HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » pampango » Journal
Page: 1

pampango

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Hometown: Xenia, OH
Member since: Tue Sep 19, 2006, 04:46 PM
Number of posts: 24,686

Journal Archives

Record number of "friend of the court" briefs filed with SC in ACA case. Here's the list:

http://go.bloomberg.com/health-care-supreme-court/2012-03-01/health-care-primary-sources-statutes-court-opinions-briefs/

Merits Briefs for the Petitioners

Brief of the Department of Health and Human Services et al. regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the Department of Health and Human Services et al. regarding the Anti-Injunction Act
Reply Brief for the Petitioners on the Anti-Injunction Act

Amicus Briefs in Support of the Petitioners

Brief for AARP
Brief for American Nurses Association et al.
Brief for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts
Brief for Constitutional Law and Economics Professors
Brief for 104 Health Law Professors
Brief for Constitutional Law Scholars
Brief for Child Advocacy Organizations
Brief for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. et al.
Brief for the California Endowment
Brief for the National Women’s Law Center et al.
Brief for Prescription Policy Choices et al.
Brief for the Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action et al.
Brief for Health Care For All et al.
Brief for California Public Employees Retirement System
Brief for Law Professors Barry Friedman et al.
Brief for Lambda Legal Defense Fund, et al,
Brief for David R. Riemer and Community Advocates
Brief for Department of Health and Human Services et al.
Brief for the Governor of Washington Christine Gregoire
Brief for Health Care Policy History Scholars
Brief for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid et al.
Brief for Small Business Majority Foundation, INC and the Main Street Alliance
Brief for State Legislators
Brief for the States of Maryland et al.
Brief for Service Employees International Union and Change to Win
Brief for Economic Scholars
Brief for the American Federation of Labor and the Congress of Industrial Organizations

Merits Briefs for the Respondents

Brief for the State Respondents on the Anit-Injunction Act
Brief for Private Respondents on the Anti-Injunction Act
Brief for the State Respondents on the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Private Respondents on the Minimum Coverage Provision
Reply Brief for State Respondents on the Anti-Injunction Act

Amicus Briefs Supporting the Respondents

Brief for Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom
Brief for the Cato Institute et al.
Brief for Association of American Physicians And Surgeons, inc., and Individual Physicians
Brief for Judicial Watch, Inc.
Brief for American Catholic Lawyers Association, Inc.
Brief for the American Center for Law and Justice et al.
Brief for the American Legislative Exchange Council
Brief for American College of Pediatricians et al.
Brief for the American Civil Rights Union et al.
Brief for the Cato Institute
Brief for Gary Lawson et al.
Brief for the Catholic Vote and Steven J. Willis
Brief for Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence et al.
Brief for Citizens and Legislators in the Fourteen Health Care Freedom States
Brief for Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom
Brief for the Commonwealth of Virginia Ex Rel. Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli
Brief for Docs4patientcare et al.
Brief for Employer Solutions Staffing Group
Brief for Egon Mittelmann, Esq.
Brief for Former U.S. Department Officials
Brief for the Foundation for Moral Law
Brief for HSA Coalition, Inc. and the Constitution Defense Fund
Brief for John Boehner
Brief for the Landmark Legal Foundation
Brief for Liberty Legal Foundation
Brief for Members of the United States Senate
Brief for the Mountain States Legal Foundation
Brief for Oklahoma
Brief for Partnership for America
Brief for the Rutherford Institute
Brief for Senator Rand Paul
Brief for Stephen M. Trattner
Brief for the Thomas More Law Center et al.
Brief for Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall et al.
Brief for the Washington Legal Foundation and Constitutional Law Scholars
Brief for Authors of Origins of The Necessary and Proper Clause and the Independence Institute
Brief for Economists
Brief for the Independent Women’s Forum
Brief for the Tax Foundation
Brief for the Missouri Attorney General
Brief for Montana Shooting Sports Association
Brief for the American Life League
Brief for the Caesar Rodney Institute
Brief for Liberty University, Inc. et al.
Brief for Project Liberty

Amicus Briefs Supporting Neither Party

Brief for the Health Foundation of Greater Cincinnati regarding minimum coverage

Merits Briefs for Court-Appointed Amicus regarding the Anti-Injunction Act

Brief supporting vacatur

Amicus Briefs Supporting the Court- Appointed Amicus

Brief for Tax Law Professors
Brief for Mortimer Caplin and Sheldon Cohen

Amicus Briefs Supporting the Respondent regarding the Anti-Injunction Act

Brief for the Liberty University, Inc. et al.
Brief for the Cato Institute
Brief for the American Center for Law & Justice
Brief for Center for the Fair Administration of Taxes

At the link all of the briefs are links which you can click to view the actual brief.

As a believer in the value of trade (like FDR), I know I quake in my boots every time you post.



You are right that popular opinion is running against trade agreements. What you failed to mention is that this trend is being led by the right, particularly the teabaggers.



Teabaggers believe that "free trade agreements like NAFTA, the policies of the WTO..." are bad for the US by a 63 to 24 margin (a 2 1/2 to 1 ratio). Republicans also oppose them by almost a 2 to 1 margin (54% to 28%). Only Democrats, as a group, still support "free trade agreements like NAFTA, the policies of the WTO..." by a 40% to 35%. This poll was done about 17 months ago and that that may have changed as well.

So I agree with you that opinion is running against trade agreements. The poll shows a decline in support across political groups from 2009 to 2010. Where I would disagree is whether this opinion change is being led by the right or the left and whether it represents success for conservative forces or liberal ones.

According to this poll, conservatives are far more negative on the value of trade agreements than are liberals. (If you know of other polls that indicate otherwise, I would love to see them.) In your view, are liberals leading the movement against trade agreements but are somehow having more success convincing conservatives than other liberals? (The decine in support from 2009 to 2010 was most dramatic among republicans, much less so for Democrats, even though republican support was weaker to begin with.)

I haven't seen similar polls for Europe, but political parties on the right (particularly on the far-right, like France's National Front) there are leading the campaign for reinstating tariffs for intra-European trade and higher tariffs for trade with non-European countries. So in Europe, as in the US, the right appears to be the anti-trade agreement leader.

That tariff sounds like the Fordney–McCumber Tariff of 1922 (the 'scientific tariff')

The Fordney–McCumber Tariff of 1922 introduced two new concepts:

The first was the scientific tariff. The purpose of the scientific tariff was to equalize production costs among countries so that no country could undercut the prices charged by American companies. The difference of production costs was calculated by the Tariff Commission.

A second novelty was the American Selling Price. This allowed the president to calculate the duty based on the price of the American price of a good, not the imported good.
The bill also gave the president the power to raise or lower rates on products if it was recommended by the Tariff Commission.

The tariff was supported by the Republican party and conservatives and was generally opposed by the Democratic Party and liberal progressives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fordney%E2%80%93McCumber_Tariff


Republicans had enacted higher tariffs in 1921 two months after Harding succeeded Wilson. Of course, the 1921 and 1922 tariffs, which were largely opposed by Democrats, did not solve our economic problems. Indeed by 1929 income inequality had reached unprecedented levels (since exceeded in the past decade, of course) so republicans came back to the idea again (apparently perceived by them as the only tool in their tool box) in 1929 with Smoot/Hawley.

During the 1928 presidential campaign Hoover promised to raise tariff rates again.


In their certitude that tariff hikes were the answer, no matter what the question, Smoot’s Republicans resemble today’s Republicans, who put a similar faith in tax cuts.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/eb6357c0-3d1a-11e0-bbff-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1EaoLpkGn


The Utah Republican senator Reed Smoot ... wanted to prop up the market in sugar beets, which his constituents grew. He also wanted to protect citizens from imported pornography. ... Economists warned, almost unanimously, that he was on the path of folly. Smoot dismissed them as the dark, “powerful forces” that “lurk in the international economic conferences held in Europe”.

(I)n June 1930, it passed in a flurry of parliamentary manoeuvres and vote-buying, and President Herbert Hoover signed it into law, conceding it was not “perfect”. The Senate bill passed on a vote of 44 to 42, with 39 Republicans and 5 Democrats voting in favor of the bill. The conference committee then aligned the two versions, largely by moving to the greater House tariffs. The House passed the conference bill on a vote of 222 to 153, with the support of 208 Republicans and 14 Democrats. Republicans lost their House majority in that autumn’s elections to an opposition (Democrats) urging repeal.

Franklin D. Roosevelt spoke against the act while campaigning for president during 1932. ... The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was a reflection of Republican Party policy. In his 1932 election campaign platform Franklin Delano Roosevelt pledged to lower tariffs. He and the now-Democratic Congress did so in the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934. ... After World War II this undergirded a push towards multi-lateral trading agreements that would prevent a similar situation from unfolding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley_Tariff_Act

The "Assad" strategy for dealing with massive protests is something all dictators should learn.

1: When massive peaceful protests occur, repress them as them as violently as you can get away with - snipers, arrests, torture, etc.
2. This may work to quell the protests. If so, reward your military and security services and go back to being a dictator.
3. If #1 doesn't work right away and massive peaceful protests continue, keep up the repression. (You have to come up with a strategy to keep the international community at bay.) Start talking about the presence of "criminal gangs" or "terrorists" among the protestors. There may not be any yet, but it's good to get the talking point out there for future use.
4. If your military and security forces continue to prove to be ineffective in suppressing dissent, don't worry. Keep up the armed repression. Eventually frustration will build up among factions of the protesters and some will become willing to resort to violence given the apparent futility of peaceful protest. Or outside groups will begin to take advantage of these frustrations.
5. At this point you can unleash your military and security forces to the full extent and hope you don't lose the civil war you have created.

I think this is a strategy that is workable in many repressive countries when populations get fed up with living with no rights.
Go to Page: 1