decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Thank you PJ | 355 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
5000? 6671? Change happens
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 30 2012 @ 08:52 PM EDT
No, I haven't followed this story much at all. I had no idea anyone here would be interested. I think I explained that...
You're a truly unique individual, PJ.

:-)

Ed L.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

5000? 6671? Change happens
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 01 2012 @ 01:29 AM EDT
PJ, your effort to help us understand the Supreme Court's
ruling on the ACA is nothing short of good citizenship in
action.

I would even go so far to say that with that posting,
Groklaw reaches the age of majority. Now you and Groklaw are
helping us grok not only law, and lawyering, that happens to
impinge a particular subset of citizens, but also law and
lawyering that directly affects us all. (Yes, I know that
software freedom actually _does_ affect us all, but you
understand what I mean.)

I think that the poster to whom you respond does not yet
understand that participating in our representative
democracy, through not only voting but also such discussion
and activism as one may be moved to undertake, is not
tantamount to participation in politics but rather is _the
exercise and practice of citizenship_. There is a great
difference that I hope poster comes to understand--a
difference the shrill and thoughtless and confrontational on
such issues as the ACA involves would like us to continue to
fail to perceive.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

5000? 6671? Change happens
Authored by: jjs on Sunday, July 01 2012 @ 08:20 AM EDT
You are, in some respects, doing what Chief Justice Roberts
stated they were doing - not commenting on whether or not
it's good policy, but on whether or not it's legal. In this
case, commenting on the process & background of their
reasoning.

I appreciate all the work you've done - I've learned more
about the law by reading Groklaw for the last few years than
any education I could have gotten in school. Totally off
topic - maybe time to bring back "reading the law" as a way
to become a lawyer?

---
(Note IANAL, I don't play one on TV, etc, consult a practicing attorney, etc,
etc)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Thank you PJ
Authored by: LuYu on Sunday, July 01 2012 @ 07:17 PM EDT

Thank you PJ. Once again you have helped me (at least) understand an issue that will affect many people and helped remove the obscure sludge of marketing half-truths surrounding it. I really am glad I have had the opportunity to follow your site over the years, and I am especially happy that you never "retired" completely.

As a novel argument for this discussion (if anyone actually reads this comment), why do we not tax the perpetrators (CocaCola, McDonald's, milk manufacturers, etc.) of the health situation and not its victims (individuals)? It seems to me that if Congress wishes to use its tax power to control this situation, it could go after bigger fish. Why does the cost shifting have to result in every individual being compelled to participate when there are actors who are clearly guilty of causing the situation with deep pockets who have billions to spare?

Just a thought.

---
If you believe in "intellectual property,"
you are an enemy of Free Speech and
the Constitution.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Er... - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 01 2012 @ 10:48 PM EDT
  • Thank you PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 13 2012 @ 01:27 PM EDT
5000? 6671? Change happens
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 10:48 AM EDT
I think you failed in your attempt to be "dispassionate" and not have
a political view point.

"And you'd have to agree, it's not an implausible argument on its face.
Again, Justice Ginsburg and the other justices who agreed with her about it
thought it was a winning argument."

"If you enjoy this sort of thing, you can read Justice Ruth Ginsburg's
concurring opinion, where she raises some very compelling arguments that he's
wrong in this, but it doesn't matter in the short run, in that he ruled
otherwise. I admire Justice Ginsburg quite a lot, personally, and I always enjoy
reading what she writes, because it's so clear and logical and because she never
pretends that there is no ethical aspect to a decision. "

"I don't think that's actually factual, in that when my mom went on Social
Security, she had to get medical coverage and she had to pay for the coverage
the government didn't take care of. It was not a option. "

"I think perhaps the Chief Justice forgot that the ACA already does punish
certain health habits:"

"The dissenting opinion seems to labor under that delusion as well. Judges
are cloistered from the problems of those without a lot of money, "

PJ - I admire you - and I enjoy your analysis of legalese. However, from my very
partisan point of view - I can see the same in yourself.




[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )