I’m sure the fact that the Supremes just split 5-4 in favor of big business yet again is not indicative of right-wing hackery, but a decision solely based on originalism and precedent:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that pharmaceutical companies do not have to pay overtime to their representatives who visit doctors’ offices to promote their products, a dispute that had threatened the industry with billions of dollars in potential liability.
By a 5-4 vote, the high court handed a defeat to two former sales representatives for a unit of Britain’s GlaxoSmithKline Plc. They had appealed a U.S. appeals court in California ruling that they were “outside sales” personnel exempt from federal overtime pay requirements.
That decision conflicted with an earlier ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York that pharmaceutical sales representatives qualified for overtime under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) trade group has told the Supreme Court that classifying sales representatives as eligible for overtime could expose the industry to billions of dollars in potential costs.
“PhRMA strongly supports the Supreme Court’s decision,” the trade group said in a statement. “The Supreme Court’s opinion is consistent with the arguments advanced in our amicus brief and with the longstanding sales practices of our member companies.”
The only reason you would think the Roberts court is going to reflexively rule for big business every chance they get is because you are a naive rube who does not understand the law.
*** Update ***
More coincidences:
To observers of the ‘Obamacare’ oral arguments, it would come as no surprise that Justice Antonin Scalia is a likely vote to strike it down. But there has remained one major wrinkle in his prior jurisprudence that continues to give hope to a handful of the health care law’s proponents that he’ll vote to uphold it.
Now, within days of the historic ruling, Scalia is releasing a new book in which he finds fault with a Roosevelt-era Supreme Court decision that forms a critical part of the legal undergirding for the health care reform law. For Scalia, that’s a dramatic turnaround, because he has previously embraced the premise of that decision in an opinion he authored in 2005 that supporters of the Affordable Care Act have frequently cited.
Llet’s keep in mind, though, that you all are not trained lawyers, and as such, are simply out of line/ignorant/talking out your ass/uninformed when you claim these guys are nothing but right wing hacks.
MikeJ
I don’t understand how anybody thinks this is even an argument.
shortstop
Cole, you may want to take a look at Scalia’s just-released (by pure coincidence, just days ahead of the ACA decision) book, in which he decides that he’s been wrong all these years about the commerce clause.
jwb
@MikeJ: Don’t you feel the argumentative force of all those zeros? The Roberts court certainly does.
Trinity
This really just makes me sick.
Cluttered Mind
@MikeJ: But…but then they’d have to pay people for their work. That isn’t fair to the job creators.
Mark S.
Oh come on now. Scalia cares deeply about his legacy.
beltane
@MikeJ: Funny how this is one of the same arguments formerly used to defend slavery. It is just such a hardship to pay people when you can make them work for nothing. We should be happy that Justice Roberts has such concern for the tender feelings of greedy parasites because lord knows no one with a functional sense of morality does.
Judas Escargot, Acerbic Prophet of the Mighty Potato God
@Cluttered Mind:
Threadwin in Five.
Linnaeus
One more cheer for neofedualism.
Ben
The Supreme Court is just nine politicians, and we need to stop pretending it isn’t. The main difference between the five conservative ones and the four liberal ones is that the liberal faction actually seems to take its job seriously and tries to at least be consistent. Scalia is just Jim Bunning in a black dress.
Ash Can
We’re we ever really counting on Scalia to uphold ACA? I don’t think so. This really doesn’t change anything; it was always Kennedy who was seen as the swing vote.
BGinCHI
Right Wing Government:
1. Pretend to create jobs.
2. Make all of the jobs that currently exist pay less while demanding more of the worker.
3. Blame the least among us for everything.
What am I forgetting?
jwb
@shortstop: It’s kinda touching that Scalia feels he has to subject the world to 500 pages of overwrought prose to explain how his earlier opinion was wro— um, not quite correct. Besides the temerity of those who would use his own words against him and box in the mighty and powerful Scalia! THIS WILL NOT STAND.
I think all we can conclude from the book appearing is that Scalia decided quite a long time ago that he was going to vote against the law and knows that he has nothing to stand on: that’s why he had to write the book. I don’t think the release of the book itself tells us anything about the vote other than it is not likely to be more than 6-3 to uphold.
David Koch
so Fat Tony was for it before he was against it
Originalims!
David Koch
O.T.
Clemens found not guilty.
Roger better make a LARGE donation to local DC charities, cuz the brothers-n-sistas just saved his lying ass from prison rape.
Comrade Dread
Ugh… I bet my wife will lose her health insurance by week’s end.
The Red Pen
I’m having difficulty caring about this — perhaps that’s because pharmaceutical reps are part of the whole “Big Pharma” problem. The ones I’ve met make shitloads of money, and have been greedy people who really couldn’t do any other job because their only talent seems to be being pleasant for short periods of time.
On a more serious note, this ruling seems to be based on the claim that pharm. reps are “outside sales” and that “outside sales” do not qualify for overtime. What is the argument that they are not outside sales? They seem to me to be a textbook example of outside sales.
Legalize
Roger Clemens skates.
The Red Pen
@BGinCHI: @The Red Pen:
4. Profit!
elmo
But what about those of us who are trained lawyers, and who have actually done some of the legal research and analysis involved in high-level appellate work?
And who still think Fat Tony is a dishonorable hack?
Tonal Crow
@shortstop:
“Wrong” only as far as the ACA is concerned? Or also “wrong” on Congress’s “power” to send a woman to prison for growing a medicinal plant in her own backyard?
David Koch
If the government can force corporations to pay overtime then they can force corporations to buy broccoli.
And we will NOT live under the tyranny of broccoli.
BGinCHI
@The Red Pen: Just like a
college professorlefty to forget that part.beltane
@BGinCHI: You forgot the religion part. If we are obedient slaves and serve our masters the way we (should) serve teh Lord, we will be guaranteed a decent life after we are dead and gone. This is all conservatism has, and ever has had to offer the non-rich.
burnspbesq
Just once, Cole, I’d like to see you actually try to explain why a judicial decision you don’t like is wrong on the merits.
Until then, just go fuck yourself.
rikyrah
not surprised in the least by this.
shortstop
@Ash Can: No, we weren’t counting on him. We did wonder how, if he went wildly unprincipled, he was going to explain changing gears on Wickard after citing the case in his own opinions. Now we know, and we also know he’s less concerned about looking like a prime jackass than he is about backing his boys on the right.
General Stuck
gird your loins. The runaway SCOTUS is and is fixing to completely turn back the clock to Herby Hoover, if not to the Pilgrim era. The ACA is toast, and the only question left is how much, or any of it they leave in effect. But the mandate is Texas Toast. Scalia is a cheap suit that changes when he wants something, like say, an El Duce light murrica.
Kennedy is a worm, you can wrap around Roberts little finger. I said before, if they go this way, it will be all in, as there won’t be a shred of integrity left after this session, with the judiciary branch as the wingnut 5 are top dog on that pile of elephant dung.
They are out to save America from the ravaging liberals giving their shit away, even if they have to destroy it first. Next will be the death of the VRA, and after that, a return to legal witch burning in this sorry ass country. We might as well just dissolve the union now, and form a skirmish line.
Kay
@Ash Can:
A lot of smart people were relying on Scalia’s integrity:
That “post 1937” is apparently what got Chemerinsky in trouble here.
I can handle them overturning the law. What I am absolutely dreading is what I think will be a full-court press by conservative and their allies in the media to rewrite what happened here, to protect “credibility”. Credibility should be based on something. It’s earned, and then sometimes it’s lost. It doesn’t exist independently of people.
MikeJ
Having read the decision, there’s actually an interesting argument in it.
On its face, it’s obvious that outside sales people don’t get overtime. It’s written right into the law. The argument the plaintiffs made was that they weren’t “sales people” per se, in that they never filled out order sheets and collected cash from doctors and delivered a product. Sure, they persuaded doctors to at some point in the future prescribe their product for somebody else to buy, but they argued that was not the same as sales.
David Koch
All the Democratic Justices voted for the workers.
All the Republican Justices voted for the corporations.
And some so called “liberals” still have the nerve to say there is no difference btwn Democrats and Republicans.
dan
@The Red Pen: I’m with you. These aren’t bricklayers. They get paid really well, get great perks, and they make tons on commissions. The commissions are what drive them to work “overtime.”
Bizono
@Ash Can: I’d say that there is an outside chance, based on his own questions during the arguments, that Roberts either finds that PPACA is constitutional or tries to get a decision that severs the mandate. I thought Kennedy’s questions placed him more in line with Scalia and Alito.
But I’m not a lawyer, so nothing I think about this matters.
beltane
@The Red Pen: This is important because a precedent has been created, and this precedent will certainly be used to gradually restrict the types of employees who are entitled to overtime. The ultimate goal, of course, is to eliminate overtime pay for all workers.
The goal of the right-wing is to dismantle, brick by brick, all 20th century worker protections. Maybe this brick does not apply to you, but perhaps the next one will.
shortstop
@beltane: Thanks. Shouldn’t have to be explained, but I’m glad you did.
eric
@elmo: whoa there. Lanny Davis has taken a strong stand that such discourse as yours is poisoning our great Republic.
Tonal Crow
@Kay: Honestly I don’t understand why the argument has centered on the Commerce Clause. The mandate is just a conditional tax credit, fully supported by the Tax-and-Spend Clause (Art.I s.8 cl.1). If you have qualifying health insurance, you get the credit (in other words, the “penalty” is remitted). If you don’t have qualifying insurance, then you don’t get the tax credit. The scheme is functionally identical to a huge array of conditional tax credits, like the ones for dependents, oil depletion, low-emission cars, etc., none of which I believe even Scalia has (so far) questioned.
CVS
The Robert’s Supreme Court is a gift that just keeps giving. And will continue to give for decades and decades.
Steve in DC
@beltane:
Oh it’s not just the right wing. Back in Dec 2011 Sen Hagan (D – NC) put forth a bill to ban overtime for all IT workers.
http://arstechnica.com/business/2011/12/bill-would-end-overtime-pay-requirement-for-many-more-it-workers/
This shit has been going on, it doesn’t get the same press unless SCOTUS does it, but I remember the comedic value of IT getting slammed. Largely greeted with a yawn by us since it was decided a long time ago that nobody was going to pay IT overtime given the amount of 12 hour days.
Mike E
@David Koch: Clemens should thank incompetent prosecutors for them mounting a “we must make an example of you” case against his ‘roided up ass
catclub
@Tonal Crow: “Wrong” only as far as the ACA is concerned? Or also “wrong” on Congress’s “power” to send a woman to prison for growing a medicinal plant in her own backyard?”
Look forward, not backward.
So: Pot, no. ACA, no. No connection between the two.
eric
@Tonal Crow: i think because the Commerce Clause applies in a simple and straightforward manner. The behavior (not purchasing or freeloading on the no pre-existing conditions provision) impacts interstate commerce and when aggregated the impact is quite substantial, such that Congress can legislate that behavior. The behavior is explicitly economic as its direct consequence (increased free-rider costs) so that Court’s decision in Garcia is not implicated.
Peter
Jesus fucking christ, the first paragraph of this post gave me a heart attack. I know the ruling on ACA is expected soon and I thought you were talking about that.
Irony Abounds
@Ash Can:
Actually, I think Roberts is the true swing vote in the decision. If the mandate or the entire legislation goes down in a 5-4 vote it will make abundantly clear to everyone what is now only understood by a relative few that Supreme Court justices are nothing other than political hacks who serve not the law but their own political ideologies. So, in truth, the battle is not between liberal and conservative justices, but rather between Roberts’ obvious conservative corporatist ideology and his ego, because a drawing back the curtain on the political hackishness of the conservative justices will forever tarnish Roberts’ legacy as Chief Justice. I think Roberts goes with ideology, but don’t discount the ego – that is the slender thread upon which the ACA remains alive.
Edit: To clarify, if the ACA survives, it will be on a 6-3 vote. If Roberts votes to uphold the law Kennedy will follow and likely write the decision. If Roberts doesn’t, Kennedy will vote no and likely write the decision. Kennedy is nothing if not malleable.
catclub
@Tonal Crow: I agreed with you on this in the earlier Supremes ACA prediction threads. It was pretty much ignored, as far as the observations of the oral arguments were concerned.
The whole thing would be administered by the IRS. It is a tax.
RP
Why are you so angry with the lawyers who think the SCt might uphold ACA? There are perfectly sound reasons to believe that that’s what will happen, and predicting that outcome doesn’t make you a naive idiot.
catclub
@Irony Abounds: The real complication to overturning the mandate is how to do it without bankrupting the insurance companies. ON that score, Roberts could come down in favor of the mandate.
RP
@Tonal Crow: That’s exactly how I think this will turn out. The tax issue gives roberts a convenient out — he can uphold ACA and not get branded a political hack without touching the commerce clause.
General Stuck
@RP:
Because he’s a grade A asshole. next question.
eric
@Irony Abounds: I know Scalia can spit on Wickard, I have trouble seeing Kennedy, notwithstanding his performance at oral argument.
Forum Transmitted Disease
@Steve in DC: I have never met an IT worker who got overtime; they’ve always been salaried. Not that most of them meet the legal definition, but no biggie for the employer – IT guys fight two things harder than anything else:
1. Unionization, although of all industries they need it more than any other;
2. Being classified as hourly. It’s like some weird badge of honor, they must be salaried and they will NOT be paid overtime. Bonuses, yes. But overtime’s what you pay a grocery clerk or janitor (had this said to my face on more than one occasion).
Steeplejack
@Kay:
Where is that quote from?
Omnes Omnibus
@Tonal Crow: I have always thought the tax argument was a great back-up. In my view, the law should be upheld under either argument.
@ Cole @ Top: There is a difference between a court decision with which I disagree and one which does not have legitimacy. But that doesn’t matter, does it?
muddy
@MikeJ:
No, it’s just delivering propaganda. So I hope no one at Fox gets paid overtime, it would be unconstitutional now.
eric
@Omnes Omnibus: Dworkin has spent an entire career arguing that legitimacy is the single most important thing in judging.
khead
@beltane:
This.
I never really appreciated overtime until I moved from the private sector to a public sector job.
David Koch
It surprising how so many self identified liberals are casually indifferent about Supreme Court appointments.
Yutsano
@khead: I get OT at my job and sometimes it’s the only thing saving my ass come payday. But I get that the feds get different perks.
eric
@David Koch: because Mark Shields told me on the News Hour that it is uncivil and inappropriate to attack the character of Judges and judicial nominees.
The Red Pen
@beltane:
This decision didn’t address what kinds of employees do and do not get overtime. It rules that the pharm. reps are not those kinds of employees.
If these are the same people I understand them to be, they are outside sales. They make calls and get commission on orders despite not actually taking the orders personally. Admittedly, it’s not black-and-white.
Still, the ruling didn’t change the fact that outside sales people are not paid overtime. They weren’t before the ruling. The issue is whether you buy the argument that pharm. reps are not outside sales people. It would be difficult — no, impossible really — to argue that store clerks or construction workers are outside sales people and, therefore, not entitled to overtime.
General Stuck
I wonder if anyone has thought about if the court were to do something really crazy, like uphold the mandate, but knock down the regs, or some of them. If you are a plutocrat, this would be more like manna from heaven or hell, take your pick. They could go full corporate monty, on the fast track to the oligarchy.
Bizono
/pokesheadabovecubicle
…what’s overtime?
/hidesheadincubicle
eric
@Bizono: it is what slackers try to extort from job creators via jack booted unions.
Steeplejack
@Forum Transmitted Disease:
I agree that I have never seen an IT worker get overtime. But I have seen–and have done myself–a lot of “hourly” work. That’s how a lot of contractors are billed to clients (and get paid) from consulting/headhunting companies.
The Red Pen
@Steeplejack:
I got overtime in… 1990?
I was contracting for Oxford International. They had been sued for back overtime pay. It turns out that it was illegal not to pay overtime to hourly workers. Traditionally, high-paid workers like IT and lawyers didn’t charge overtime — but legally they were entitled to it. The law changed so that people making more than 5(?) times minimum wage could be exempt from overtime.
The net result of this was that I was told that I should not work more than 40 hours under any circumstances.
khead
@Yutsano:
Yeah. But I was thinking of all those nights back in the early 90’s (working on the 4-12 shift) where I didn’t get a fucking dime for showing up at 2:30 and leaving at 1:15.
Now, once the clock hits 40 hours, anything over that is time-and-a-half.
Pretty awesome.
Forum Transmitted Disease
@Steeplejack: Agreed, but that’s a different ball of wax.
Killjoy
@burnspbesq:
One does not need to be a master baker to point out a cake was burned or is covered in poo icing.
Punchy
@Peter: Be patient…..you’ll be reading the same 5-4 decision against the ACA either Thursday or next Monday on this blog. And prolly the Arizona immigration law too. And likely everything that gets adjudicated this term.
RareSanity
@Steeplejack:
One of the greatest plans I have witnessed in my life revolved around the contractor/headhunting companies.
At my first job out of college, there was a guy that had it all figured out. He “owned” a contracting agency, and he was contacted by the company to staff a position. He promptly staffed the position with himself, pocketed the “finder’s fee”, continued to pocket the agency’s “skim” of the salary, plus the salary paid to him by “the agency”. The salary from the agency, was commensurate with what his peers made, which meant that he was really making quite a bit more than his peers (when you add in the skim). Here’s the kicker, because he owned the agency, practically everything he did, or bought, related to his job, could be written off as legitimate business expenses.
So not only was he getting paid more than his peers, he was keeping more of it, because his car, his gas, his lunch, his clothes, etc. could all be written off.
I’m only pissed that I haven’t also found a way to pull it off…yet.
dslak
@Omnes Omnibus: I think Cole is making a reference to eemom having said that only people with law degrees, such as herself, could say anything substantial about the matter, and that everyone else should STFU.
Read within that context, I don’t think it’s intended to suggest that there can be no reasonable disagreement.
Punchy
@Killjoy: “Poo Icing” is a great name for a band.
RP
@dslak: But IIRC, those statements were in response to claims that “of course the SCt is going to go against ACA, and if you believe otherwise you’re stupid.”
NobodySpecial
@dslak: eemom and burnsie both have made variations on that statement repeatedly. So, once both the preeminent legal minds on BJ opine that Cole is wrong, again, we can put a bow on this thread, because, you know, they said so.
dslak
@RP: I don’t recall it shaking out that way, but I do have an inherent, anti-eemom bias, so I could be remembering it through that filter.
Steeplejack
@Forum Transmitted Disease:
You said, “I have never met an IT worker who got overtime; they’ve always been salaried.” I don’t think you can sweep the huge number of non-employee contractors working in IT at U.S. companies under the rug by saying, in effect, “Oh, that’s different.” Many companies have effectively outsourced all their IT functions except for some management oversight and a few critical positions.
What I was responding to was your original statement that “IT guys fight two things harder than anything else [. . .] Being classified as hourly. It’s like some weird badge of honor, they must be salaried and they will NOT be paid overtime.” I haven’t seen that to be the case.
General Stuck
@dslak:
You apparently don’t read the blog that much. The reason Cole disparages lawyers, as he calls them “shithouse lawyers” goes way past his chickenshit banning of eemom, after formerly smearing her for alleged bullshit that eemom ‘was cheering the deaths of Palestinian children’.
It is, and has been, foremost that these “shit house” lawyers, and other “obama fellators” (such as moi’) are mostly about his BFF Glenn ” Obama worse than Bush” Greenwald, and their routine of knocking down the legally specious horseshit of Mr. Greenwald, that gets regularly plastered on the front page of this blog. It began really with Obama publicizing his intention to kill or capture the American AQ guy, Alwaki, but also things like the whole Bradley Manning episode, drones, Libya, etc… Blogger butthurt, pure and simple.
Tehanu
I certainly don’t claim that. They are hacks, of course, but they’re also greedheads, liars, hypocrites, and — lest we forget — traitors.
shortstop
Ever feel like a good chunk of this blog’s regular readers could get a group rate for anger management classes?
ericblair
@shortstop:
I always thought that the best way to make a buck was to put on some assertiveness training classes, not do a damn useful thing to help the students, and then don’t let the students have their money back. It’s beautiful in its logical closure.
dslak
@General Stuck: I didn’t say anything about his banning of eemom, so that wasn’t what I was referring to, nor does that really relate to understanding what Cole meant.
As for the Greenwald thing: I participated in one of the “But he lives in Brazil!” discussions here, and I can’t say that the anti-Greenwalders have much of a leg to stand on when it comes to disparaging others for failing to engage in dispassionate analysis.
lacp
@Forum Transmitted Disease: A lot of them, at least a lot of the ones I know, identify as libertoonians, too.
eric
@dslak: i am pretty sure you have now assured that this thread hits 300 comments.
General Stuck
@shortstop:
I’ve said all i need to say on the topic. You leave anger unexpressed, or in this case, more like disgust, it eats your liver. I like my liver.
Emma
@The Red Pen: Can you spell p-r-e-c-e-d-e-n-t? I thought you could.
shortstop
@ericblair: I like the cut of your jib, mister.
General Stuck
@dslak:
So your a GG groupie. Too bad. Why don’t we shake hands and become enemies? Your comment was crystal clear, you unloaded Cole’s bullshit on the lawyers that comment here, squarely on eemoms back. And she can no longer respond. Go to hell. Take you know who wit you.
Steve in the ATL
Outside sales are exempt from overtime; this is black letter law. Pharma reps are not really sales reps because they are not allowed to sell the drugs; they are marketers. There is no exemption for outside marketers. It doesn’t matter, though, because the Roberts court will always rule for its corporate overlords.
Some IT people get overtime, such as help desk types. Some IT jobs are exempt, such as those involving systems administration and engineering. Others jobs are not so clear cut: writing code is exempt, for example, but debugging code is not. If someone were to press that distinction, Silicon Valley would be turned on its head overnight.
Many companies misclassify low-level IT workers as exempt, but that doesn’t mean they are. Eventually someone complains or the DOL audits and then the company has to hire someone like me to fix it
shortstop
eemom is currently banned? What brought this on?
ericblair
@shortstop:
Run some anger management courses where the whole agenda is getting all the students to start smoking. Next week, run smoking cessation classes.
Or I could start a for-profit college, but I’m not evil enough.
General Stuck
@shortstop:
She sassed Cole. like I am doing in this thread.
shortstop
@ericblair:
I would not say that, pal. But I’m not saying it like it’s a bad thing, either.
dslak
@eric: It’s early in the evening, yet!
@General Stuck: That’s right. If I don’t find Greenwald-haters to be made saints thereby, it must be because I’m in wuv wif Gwenn. I’m also not sure how eemom’s ability to respond is relevant to explaining the context of what Cole said. If eemom weren’t banned, that wouldn’t have affected what I said. The only difference is that she’d be in the comments, calling Cole an idiot.
General Stuck
@dslak:
Everybody on this blog calls Cole an idiot, except the toadies. Now fuck you. I’m here, if eemom ain’t. To tell you what a piece of shit you are. That about covers all that needs saying.
Now say something else shitty, so I can repeat that. You might get lucky and Cole bans me too. But i doubt it.
dslak
@General Stuck: Balloon Juice: Moderately informed discussion for some; deranged ranting for others.
Alex
Pharma reps are pretty well paid, and take jobs in the field as well-salaried sales people who make substantial bonuses.
I don’t have a problem with the result in this case so much (sales reps and plaintiffs mills making six figurs windfalls from overtime claim) as the hypocrisy and process. The current justices on the Supreme Court don’t have fucking clue one about wage and hour law, and the people this will end up really hurting isn’t the generally very well-paid pharma reps, but other industries’ low end sales reps who don’t have big expense accounts, car allowances and six figure salaries.
Also, the hypocritical bastards who, again, don’t have clue fucking one about wage and hour law, are essentially acting as regulators, second-guessing an agency which has, oh, 80+ years experience interpreting the Fair Labor Standards Act and promulgating regulations interpreting the same.
For a bunch of assholes who prattle endlessly about judicial restraint, this is farcical. Alito might as well just blow the CEO of every Pharma company in the world. It would be less unseemly.
Punchy
@General Stuck: eemom’s been banned? Since when?
General Stuck
@dslak:
This is informed discussion. I’m informing you what a little weasel you are.
General Stuck
@Punchy:
few days ago. far as I know it’s permanent.
kay
@General Stuck:
I just keep going back to what the lawyer who brought the first challenge to voter ID said, when he lost.
“The best thing liberals can do with this court is stay out of it.”
His point was, don’t give them an opportunity to dismantle what we have now.
I am upset that sneering Justice Scalia is anywhere near Medicaid, let alone a Medicaid expansion.
General Stuck
@kay:
I read a take on this today, from a guy with some knowledge on how FDR handled it when the court was knocking down some of his New Deal programs.
The article argues for dems and Obama standing down on running on the SCOTus if they strike down the ACA. His argument was that a lot of folks were advising FDR to go after the Supremes, but FDR demurred, and was reelected. I can’t agree with this, as it is totally a different era, and most of the New laws have been in place for decades, and they are threatened by such a turnback on Wickard. And the overall political set in this country right now, means we have to fight them, but do it smartly. It is not unexpected, if you have been listening to the droll rhetoric of the wingnuts for all sorts of things. They are at pol war with liberals. We gotta fight them tooth and nail, in the here and now. imo
Punchy
@General Stuck: can u link to the thread plz? This was rather shortsighted by Cole, just days from the USSC ACA decision.
dslak
Can a man sink to any depths lower than explaining what a blog proprietor likely meant by his remarks, if that explanation involves reference to a commenter banned by said proprietor?
Apparently not. Truly, my degeneracy knows no bounds.
kay
@General Stuck:
The Citizens case was really extraordinary. A right wing group made a film for the express purpose of challenging campaign finance laws.
And they won!
Now they’re going to knock down every state campaign finance law, and we’re all just going along pretending this is business as usual.
General Stuck
@Punchy:
I just don’t have the energy or heart to go looking for that thread. I think the offending comment was deleted as well, although a part of it may have survived. Maybe someone else can do the favor for you. It ain’t worth no more points on to my already high BP.
Johannes
For what it’s worth, I’ve been arguing that this Court is made up of unprincipled hacks and activists since the Court rewrote the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (enacted by Congress) by overturning 60 years of precedent in the Twombly and Iqbal cases. I’m an appeals lawyer, fwiw.
Johannes
For what it’s worth, I’ve been arguing that this Court is made up of unprincipled hacks and activists since the Court rewrote the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (enacted by Congress) by overturning 60 years of precedent in the Twombly and Iqbal cases. I’m an appeals lawyer, fwiw.
General Stuck
@kay:
Not only that, the SCOTUS THEMSELVES broadened the narrow issue in the case by plaintiffs, to give themselves the ability to equate free speech with money and protected under the 1st Amendment. That is beyond activism, it is proactive advocacy, at the highest court in the land.
NobodySpecial
@General Stuck: Perhaps you need another vacation.
General Stuck
@NobodySpecial:
already on one. But thanks for caring. And quit sucking yer thumb.
NobodySpecial
@General Stuck: I meant a vacation from your unofficial unpaid job as Ye Olde Blogge Sheriff. Seems since you lost your favorite deputy to Ol’ Nasty John Cole you’ve been a touch unsettled.
After all, we wouldn’t want you to get sick. You might start looping your old insults or something.
Medicine Man
A pity about eemom being banned then. Hopefully it wasn’t about her lack of regard for Glenn Greenwald. Honestly, if she spent her spare time rebutting GG, then she was performing a public service.
Omnes Omnibus
@eric: I can’t say that I disagree.
@dslak: I know what Cole was getting at. It is a bit of a stretch to say that eemom was saying that only lawyers were qualified to comment on legal matters; I think that she was reacting to a perception that, especially in the context of the freak-out over the ACA oral argument, lawyer’s comments were being summarily dismissed. I agree with her perception to a large extent. I tend to think that if one is going say that one disagrees with the result of a legal case, one should be able to do so at a level beyond that of saying “I don’t like the result; it is a bad decision.” Cases that make it to the Supreme Court are more complicated than that. Basically, I think Cole is being a dick here.
dslak
@Omnes Omnibus: That is an entirely reasonable position to take, but you should have at least have called me a shithead or a weasel in your reply. I feel like you don’t care, when you don’t.
lacp
@dslak: Of course, nothing prevents the blog proprietor from explaining his own remarks.
dslak
I would also add that “people who want to opine on the merits of a ruling should understand the reasoning behind it” is also something I’ve seen Greenwald say, but he lives in Brazil, etc.
dslak
@lacp: That’s not true. Laziness and apathy can take real toll on a man.
Omnes Omnibus
@dslak: Yeah, well, fuck you. I’ll insult when I fucking feel like it and not before, you shit-sniffing douchebag.
lacp
@dslak: Good point. And making one’s quota of “asshole,” “shithead,” “fuck you,” “Obama/Greenwald fellator,” etc., etc. by quitting time can be a real challenge some days.
General Stuck
@NobodySpecial:
LOL, I don’t deputy for no body what irrigates with the neti pot.
double if they mop nekkid. I’ll show up now and then bumpkin, to see if you washed behind your ears.
Omnes Omnibus
Oh, BTW, I have been predicting 6-3 to uphold the decison for quite a while now. I have also been saying that I was taking Alito and Thomas plus a justice to be named later as the against votes. I am now ready to name Scalia as vote #3.
shortstop
@Omnes Omnibus:
Hmmm. Did you mean “a [particular] lawyer’s comments” or “lawyers’ comments”? If it was, as I assume, the latter, do you think the many attorneys who comment here are interchangeable? Because most of us don’t, and as far as I can tell, Cole never has.
General Stuck
@Omnes Omnibus:
I hope you are right, counselor. I really do. The writing on the wall right now, just doesn’t seem to say that. No matter what happens, you are right that it should be 6 to 3, if not 9 to 0 to uphold.
Omnes Omnibus
@shortstop: No I don’t think the lawyers who comment here are interchangeable and it should have been “lawyers.'” Good catch.
ETA: I know I felt like I was banging my head against a wall while trying to explain that trying to predict case outcomes from questions and answers at oral argument was pointless.
clean willie
@General Stuck:
As if anyone can tell the difference. We know one of you is a world class asshole and the other is a blue ribbon jerkoff but it’s hard to keep track of which is which.
JasonF
@Alex:
I agree that there’s hypocrisy, but I think I see a different hypocrisy than you do. The issue isn’t that the Justices aren’t experts on this issue; the Justices aren’t really the experts on any issue that comes before them. For example, lots of people know more about the realities of law enforcement than they do, but they rule on law enforcement issues all the time.
The hypocrisy I see here is that the five right-wing justices took a sharp detour away from the text of the regs and looked at the equities of the situation, the historical backdrop, etc., and used that holistic picture to rule against the reps. That is completely alien to the way they — particularly Scalia and Thomas — claim to approach judging.
@Alex:
I think the Department of Labor deserved to be second-guessed here. They abruptly reversed their interpretation of a regulation that had been around, in one form or another, for more than half a century without any sort of public notice and comment period. While I happen to think that, as a matter of policy, these pharma reps should be exempt from overtime, I get that people could disagree. But if the DoL disagrees, they should change the regulation through proper notice and comment, not via a back door.
General Stuck
@clean willie:
Blow it out your ass, clean willie. Then take a bath.
Donut
@General Stuck:
Oh, come on. Eemom didn’t just “sass” anyone, she went from thread to thread, insulting anyone who disagreed with her, basically acting like an asshole, and for a substantial amount of time. You can try to sugget otherwise if you like, but I have read this blog for a long time, and anyone who has read it and seen her comments over time knows that Cole was damned patient with her insults and general assholery, I don’t have any skin in on that, just making an obvious observation: Cole would have been justified banning her a looooong-ass time ago.
General Stuck
@Donut:
Fuck you. Every one insults everyone else on this blog. And always have. Eemom also praised Cole when she thought him worthy of praise for what he does and writes. She has a potty mouth, so the fuck what. But Cole is too stupid to know that underneath that salty tongue, she adores the big idiot, though I don’t know why.
The rules for banning are hate speech as in race or sexism, that sort of thing. Cole can ban anyone he wants, for any reason. And I can say what I think about it. But you shouldn’t have anything to worry about, being the smarmy little firebagger toady you’ve always been on this blog.
edit – and when it gets right down to it, eemom has been called much worse than anything she called anyone else on this blog. But she got banned. I think that sucks. I don’t care what you think toady.
Frankensteinbeck
@dslak:
The objection against Greenwald is not that he lives in Brazil. That’s an icing-on-the-cake point for some people who are already mad at him. The objection to Greenwald is that he lies by omission, shamelessly and relentlessly. He invents scandals and civil rights violations issues out of whole cloth by pretending that the legal context it’s his job to provide doesn’t exist. He pretends things are unconstitutional that are long-settled law, pretends things are unprecedented that are utterly normal and working as the law always has, and pulls dishonest tricks like creating a narrative by quoting half a dozen articles that are all based on the same unreliable and unconfirmed source.
You’re right, it’s hard to get this topic discussed. Insults tend to fly first.
EIGRP
@BGinCHI: 2 things:
4. ???
5. Profit
Donut
@General Stuck:
No one, specifically me, insulted you in this thread. I pointed out my perception. You told me “fuck you.”
Which one of us needs to check themselves?
You’re acting like a thin-skinned weenie. Notice I’m not saying you are one. I don’t know you…but I’m no one’s toady, son, and you can fuck the fuck right off.
Donut
@General Stuck:
Oh, and I’m such a Firebagger that my credit card statement reflects my monthly recurring donation to the President’s reelection camping.
That’s me, an IIllinois native and resident voting and donating to Barack Obama since 2004 Firebagger.
Yeah.
Tool.
elftx
@General Stuck:
YEA !!!!
I for one do not miss her whole “my feet don’t stink” schtick
General Stuck
@Donut:
LOL, now didn’t that feel good. My points stand, however, because they are true.
Na!. of course you aren’t.
General Stuck
@elftx:
Christ, when did this blog turn into such a bunch of Heathers?
Winston Smith
@Emma:
You’re right, I can spell precedent. I also know what it means, which, apparently you do not.
The only disturbing precedent here is for a narrow group of people who are involved in outside sales, compensated in some way for those outside sales, but insist that they are not outside salespeople.
Excuse me while I sleep very well (thank you) after hearing this relatively inconsequential news.
John Cole
I banned eemom as a joke. She was banned for a grand total of 2 and a half hours. She made a remark that I was afraid of her and ran away every time she confronted me, I said “HAR HAR HAR WHO IS AFRAID NOW?” and banned her, and after I got done weeding the garden and weed-eating and got in front of the computer again, I reinstated her. I thought I was playing along with her, just goofing off. How did this become an issue about the comments policy? I thought everyone understood it was just a joke.
General Stuck
@John Cole:
Well, now my mind is blown. Joke?. I don’t know of anyone else having said they thought that it was a joke. It”s like the fucking Twilight Zone around here.
General Stuck
@General Stuck:
Jeebus, my nerves can’t take this shit.
handsmile
@John Cole:
Appreciate your clearing up this matter. I was startled and saddened by the claims above that eemom had been banned, but evidence seemed to be lacking.
For all her unbridled invective (and occasional outbursts of ardor), I had never known her to traffic in the kind of remarks that have led to others being banished from your blog.
Eemom is one of the less sublimated personalities here; for that and her caustic intelligence, I would have missed reading her, uh, contributions.
The prophet Nostradumbass
@John Cole: Well played, Mauer.
LosGatosCA
@Ben:
“Jim Bunning in a black dress” will be haunting my nightmares just like Long Dong Silver.
You’ve just added $50,000 and several more years to my therapy program.
And just last week, my doctor said I was doing so well by getting past my Ma Bates fetish.
Raven on the Hill
We may hope that the pro-business faction of the Court makes common cause with the pro-healthcare faction of the court and outvotes the anti-ACA faction.
What a revolting development!
IrishGirl
One of my nephews graduated from law school about a year ago and he has repeatedly told me, in a roundabout way, that the cons on SCOTUS are not right wing hacks and he ought to know. When they strike down ACA, my brilliant but very naive nephew might have some ‘splaining to do
Susan
I worked at Glaxo and back then, the Sales Reps’ pay was in large part based on their sales. They made lots of money and sometimes the only way they could meet with the doctors who would prescribe their drugs was to wait until after their clinic day was done.
Omnes Omnibus
@John Cole: You obviously did not read the comments in that thread. A few people, including me, were surprised that you would ban someone for virtually no reason, while another, much larger bunch applauded your decision to “finally” get rid of her. Based on this, I don’t think people saw the joke. also, it is probably like newspaper corrections, everyone sees the original action, but no one sees the follow-up. Add in the fact that, as far as I know, she hasn’t been back since then and you shouldn’t be surprised that people took the banning at face value.
handsmile
@Omnes Omnibus:
Should you check back here, could you please advise on what thread this particular tempest erupted? I seem to recall one eemom comment in the past couple of days, but I don’t know the timeline of this unfortunate affair.
General Stuck
@handsmile:
Here ya go
handsmile
@General Stuck:
I salute you, General. Thanks!
(Having read through the thread now, yeah, it seems the “joke” was lost on most.)
brantl
I’m as much of a liberal as anybody, but aren’t these salaried positions, not hourly? Who pays salaried people overtime, anywhere? Just asking.
Jebediah
@brantl:
I don’t know the details, but I have been told that for at least some salaried positions, overtime isn’t paid in cashmoneydollars but in comp time.