fire, on Tuesday. The woman, Amy Klobushar is a REALLY brilliant attorney, (I hear she used to be either a Federal Prosecutor or a County Attorney ... man she is one smart cookie). Franken made him look really stupid and uncomfortable, on the "Frozen Trucker" case, and she ain't done with him yet. Tongue

Amy is great! She was a County Attorney before being elected to the Senate.
I really like both my senators. Minnesota is holding on to its Democratic representation by its fingertips. At least that's how it feels.

The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. (G.B.Shaw)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vivian Darkbloom's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: