Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Is there any chance there is a memo or letter or some kind of communication sent by the State of Florida... communities throughout the state with orders to contact the state authorities with every killing after these laws were enacted? In other words, 'the game has changed, etc..'

And I meant to write this a couple of days ago when I first saw it.

I congratulate those surrounding the Martin family for protecting the image of Trayvon and his family. I find this very smart and a good idea. His memory and how it is used is best handled by his family. There are people that would exploit this as an opportunity and it would be wrong to allow that to happen.

Updated: 9:38 AM Mar 27, 2012
The mother of slain Florida teenager Trayvon Martin has filed papers seeking to trademark two slogans based on his name.
Posted: 7:40 AM Mar 27, 2012
Reporter: Associated Press 

It really appears to be the law that is the problem.

A nine millimeter without an exit wound.


Sternum, flattened tip, soft tissue and logged in vertebrae is the best I can come up with. If the bullet was misshaped enough as it passed through the sternum it would be slowed, done a greater amount of damage to the internal organs. The heart is a thick muscle, especially on a young man. Then would have logged in the vertebrae which is a fairly stout bone. That is incredible a nine millimeter at close range wouldn't have an exit wound, UNLESS, it wasn't all that close.

A Kel-Tec PF-9 9mm pistol, the same model used by George Zimmerman in the shooting of Florida teen Trayvon Martin.

It is somewhat a hopeful sign the police were trying to carry out the law. I sincerely believe the new laws in Florida are the problem. Cities don't want to be sued. They would defer to the state officials if they were told there were no grounds.

The tape shows several police officers in control of their circumstances and I am not surprised it has a more relaxed appearance. Whether or not any of the clothing evidence was compromised is not for me to say. They didn't take the killing lightly. I wonder if there was any kind of effort to keep him alive at the scene.

I am sure the more extensive investigation will reveal what happened and what is completely wrong here. I also believe if the community did nothing there would still be nothing done.

Germane or Coercive

That was the question in regard to the Medicaid provision of the Affordable Care Act.

I think it was Justice Ginsburg that repeatedly noted to all in the courtroom the discretion of the Secretary of Health and Human Services according to the Administrative Procedures Act was what came to bear in this part of the act. It sounded right to me.

Clement wants the Justices to define what coercive was with this law because the capacity the Secretary has is to withhold 100% of the Medicaid matching funds if here is no compliance with 133% of the poverty level.

The relief to the law for the Secretary to rely on is a person 100% of the poverty line and above can obtain insurance through the exchanges. Whether that is realistic or not is another question for the Secretary to answer before the policies in this portion of the law is administered to the states.

The State Exchanges can stand for each state if there was a defeat of the individual mandate. Keeping the aspects of the law will inspire states to move to enact their own individual mandate if that solves the problems of the health insurance companies.

No powers are removed from Congress. 

Corn husker kickback if severable does not nullify the entire law. Scalia

Why make Congress do everything all over again? Salvage rather than wrecking job which Clement is requesting - Ginsburg

UNITED STATES V. BOOKER (04-104) 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (click here)
No. 04—104, 375 F.3d 508, affirmed and remanded; and No. 04—105, vacated and remanded.

Buckley v. Valeo (No. 75-436) (click here)No. 75-36, 171 U.S.App.D.C. 172, 519 F.2d 821, affirmed in part and reversed in part; No. 75-437, 401 F.Supp. 1235, affirmed


Scalia states the taxpayer has no standing to challenge. No kidding.

Ginsburg states Congress has standing. Exactly and this bill was passed in entirety when health care was the focus of an election. Does the political will of the people mean anything in an election or does everyone in the USA fall to the damages of the minority when they seek to destroy priorities of the people?

The minority in the Senate and House at this time are well known to be favored to the Plutocracy of the USA. Either the will of the people in which it manifests through elected members matter?

Scalia states Congress processes will have to reconsider this law regardless of the decisions of the court. 

Kennedy - Judicial restraint vs. Judicial power

Sotomayor - Move beyond the power issue and into discretion, "What should guide the court discretion?"

Scalia declares he does not have to read the entire law due to the Eight Amendment. Joke. The 8th Amendment prevents cruel and unusual punishment.

Kneedler - A matter of statutory interpretation.

Kneedler - Minimum services provision is the heart of the law.

Alito - "The Economist" - $350 billion over 10 years 

Roberts - If Medicaid Expansion is struck down the rest of the law could stand on its own.

Kennedy - Does the court have the right to impose risk on insurance industry? If we lack the competence to determine risk then the law is inseparable.

Scalia states Booker did not excise the heart of the legislation.

Kneedler - It is a huge act with many provisions and there are many titles do not carry an impact on market pressures.

Kennedy - Severability is difficult when opinion is applied to the peripheral issues.

Printz v. United States (1997) (click here)

...“The Framers explicitly chose a Constitution that confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, not States.” Finally, although it is the President's job under the Constitution to oversee execution of federal laws, “The Brady Act effectively transfers this responsibility to thousands of CLEOs in the 50 States, who are left to implement the program without meaningful Presidential control….”

In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the majority opinion misinterpreted Congress's power under the Constitution. Congress may not usurp the powers that the Constitution reserves to the States, but when it exercises its legitimate constitutional powers, its actions are binding on the States, and State officials must obey congressional instructions....

The interpretations of the court will go on forever and the legislative powers of Congress through elections of the people will be subject to a judges interpretation of the USA Constitution. If there is anything understood about the Robert's Court in majority to date is they act on political ideology and not sound interpretation of the US Constitution, ie: "Citizens United." 

Kneedler pointed to the fact there are provisions that will provide better affordability independent of the individual mandate. Roberts and Scalia were annoyed they would have to review the entire law in order to determine that and protested to that reality.


Kagan reiterates the fact if there are only the less healthy the cost would be irresponsible and the design of the law is to include all citizens to balance the health of the nation.

Scalia states there is no unsustainable portion of federal subsidies. In other words, the subsidies in the law will not bankrupt the federal government.

Farr "essential" in the Commerce Clause is different than the use of "essential" in the ACA law.  According to Farr "essential" in the ACA is colloquial. 

Justice Scalia asks for clarification of "essential" from a dictionary given everyone is reading the same English in the law.

Farr is looking to Lopez for his 'sculptured' definition of 'essential.'


The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 (GFSZA) made it unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that he knew or had reasonable cause to believe was a school zone. Alfonso Lopez, Jr. (D), a 12th-grade student, carried a concealed and loaded handgun into his high school and was arrested and charged under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises. The next day, the state charges were dismissed after federal agents charged Lopez with violating the Act.

Sotomayor states Farr is ignoring the 'findings' of the law to support it. The law states there would be a death spiral without a community rating. There can't be minimum coverage without a 'community rating.' 

Kennedy and Sotomayor clarifies with Farr the Court should not state there is going to be a death spiral without the community rating.

Farr the "correct question" is "Does Congress want to go back to the old system rather than risk separation of community rating and minimum coverage. That seems ridiculous to me because minimum coverage is a humane standard, so why would a community rating be needed for minimum coverage if it is the right thing to do? Minimum coverage is being treated as a burden by Farr if there is no community rating. That is nonsense. What exactly then is a subscriber paying for and does any company provide essential services to any subscriber in the USA and what makes any company/cartel believe they can sculpture their own idea of what health insurance should be and leave the entire USA populous without ADEQUATE coverage for detection of disease at an early stage? 

It seems to me the 'severability' is a matter of 'scupting' by Farr and therefore the Plaintiffs of this case.

Scalia calls Farr on the carpet to removing the democratic process within Congress if the minimum coverage was removed to leave everything else. Scalia states if the heart of the law is defeated the remainder does not stand. Farr disagrees.

Farr states there would be plenty of reasons to bring young people into the coverage offered. In other words, the statue that supports the priorities of the insurance companies should stand except for individual mandate and minimum coverage. But, it is the opinion of Farr's clients they have omnipotent power to bring in people of a younger age through market attraction. 


Guaranteed Issue and Community Rating is inseparable and both have to be struck down together. If the Individual Mandate is unconstitutional then the entire law has to fall. That opinion is one held by Scalia as he doesn't believe he should have to be burdened with a heavy workload in regard to the law.

In interview Mr. Clement believes this legislation is coercive. He also assumes this problem will be addressed again by Congress. The Clinton White House did not address the problem again after it was defeated in a vote coerced by the health care industry.

I would not trust a Republicans legislature with health care law.

If there has to be a word assigned to the Plaintiffs, it is arrogant.


The cost of America's gun addiction

The gun reference collection at Washington DC's metropolitan police department. Photograph: Jacquelyn Martin/AP

In a country with 283m firearms, we should not be shocked that 33 people are shot dead each day. We should be outraged.

Jenny Price
Tuesday 29 September 2009 08.30 EDT

...Every year, 12,000 people are shot to death in the US – accounting for more than two out of every three killings. That's an average of 33 people daily.
An additional 240 people get shot and injured every day, and more than 65 million Americans own a total of 283m firearms. Where, exactly, do we expect the 12,000 homicides to happen? Do we really think that the places with gangs and high crime rates are the only places where people are going to use their guns?...

The Hoodie has appeared on capital steps before. It was never met with disrespect either.

When Representative Bobby Rush wore a hoodie on to the House floor it was in respect of a dead member of our society. His life was wrongly taken by laws passed within this land. There is absolutely no broad spectrum reason for guns in our society, unless, we continue to allow the NRA to dictate our outcomes.

The use of a hoodie on House floor by Rep. Bobby Rush is the equivalent of poster. It was a demonstration of the power of perception.

Representative Bobby Rush, Ist district of Illinois

Representative Rush revealed a hoodie today from under his suit jacket on the floor of the House. It was a demonstration clearly devoted to the wrongful death of Trayvon Martin. 

Rep. Rush is a hero. He prayed on the House floor for the young man's family and for his soul.

The House Speaker sought to deter the demonstration without success.

Oil Lobbyists pull out all the stops.

There should not be any incentives for the petroleum industry to exploit the carbon fuels market. With large subsidies all 'market' incentives are gone. The subsidies are for the purpose of filling in the gap between profit and cost. It is safe to say the petroleum industry has grown beyond a need for any artificial incentives.

The USA needs incentives, subsidies for alternatives fuels to bring losses for start up markets into alignment with other established markets. These are the most immoral subsidies the USA has ever engaged in with a longevity during the entire petroleum market. This industry is well established and does not need subsidies. This is ridiculous already. These monies are better spent elsewhere, INCLUDING, the USA Debt which would be served with $41 billion in 10 years with the elimination of the oil payoffs.

Currently, the petroleum industry is overfilling their coffers with USA oil that is exported. There is no reason for USA oil to be exported, it should be used to bring down the prices at the gas pump, but, that is not the way it is being used. USA oil, the most intense market on the planet, is entering the global market and exported. There is no prudent protections for future generations to have such natural resources available. High commodity prices and the greed of pumping, while receiving incentives to do exactly that, is counter to our national security. 

Oil industry launches full-court press against Senate bill repealing tax breaks

By Andrew Restuccia
03/26/12 10:35 AM ET

The oil industry launched a full-court press Monday in opposition to Democrat-backed legislation that would repeal billions in tax breaks for the largest oil companies.

The American Petroleum Institute (API), the powerful oil industry trade group, is running an eight-state radio and print advertising campaign opposing efforts to eliminate the tax breaks....