RNC Mail Suggests Republicans Could Be Discriminated Against, Lose Their Health Care

By
Thursday, August 27, 2009 at 9:49 am

UPDATE: The survey is here.

Kathie Durbin reports on the “2009 Future of American Health Survey” sent out by the Republican National Committee. It’s this part of the survey that’s raising eyebrows:

It has been suggested that the government could use voter registration to determine a person’s political affiliation, prompting fears that GOP voters might be discriminated against for medical treatment in a Democrat-imposed health care rationing system. Does this possibility concern you?

That, obviously, has never been part of any health care proposals.

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

Follow David Weigel on Twitter


Comments

229 Comments

GOP Health Care Lie of the Day « David Pleasant
Pingback posted August 27, 2009 @ 10:55 am

[...] no. The Republican National Committee is now propagating this lie about health care reform, as reported by the Washington Independent. It has been suggested that the government could use voter registration [...]


Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » More Republican Health Care Fear-Mongering
Pingback posted August 27, 2009 @ 11:50 am

[...] David Weigel points out, this has never been a part of anyone’s health care reform [...]


jessied44
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 2:05 pm

There was a time when I could respect and even like many Republicans. Now that they are stuck on stupid and pandering to the most ignorant and hateful elements within the party, it is really hard to consider them a legitimate political party.


David
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 2:28 pm

Wow. That makes “death Panels” look almost slightly possibly not completely crazy. Almost. Wait till Sarah “Makin' Stuff Up for the Troops” Palin gets her pitbull teeth into this one! Can't wait to see the crazy fly on that one!

The nincompoopery from the right is really *really* heard to over-estimate.


Midday open thread | RQDC
Pingback posted August 27, 2009 @ 3:48 pm

[...] is no stupidity beneath the dignity of the Republican Party. From the [...]


Midday open thread | News Fu
Pingback posted August 27, 2009 @ 3:49 pm

[...] is no stupidity beneath the dignity of the Republican Party. From the [...]


jimhenderson
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 2:54 pm

Go to http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090….
That is HR 3200.
Search for “section 1233″ or “end-of-life”.

Mandatory counseling. Mandatory reporting back of results of consultation.

Say what you want. Whine as you will

“Death panels” simply gives truth the not so nice reality planned by the stooge at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.


jimhenderson
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 2:55 pm

jessied44

I know what you mean.

republicans caring about children before birth.

republicans caring about the elderly.

why it is as shocking when it took the republican minority to pass civil rights laws.

or as shocking as when republicans objected to the supreme court's conclusion that blacks were mere chattels, not human beings.

i understand completely why you reach the judgment you do.


David
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 3:06 pm

I'm sorry about your reading comprehension problem, really. I have read the bill. There is nothing in there REMOTELY RESEMBLING a death panel. It is end-of-life-planning. YOu know, living wills, advanced directives, etc. And, just in case you are not aware of it, the FACT is that that provision was put in there by THE REPUBLICANS back when they thought it was a good idea … or maybe just so that they could LATER bring it up as a “death Panel”

It's not true. Not even remotely true. It's a load of scare-tactics designed to keep people from advocating against their own self-interests. And, in your case, it appears tyo be working.


David
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 3:10 pm

Republicans care about children only BEFORE child-birth. After that, if they have the sad misfortune to be born poor, well, too bad. Get your own. Won't cover their medical needs.

Who passed Medicare again? Right. NOT the republicans. (who now call it socialist, all the while continuing to use it).

Who passed Social Security again? Oh yeah, that wasn't the republicans either. And they now call THAT socialist, while cashing the checks.

And you are, of course, looking at the Republican party of 140 years ago. The MODERN republican party is not NEARLY as enlightened. In fact, they are down-right racist and mysoginistic. Listen to their de-facto leaders Rush And Glenn BecKKK for all the evidence you will need on their current view of minorities, women and anyone unfortunate enough to not be rich and white.


jimhenderson
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 3:23 pm

Read the article. It was a Republican fund-raiser. Democratic fund-raisers and Republican fund-raisers use the same tactic.

By the way, can you identify political affiliation from voter registration rolls? In some states, yes. In others, no.

Double by the way, a couple years back, a representative included an earmark for home district project. To hide the fact of the earmark, he designated the location of the project to be funded by longitude and latitude. Unfortunately, given the fact that most Americans are schooled in government schools, most Americans weren't able to figure out that it was a home district earmark for the representative.

So what?

Well, if we can earmark by longitude and latitude, we can fund and defund by them too.


jimhenderson
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 3:24 pm

I include the link for the reason that folks like you will come along and say: it's not in there, it's not in there, ignore the man behind the curtain.


jimhenderson
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 3:28 pm

Prove your negative. Prove that Republicans don't care for children.

You can't.

We can disagree about HOW to do a thing and agree that it should be done.

For example, America's earliest education laws, at a time of universal literacy, were compulsory EDUCATION laws. Under compulsory EDUCATION laws, parents and masters were required, on pain of punishment, to insure that their children and apprentices were able to read, to write, and to perform arithmetic computations.

Today, we have attacked the same problem with compulsory ATTENDANCE laws. The result: we no longer have universal literacy.

Does this mean that those who support public education hate learning, hate teaching and hate children? NO!

We can disagree on the means without being evil.

And that's difference, I guess.

I think you're wrong. You think I'm evil.


David
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 3:41 pm

As I said, it's not in there. Death Panels are NOT in there. As I CLEARLY said (again, sorry about your reading comprehension problem), end-of-life choices counseling — including living wills, power of attorney, advanced directives, etc. — ARE in there. No one denies that. It's just that those things are in NO WAY “death panels” In fact, they were such 'good ideas' at the time that they were inserted by REPUBLICANS.

End of life counseling is a good idea. If you have not spoken with your doctor about what your wishes are, you are a fool. If you have not put in place a medical (if not a durable) power of attorney, you are an idiot. If you do not have a 'living will' or 'advanced directive' in place, you are ASKING for trouble. Even at a young age. Anything can happen. Be prepared.

The ONLY thing the bill states is that those things would be a COVERED expense, and would be REQUIRED. Because NOW, doctors have to slip such charges in under other means, if they have them at all, and NOT having them costs BILLIONS of dollars when heroic measures are taken to sustain the life of someone who, had they MADE an advanced directive wouldn't have wanted them. If you actually READ the bill (and understand it), you will see that there is NO provision for what those advanced directives should be, so if you want “any and all means necessary for ever” as yours, go for it. And it will be covered.

So obviously NOT a death panel for anyone with reading comprehension past the 6th grade level.


David
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 3:48 pm

I can prove my 'negative'. Republicans don't want universal coverage, so kids that can't afford treatment don't get it. Only kids whose families can afford decent care get it. Those that CAN'T afford it don't get it.

Thanks for telling me what I think. Just like a republican to make a leap of faith not based on fact and tell someone else what they think and what they need.

And I am, myself, living PROOF of this medical insurance disaster. My son needs extraordinary care. His bills are staggering. Astronomical. I would have to lose my house and my job and sink below the poverty line for him to get “government coverage” (Medicaid). The *very* thing republicans rail against — you know, giving free healthcare to 'lazy' people. But he's uninsurable. No insurance company will take him, or my family because of him. So this mythical 'free market' for health insurance does not exist either.

Republicans do not want — and are, by all evidence willing to go to any and all lengths necessary to prevent — universal coverage which would ENSURE quality care for ALL, even children without insurance. So they are actively working to PREVENT care for children — Bush vetoed SCHIP, remember. So I stand by my statement that republicans care for children only BEFORE they are born. After that, not so much. Pro-life? Hardly. Most also support the death penalty. Again, pre-birth, all the way! Afterwards? Not so much.


strangely_enough
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 4:10 pm

There is absolutely nothing mandatory about counseling in the bill. Read it. Read it again. Have someone honest explain it to you if necessary. You are being misled, and you are repeating those falsehoods to others, thereby creating the confusion they want.

And stop whining about non existent “death panels.” You sound as incoherent as Palin.


jimhenderson
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 4:12 pm

End of life counseling is FINE.

Living Wills are FINE.

Advanced Directives are FINE.

Mandatory counseling is NOT FINE.

Mandatory reporting back of counseling results is NOT FINE.

Repeatedly forcing the elderly back to the well is NOT FINE.

Perhaps we can play this game all day. You can ignore the statute and you can ignore its effects. I can point to the provided link and invite individuals to read for themselves.


mantis
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 4:33 pm

Read the article. It was a Republican fund-raiser.

It was a Republican National Committee, with party chairman Michael Steele's name on it. It wasn't just some fundraiser. The RNC provides leadership for the party and defines its platform.

Democratic fund-raisers and Republican fund-raisers use the same tactic.

Really? Show us where the DNC has claimed the Republicans are going to deny healthcare (or any government service) based on party affiliation.


mantis
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 4:34 pm

Mandatory counseling.

You are a liar.


mantis
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 4:35 pm

You aren't even familiar with the bill, yet you continue to lie about it. We all know you are lying, so why bother?


mantis
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 4:38 pm

Prove that Republicans don't care for children.

S-Chip, education funding, etc.

For example, America's earliest education laws, at a time of universal literacy,

When exactly were these halcyon days of “universal literacy,” exactly? Or did they only happen in your imagination.

You think I'm evil.

No, just a liar. And a bad one, at that.


mantis
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 4:39 pm

I've read the bill. It's not in there. You are a liar.


btmom
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 4:48 pm

There Republicans will make anything up they can think of to scare people away from reform, because they want their health care campaign contributions. What next, gas chambers? Wait and see, that one's coming.


jimhenderson
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 4:57 pm

Just because you are ignorant of historical evaluations of literacy over time doesn't make others liars or bad liars. Do a bit of that old fashioned gum-shoeing in an education library at any university college of teaching. You are entitled to your (uninformed) opinion, but not to your own facts.


jimhenderson
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 5:09 pm

Again, you equate reliance on our preferred approach (personal responsibility) with disapproval of an outcome that you would claim we disapprove (health for all).

There is no reason, certainly none hallowed by the Constitution, that others should be taxed for the care of those unrelated to them. That each should care for his/her own and that each should be free to give of his/her own for the care of others are principles that properly respond to these concerns, meet real needs, and respect constitutional limitations on federal power.


jimhenderson
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 5:10 pm

Let's see. An attorney trained in reading legislation. A professor trained in the Constitution. And a man providing a link to the legislation. All rolled up in one.

Of course you will engage in ad hominems. Because your ad factums are simply wrong.


jimhenderson
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 5:13 pm

Read the linked article. Read the statement from the pollster. He explained about how democrats do the same thing. He mentioned one example, regarding guns and children.

Again, it is a fund-raiser. It was sent to folks on the RNC's chosen mailing list. It was not a scientifically composed survey of opinion.

By the way, if it were a scientifically composed survey of opinion, what would be wrong with asking whether a person would be comfortable with having health care decision making and funding managed in that way.


David
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 5:31 pm

*eyeroll* another NASCAR Constitutional Scholar.

Do we need to go down the list of stuff that isn't explicitly in the Constitution that we agree is a good idea and do? Do you *really* think that the founding fathers were stupid enough to think that ONLY those things that they could think of at the time and write down should EVER be considered?

Let me make a wild guess: You're a christian, right? Yet you object to caring for those “unrelated to you.”

Right. Thanks for playing. Another “I got mine, get your own” or, more accurately “if y'all would just stop being so poor …”


David
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 5:35 pm

Ok Professor Constitutional Law Reading Lawyer, then please point out the section, paragraph and line number where “Death Panels” are spelled out.

A link to the entire bill isn't enough, if you're going to continue this charade that “Death Panels” are in there. You have to prove that assertion with an actual fact. Show where it is.

We'll wait over here.


jimhenderson
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 5:38 pm

Mandatory Counseling. … “Such consultation shall include the following ….”

Mandatory Counseling. … “The Secretary shall limit the requirement for explanations under clause…”

I get that you have some difficulty following the difference between mandatory terms (shall, must) and permissive terms (may, can). That doesn't change the language.

Fact is, if this is a bogus tempest in a teapot, let's simply amend the bill:

Nothing herein shall permit, authorize, allow or require the Secretary, or any grantee of funds hereunder, or any public option insurance provider, or any private insurer participating in the national insurance exchange to require individuals to undergo end-of-life counseling.

Simple enough.


jimhenderson
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 5:42 pm

As indicated above, read section 1233 of the bill.

If you need help finding section 1233, simply hold your <ctrl> button, press your “F” button, type in 1233, and follow the lead.

And as indicated, “death panels” was a brilliant stroke of description. The term “death panels” is not in the bill. The determination to hecter the elderly and infirm with EOL counseling and reports back to the Feds on outcomes of EOL counseling are found in 1233.

And it is sufficient to provide the link, explain searching, and re-emphasize the previously noted fact that the “term” “death panel” is not in the bill.


jimhenderson
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 5:44 pm

And I, like Gallileo, simply retort: and yet it is.


jimhenderson
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 6:02 pm

Yes, it must be a NASCAR scholar. After all, he disagrees with you.

There are things in the Constitution. They are express. Their expression marks the limits of the powers donated by the States for the creation of that stronger general government that the Articles of Confederation were found not to have provided.

Among the things in the Constitution is a provision for its amendment in either of two ways: by an amendatory provision approved two thirds of each house and three fourths of the States; or, by a convention with subsequent ratification by three fourths of the States.

As for them there “foundling fathers” (foundlings because you and others leave them abandoned), here's Tom Jefferson's view of things:

“In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow . . . The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”

The Constitution is not wax. It is not living and breathing. It is fixed and determinate in meaning and application. Change is permitted, but only legitimate changes are by amendment, not by bullying.


jimhenderson
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 6:07 pm

You are, evidently, incapable of understanding that it is permissible to give without being forced to give.

I have donated for the aid of flood victims in the wake of Katrina, tsunami survivors in the south Pacific rim and Indian Ocean; earthquake victims.

I have made sandwiches for the homeless, and donated to facilities for the housing of abused women.

Here's one of the most bald faced, unfounded stupidities of your arguments.

I'll stand my giving up against Barack Obama's. Against Nancy Pelosi's. Against Harry Reid's.

Yes, I am a Christian.

No, I am not opposed to private charity. I celebrate it and encourage it.

Now, really go amuse yourself and read the pitiful percentages of giving of those politicos mentioned above … or, for that matter, of Al Gore.

I am seldom happier than when I am giving.

Democrats are seldom happier than when they are taking.


David
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 6:23 pm

Actually, that is NOT sufficient. But you knew that.

So point out in the included text below (which is the entirety of section 1233) where this supposed “hecter the elderly and infirm with EOL counseling” is spelled out. And the report back to the feds on it? No, that's a report on the STANDARDs of care.

If this an example of your “Constitutional Law” and “Law Reading” or even “professorship” I'd love to know at what institution of higher learning you supposedly teach so I can ensure that none of my kids attend, since they obviously have low standards.

So, point out the section below that supports your claim. Point out the language that supports your claim.

Or admit that you are engaging in the same deceit and misdirection tactics as the rest of wingnuttia.

SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION.
2
(a) Medicare-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 1861 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended–
(A) in subsection (s)(2)–
(i) by striking ‘and’ at the end of subparagraph (DD);
(ii) by adding ‘and’ at the end of subparagraph (EE); and
(iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
‘(FF) advance care planning consultation (as defined in subsection (hhh)(1));’; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
‘ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION
16
‘(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:
‘(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.
‘(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses.
‘(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.
‘(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the advance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal service organizations (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of 1965).
14
‘(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.
‘(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include–
‘(I) the reasons why the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual’s family and the reasons why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes;
‘(II) the information needed for an individual or legal surrogate to make informed decisions regarding the completion of such an order; and
‘(III) the identification of resources that an individual may use to determine the requirements of the State in which such individual resides so that the treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out if the individual is unable to communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decisionmaker (also known as a health care proxy).
‘(ii) The Secretary shall limit the requirement for explanations under clause (i) to consultations furnished in a State–
‘(I) in which all legal barriers have been addressed for enabling orders for life sustaining treatment to constitute a set of medical orders respected across all care settings; and
‘(II) that has in effect a program for orders for life sustaining treatment described in clause (iii).
‘(iii) A program for orders for life sustaining treatment for a States described in this clause is a program that–
‘(I) ensures such orders are standardized and uniquely identifiable throughout the State;
‘(II) distributes or makes accessible such orders to physicians and other health professionals that (acting within the scope of the professional’s authority under State law) may sign orders for life sustaining treatment;
‘(III) provides training for health care professionals across the continuum of care about the goals and use of orders for life sustaining treatment; and
‘(IV) is guided by a coalition of stakeholders includes representatives from emergency medical services, emergency department physicians or nurses, state long-term care association, state medical association, state surveyors, agency responsible for senior services, state department of health, state hospital association, home health association, state bar association, and state hospice association.
‘(2) A practitioner described in this paragraph is–
‘(A) a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)); and
‘(B) a nurse practitioner or physician’s assistant who has the authority under State law to sign orders for life sustaining treatments.
‘(3)(A) An initial preventive physical examination under subsection (WW), including any related discussion during such examination, shall not be considered an advance care planning consultation for purposes of applying the 5-year limitation under paragraph (1).
‘(B) An advance care planning consultation with respect to an individual may be conducted more frequently than provided under paragraph (1) if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual, including diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), or a hospice program.
3
‘(4) A consultation under this subsection may include the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining treatment or a similar order.
‘(5)(A) For purposes of this section, the term ‘order regarding life sustaining treatment’ means, with respect to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to the treatment of that individual that–
19
‘(i) is signed and dated by a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care professional (as specified by the Secretary and who is acting within the scope of the professional’s authority under State law in signing such an order, including a nurse practitioner or physician assistant) and is in a form that permits it to stay with the individual and be followed by health care professionals and providers across the continuum of care;
6
‘(ii) effectively communicates the individual’s preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual;
‘(iii) is uniquely identifiable and standardized within a given locality, region, or State (as identified by the Secretary); and
1
‘(iv) may incorporate any advance directive (as defined in section 1866(f)(3)) if executed by the individual.
‘(B) The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may include indications respecting, among other items–
‘(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac or pulmonary problems;
‘(ii) the individual’s desire regarding transfer to a hospital or remaining at the current care setting;
‘(iii) the use of antibiotics; and
‘(iv) the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.’.
(2) PAYMENT- Section 1848(j)(3) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4(j)(3)) is amended by inserting ‘(2)(FF),’ after ‘(2)(EE),’.
(3) FREQUENCY LIMITATION- Section 1862(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395y(a)) is amended–
(A) in paragraph (1)–
(i) in subparagraph (N), by striking ‘and’ at the end;
(ii) in subparagraph (O) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting ‘, and’; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
‘(P) in the case of advance care planning consultations (as defined in section 1861(hhh)(1)), which are performed more frequently than is covered under such section;’; and
(B) in paragraph (7), by striking ‘or (K)’ and inserting ‘(K), or (P)’.
(4) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendments made by this subsection shall apply to consultations furnished on or after January 1, 2011.
(b) Expansion of Physician Quality Reporting Initiative for End of Life Care-
(1) Physician’S QUALITY REPORTING INITIATIVE- Section 1848(k)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4(k)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
‘(3) Physician’S QUALITY REPORTING INITIATIVE-
8
‘(A) IN GENERAL- For purposes of reporting data on quality measures for covered professional services furnished during 2011 and any subsequent year, to the extent that measures are available, the Secretary shall include quality measures on end of life care and advanced care planning that have been adopted or endorsed by a consensus-based organization, if appropriate. Such measures shall measure both the creation of and adherence to orders for life-sustaining treatment.
1
‘(B) PROPOSED SET OF MEASURES- The Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register proposed quality measures on end of life care and advanced care planning that the Secretary determines are described in subparagraph (A) and would be appropriate for eligible professionals to use to submit data to the Secretary. The Secretary shall provide for a period of public comment on such set of measures before finalizing such proposed measures.’.
(c) Inclusion of Information in Medicare & You Handbook-
(1) MEDICARE & YOU HANDBOOK-
(A) IN GENERAL- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall update the online version of the Medicare & You Handbook to include the following:
(i) An explanation of advance care planning and advance directives, including–
(I) living wills;
(II) durable power of attorney;
(III) orders of life-sustaining treatment; and
(IV) health care proxies.
(ii) A description of Federal and State resources available to assist individuals and their families with advance care planning and advance directives, including–
(I) available State legal service organizations to assist individuals with advance care planning, including those organizations that receive funding pursuant to the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 93001 et seq.);
(II) website links or addresses for State-specific advance directive forms; and
(III) any additional information, as determined by the Secretary.
(B) UPDATE OF PAPER AND SUBSEQUENT VERSIONS- The Secretary shall include the information described in subparagraph (A) in all paper and electronic versions of the Medicare & You Handbook that are published on or after the date that is 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.


David
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 6:27 pm

Yeah. uh huh. Your version of Christianity is, predictably, small-minded and cherry-picks.

Bully for you for making sandwiches for the poor. Just pray none of them get sick, huh? And pray is all they can do.

Democrats actually GIVE more than republicans. They just actually try to PAY for it first. I'll take tax and Spend over the Bush (Both of them) and Reagan “Just SPEND it, who cares where it comes from as long as it doesn't come from my rich friends” approach any day.


David
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 6:31 pm

And like a typical weasel, you steadfastly refuse to prove WHERE it is, thus proving that you are as mantis said, a liar.


Eric
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 7:02 pm

OMG. LOL!!! Are the poor republicants and their imaginary persecution complex really that delusional and paranoid? This stuff gets funnier every day.


David
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 7:04 pm

I guess the words “to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States” don't appear in you pocket Constitution, huh. General Welfare. So it may not say explicitly HEALTH CARE, but it DOES kinda say explicitly general welfare, does it not?


Eric
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 7:08 pm

Good Lord. Yes, the consultation, IF A PATIENT CHOOSES TO HAVE ONE, shall include those things listed. IF a patient chooses then doctors should adhere to certain guidelines. Wow. What an evil concept.


Eric
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 7:12 pm

Perhaps he is like the idiot woman that first falsely stated that it was mandatory and new exactly which page it was on (page 435, I believe). She went on The Daily Show to specifically discuss that and yet had a very hard time finding the page, pretending she couldn't find it and then, after the commercial break, and some help from Jon Stewart the actual section was read and she continued to do backflips trying to explain just how it translated to “mandatory”. She failed miserably.


jimhenderson
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 7:13 pm

It is not GIVING when it is taken by force of law.

Democrats do not GIVE when they take from others to GIVE. Democrats give when they take from their own wallets and give.

Don't believe it? Fine. Please do not review this analysis of data on giving: http://blog.fortiusone.com/2009/01/07/dataset-o…


Eric
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 7:17 pm

Oh, I'm sorry, everyone. It's on page 432 and it's in reference to the reporting of data by doctors to see if they are adhering to the counseling guidelines (when patients choose to have counseling) and if they are following the patients wishes. Heaven forbid the government ever follow up to make sure the rules and regs are being followed. Please, click the link and read the page for yourselves.


Eric
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 7:19 pm

Well, then, you should be ok with it since it's not mandatory.


Eric
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 7:29 pm

I did you one better above and stated the page in question. Page 432. You go read that and tell me where it says that it's mandatory? It's in regards to procedures and making sure they're being followed by having a committee to oversee data submitted to them by the doctors.

Patients do not HAVE to have the counseling. This is making sure it's provided and covered IF they DECIDE to. And it is to be MADE AVAILABLE every 5 years because people's health statuses change and people might change their mind. Say you're healthy and you think, “you know, if I ever get that ill I want to be let go. I don't want to live like that” but then your health takes a turn and/or you have a new grandkid or something happens to make you change your mind and say, “forget that. I'm not going out of this world without a fight.”. It works both ways. People can get really sick and decide that their quality of life is deteriorating and they see the toll it's taking on their families emotionally and they decide to make sure they aren't faced with making a decision on whether or not someone they love would want to hang on at all costs or to let them go. Some people are unselfish like that. Some people aren't as afraid to die as others seem to be.

This provision was merely taking something that was already available to everyone in every state in this country and making it a covered service by medicare.

This whole thing was much ado about nothing. Simply for political gain for the republicans. I hope they can all sleep at night despite using our elderly and terrifying them unnecessarily.


David
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 7:33 pm

So, then, you want to end Social Security, Medicare, Federal Funding of roads, bridges and other infrastructure, etc. because none of those are spelled out in the constitution and are, technically, 'giving' by your definition?

You “give” your money to the military which provides free healthcare to its members and their families, so should we discontinue their healthcare? or the Military entirely, since that's giving?

Spin it however you want, it boils down to the same thing: selfishness.


stephenperry
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 7:45 pm

They've already gone way out-of-bounds in falsely comparing Obama to Hitler and Democrats to Nazi's.


mantis
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 7:45 pm

Read the linked article. Read the statement from the pollster. He explained about how democrats do the same thing. He mentioned one example, regarding guns and children.

So Democrats asking “whether it is important to keep children safe and to keep them away from guns,” is the same thing as the RNC claiming that the Democrats are going to deny health care to Republicans? You're an idiot.

Again, it is a fund-raiser. It was sent to folks on the RNC's chosen mailing list.

And this matters how, exactly?

It was not a scientifically composed survey of opinion.

Yeah, it's a push poll. A survey designed not to get information but to spread misinformation. And you're defending it.

By the way, if it were a scientifically composed survey of opinion, what would be wrong with asking whether a person would be comfortable with having health care decision making and funding managed in that way.

If you don't already know, no amount of explaining is going to penetrate your ethics-impaired brain.


stephenperry
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 7:46 pm

Do you have ANY example of a Democratic fund-raiser, let alone the DNC, using that “tactic?”

Enough with the false equivalence. Be honest.


mantis
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 7:47 pm

Mandatory Counseling. … “Such consultation shall include the following ….”

The counseling is voluntary, dumbass. You don't even understand what the text you quote says.

Simple enough.

And unnecessary, since such counseling is completely voluntary, but must be performed according to the standards for the doctor to receive payment. Learn to read, dumbass.


mantis
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 7:48 pm

You're an attorney and professor as much as I'm the King of Siam.


stephenperry
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 7:49 pm

The consultation is NOT mandatory. IF the patient chooses to have it, the bill specifies what the consultation will include.

You should read more legal opinions. “Shall” means “may.” It is not mandatory. But you're nowhere near ready for vocabulary lessons. You're still failing reading comprehension.


mantis
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 7:49 pm

Too bad you don't provide any facts, only lies and misinformation.


stephenperry
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 7:51 pm

Seriously, haven't you figured out that we don't fall for nonsensical bullshit?

You should peddle your lies at FreeRepublic, RedState, or TownHall.

Liberals have this pesky habit of actually reading stuff before spouting off about it. Kinda fucks up your whole program of disinformation.


stephenperry
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 7:52 pm

Nothing about the counseling is mandatory. No elderly person is being forced to do ANYTHING except wade and sift through your disinformation.

Get over yourself.


stephenperry
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 7:53 pm

Oh for fuck's sake.

I will bet my California Bar card that you're not a lawyer.

And if you are a professor you must have gotten an online degree.


stephenperry
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 8:07 pm

A Republican minority passed civil rights laws? WTF?

Where do you get your understanding of government? The backs of sugar packets?

The Civil Rights Act was created by LBJ and passed by a Democratic MAJORITY. The miniority party does not pass legislation. At best they block it. As Republicans tried to do to LBJ. Racist Democrats switched parties and became Republican when the legislation succeeded, DESPITE Republican efforts.

Does the name George Wallace mean anything to you? Picture a Republican standing in a school entrance so 9 blacks couldn't get in.

Republicans care only about other people's FETUSES. They don't give a shit about other people's children. Otherwise they would fund public education and allow that education to teach children EVOLUTION, not creationism, and sexual education, not “abstinence prevents pregnancy.”

If Republicans cared about children they would fund school lunches, not de-regulate the meat industry so that our children get fed refuse from slaughterhouses.

Republicans don't care about older people. They care about older people's votes. Otherwise they wouldn't lie to older people about health care. Republicans, and each of them, are doing that right now. And it's not new. In 1965, Reagan called Medicare “socialized medicine” and then lied about THAT in 1980 when the country got a taste of it and decided they loved it.

Republicans ON THE SUPREME COURT didn't object to the idea that blacks were property. They defended the idea. In writing.

I have news for you. Chief Justice Earl Warren was a Democrat. Governor George Wallace was a Republican. So was his enforcer with a billy club, Bull Connor.

You're ridiculously disingenuous.


stephenperry
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 8:09 pm

I don't think you're wrong. You're wrong.

I think water is wet. It also happens to be wet. Whether I think so is irrelevant.

We could disagree on the means if you would stop being disingenuous. Until then we cannot disagree on anything, because you cannot have a discussion with a liar.


stephenperry
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 8:12 pm

Does jimhenderson think we're all Muppets? Does he not understand that we have access to the internet, let alone real life experience with the government and with health care?

I cannot otherwise reconcile why he spends his time trying to piss on our legs and tell us it's raining.


David
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 8:36 pm

Good luck with getting “Professor Constitutional Law Expert Law Reader” jimhenderson to be honest. The best he's likely to do is disingenuous.

But I think he's busy trying to put his head back together after it exploded by being confronted with actual facts that contradict his twisted DoucheBeKKK reality. But I'm totally just speculating there.


David
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 10:32 pm

In all fairness to jimhenderson, Orly Taitz is (for now) a lawyer. And a Dentist. And a Real Estate agent. And Bat-Shit Crazy like there's no tomorrow. And, apparently, marginally dumber than jimhenderson.

I believe he's actually the Video Professor, you know, the one from late-night infomercials that'll teach you how to turn on your PC all by yourself in 10 easy steps for $19,95? Yeah, THAT professor.


Anonymous
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 4:18 am

Unbelievable.

George Wallace was not a Republican. He was a Democrat. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/sept98/wallace.htm.

Earl Warren was serving as the Republican Governor of California when tapped for the Supreme Court. http://www.oyez.org/justices/earl_warren. In the interest of full disclosure, he did win, in an earlier term, the primaries of the Republican, the Democratic and the Progressive Parties. But when selected to the Supreme Court he was the Republican Governor.

If you are so wrong about these things no wonder you do not understand the role that a minority party can play. But here’s why the Republican minority is properly credited by history with passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (in addition to their having sponsored failed other legislation resisted by the racists of the Democratic party):

The Senate consisted of 100 members. 63 Democrats, 37 Republicans.

The 1964 Act passed on a vote of 73 for and 27 against. Of that vote against, 21 Democrats voted against and 6 Republicans voted against. What this means is that the 73 votes FOR PASSAGE in the Senate consisted of the votes of 41 Democrats and 20 Republicans. 41 Democrats is a number insufficient to pass legislation. Since 41 Democrats could not pass the bill, and since all other Democrats voted against the bill, it took the votes of 20 Republican Senators to pass the bill.

You can’t change history.

You can remain ignorant of it. Or you can keep lying about it. but you cannot change it.


Girl vs. Robot » Archive » #076 Cognitive Dissonance
Pingback posted August 28, 2009 @ 12:38 am

[...] links: [AUDIO] Michael Steele on NPR- – -Rally ‘Round the “True Constitution”- – -RNC Mail Suggests Republicans Could Be Discriminated Against, Lose Their Health Care [...]


Anonymous
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 4:45 am

My Constitutional Law professor, Larry Simon, clerked for Earl Warren.

Warren was a Democrat. Sure, he was VP nominee of the Republican party. So was Joe Lieberman, if McCain had had his way. Warren won both parties’ nominations, but you can look at the Warren Court’s many LIBERAL rulings and figure out what his politics were. Tell me, do you think David Souter is a Republican?

Same thing with Wallace. As I was explaining, the Democratic party in the South was radically different in 1964 than today. Anyone with half a brain can tell that Wallace would be a Republican today. Wallace ran as a Democrat for President three times, and as an Independent once. He would NEVER have been a Democrat in the post Civil Rights Act era.

And so I do not consider him a Democrat. Otherwise the words Democrat and Republican have no meaning.

Speaking of things that have no meaning, you have less than no idea how legislation works. 41 Democrats voted for the Civil Rights bill. That’s more than twice the number of Republicans. Even if ALL Republicans had voted for it, that would not have been enough, by itself.

But YOU think the Republicans are the ones who passed the bill. Wow.

I don’t think you’re ignorant. Just disingenuous. And RIDICULOUSLY naive about what lies people will believe.

So, spin us some yarns about a Kentucky lawyer arguing before the Supreme Court. I’m sure those lies will go over better than your attempt to tell us that voluntary end-of-life counseling is “mandatory.”


Anonymous
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 4:56 am

You match with Humpty “words mean precisely what I say they mean” Dumpty.

Warren was not a Democrat. When selected to the Supreme Court he was serving as California’s Governor after defeating the Democratic nominee for Governor. You say that means he was a Democrat because your vision of a what democrats were then and are now requires that re-interpretation.

Again. You get your opinion, just like you get your anal sphincter. But you don’t get the facts. Those are public domain.

Democrats failed to pass CRA 1964. they could not pass it on their own. Party discipline, even fierce discipline couldn’t get the job done. IT was only the fierce discipline of the Republicans that delivered the necessary votes.


voxmagi
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 12:02 am

Wow…looks like you've already been stomped into a grape and made to w(h)ine. There is nothing mandatory in this, except that insurers will have to pay out claims for the time doctors spend giving these consultations, and the expectation that these newly covered consultations meet a reasonable level of quality (ie. preventing doctors from charging for hasty and incomplete, poorly detailed sessions).

It is a bogus tempest in a teapot…please take your arsenic-laced teabag out of it. The problem with these claims that you and so many others make…is that other people actually can read….and the ones that can know you're lying…and not very skillfully at that.

Determining the contents of counseling does not make the counseling itself mandatory, and nothing written indicates the outcome of said counseling being chosen by anyone other than the patient or their family. Speaking for those who have actually sat through end of life couseling, it largely consists of emotionally preparing family members for death that is ALREADY beyond prevention, discusses care locations (home, hospice or hospital) and gives consideration to pain management.

Personally, with all due respect, I hope you never find yourself discussing end of life care, because it's damned hard and painful to go through, but if you ever do you'll suddenly understand what it's about, and look back at your partisan rhetoric in shame. If you want a glimpse, call a hospital and contact a hospice service, they will educate you more directly and more impartially than Glenn Bunk or Flush Dimbulb.


daveinboca
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 12:04 am

Actually, since most people over fifty are grown-ups and have given up bed-wetting, they do tend to vote Republican, and the health plan will discriminate against those of advanced age. The Chicago Way will find a method to make legal-euthanasia an extension of its infanticide agenda.

Yeah, give the Illegal Immigrants free medical care—-no, it's not explicitly in the bill, but it will become policy through “health czars” and other oligarchs appointed by Chiquita Obama, if he has the opportunity.


Anonymous
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 5:06 am

You’re welcome to search Lexis or Westlaw. In the case of the Proposition 8 matter, I prepared the brief outline and supervised the work of a younger attorney that drafted the brief we filed, and I edited same for filling.

You’d be surprised what an attorney who is admitted in Kentucky and DC can do.

And, for the uninitiated, attorneys not licensed in a jurisdiction can, by permission, practice before a court. This is known as admission pro hac vice.


Numbers Wonk
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 12:07 am

This is standard MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENT phrasing defining a medical service or procedure based upon best practices as well as a standard of care the health care provider must follow.

What line of work are you in, Jim?


voxmagi
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 12:19 am

Actually, since most people over 50 crap their pants with fear on account of a cowardly soul whenever a non-Republican gets elected, forced euthanasia would be a sweet relief for the rest of us, but since it will never happen we're forced to live with people who believe every scaredycat tall tale that comes down the pipe. PT Barnum eat yer heart out, another one really is born every minute!!

As for illegal aliens getting healthcare…it isn't even up for discussion, and it still amazes me how much hostility GOP twits have towards the only culture on earth that shares the same deeply religious, hardworking, anti abortion, anti gay rights, patriarchal beliefs. Cripes, Mexico should be the GOPs recruitment center, but after bashing them day after day for decades you can't even get votes from the few new citizens that agree with you ideologically. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face!


David
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 12:25 am

Please, genius, point out where in the heath care reform bill there is any discrimination against older people? Unless you're trying to imply that Medicare discriminates against old people, which would be laughable if it wasn't so completely ridiculous and transparent to anyone with a reading comprehension level over the 3rd grade. Legal-euthanasia and infanticide agenda? Seriously? Really, stop watching Glenn BecKKK and That huge fat whale Oxy-addict and try reality for a few minutes.

Regarding your second 'point': Not only is free care for illegal immigrants not explicitly in the bill, a prohibition AGAINST it IS explicitly in the bill, which would make doing it against Federal Law, which would make it impossible for any federal official to over-ride it without approval from Congress.

Your racism (“Chiquita Obama”? Seriously? You even suck at right-wing racist attacks) is showing. Maybe you could see more clearly if you took off the hood?


David
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 12:28 am

I think we have a winner for dipshit fuckwit commenter of the day here in daveinboca … he takes stupidity to new levels and shows whole new dimensions of fuckwittery.

Well done daveinboca!


Anonymous
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 5:29 am

I didn’t indicate that it’s impossible for an out-of-state attorney to write an amicus brief.

Just that it’s impossible to believe that YOU did.

I must remind myself that reading comprehension is not one of your “especialities.”


Anonymous
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 5:34 am

David, do you mind?

We had a nice fantasy conversation going with the Muppet before you had to go dragging facts into it.


daveinboca
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 5:39 am

Ted Kennedy has been working on it since 1969.
Yeah, the year that MADD man drove Mary Jo to her watery doom, you retarded p.o.s. The only thing Teddy’s been working on since ’69 is getting his short white whatever lubed, and you could use some action besides letting your school teachers sell you a load of BS. Which you swallowed and begged for more, it appears. What’d your parents do at Los Alamos, clean up the loos?

Libtards lie and then they lose. Enjoy your session in the sun and then crawl under a rock again.


Anonymous
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 6:52 am

Licensed in two jurisdictions. Admitted to practice before the bars of ten federal district or appeals courts. Admitted to practice before the Supreme Court.

That you lack the ingenuity to search a name … on google, on westlaw, on lexis, all that proves is a propensity to being a dullard.


numberswonk
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 2:08 am

I suggest we turn this RNC statement around.

It's obvious that when they become the majority, Republicans HAVE PLANS IN PLACE to discriminate against Democrats' health care coverage.

Do Republicans deny this?


jimhenderson
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 3:36 am

Admitted Bar of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Admitted Bar of the District of Columbia.
Admitted Bar of the United States District Courts for the District of Colorado, the District of Columbia, the Southern District of Indiana, the Western District of Kentucky.
Admitted Bar of the United States Courts of Appeal for the First, Second, Fourth, Sixth, Tenth and District of Columbia Circuits.
Admitted Bar of the United States Supreme Court.

Illustrative Cases in Which Represented Parties at the Supreme Court:
Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens
Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School
Jayne Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic.
Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network.
Hill v. Colorado.
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe.
McConnell v. FEC.

Bet your bar card if you want.

In the line of amicus briefs, I count my work on Proposition 8 (prevailing side).


David
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 3:43 am

And yet you're still a lying fuckwit who can't seem to admit as much. You STILL have not provided the SIMPLE answer to the SIMPLE question first posed: Point out, in the language of the legislation that YOU linked to, that which supports your original assertion:

“Mandatory counseling. Mandatory reporting back of results of consultation.

Say what you want. Whine as you will

“Death panels” simply gives truth the not so nice reality planned by the stooge at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.”

It's not there, and all your hand-waving isn't making it magically appear.


jimhenderson
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 4:19 am

Your Majesty.


jimhenderson
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 4:22 am

“Lying fuckwit.”

The whining has all been yours, as evidenced by the quoted language.

Get a dictionary. Oh, and thesaurus too.


David
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 4:25 am

And he still can't answer the question at hand, so he pounces on language.

Well done. We'll take that as “I lied but I'm too chicken to admit it.” Thanks for playing.


jimhenderson
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 4:27 am

Read the article that this thread sprang from. See what pollsters say about the tactic. The tactic is not the particular words used. It is the tactic. Of course, he does offer the example linking private gun ownership with danger to children.

And then, of course, there is the famous Ted Kennedy BS about Robert Bork: “Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.” Fear mongering is an especiality of the house for Democrats just as much for Republicans. Or more so. (Never waste a crisis?).


jimhenderson
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 4:29 am

“Dumbass.”

No wonder you're a Democrat. You lack sufficient intellectual capacity to use your conversational words.


stephenperry
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 4:34 am

Muppet, I cannot believe the depths you will sink to to try to cover your lies.

NO ATTORNEY, much less one who has argued before the SCOTUS, would be as woefully unable to read a simple paragraph as you are.

You are either ignorant of what “mandatory” means or you are disingenuous about it.

You continue to peddle disinformation.

Now you want us to believe that you wrote an amicus brief on behalf of the Mormon Church to keep gays from being able to marry in California, even though you claim to be a Kentucky lawyer?

Wow.

What a load of bullshit.


stephenperry
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 4:35 am

Hey, the video professor has a guarantee. If you're not satisfied he returns your money.

The Muppet does not have a guarantee. And I'm far from satisfied.


David
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 4:36 am

So sayeth the intellectual giant who can't answer a simple question that HE brought up …

No wonder you're a Republican, you can't answer a simple quesiton with an actual fact.


jimhenderson
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 4:37 am

Ohhhhh. Liberals do, do they? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACbwND52rrw. John Conyers is, I suppose, a conservative Republican (like George Wallace, right?)

The f'd up program of disinformation belongs entirely to folks who insist that health care reform must be a complete overhaul, accomplished with 1000 plus page bills. And it must be done in less time than was taken by the Obamas to select their dog, or their DC church.

Democrats (a synonym for liberal) don't read legislation. They haven't read this one.


David
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 4:42 am

Acttually, had you been paying attention, this has been being worked on for a lot longer. Ted Kennedy has been working on it since 1969.

And the 1000 page bill canard? Yeah, look at how it's formatted and that explains a lot of it genius.

And you Republicans had 8 years of control (more actually, since you had control of both houses since midway through Clinton) to do something, and all you could manage was to incompetently drive the entire country into a ditch. Oh, and invade a country for no reason.

Republicans (a synonym for ignorant rednecks, mostly) CAN'T read the legislation.

Still won't answer the question, will you? Nope, didn't think so.


stephenperry
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 4:51 am

Good point about the GOP being inexplicably hostile to Latinos. Having grown up in Albuquerque and then having lived in Los Angeles for college and law school, the thing I most appreciate about Latino culture is its respect for hard work and its love of family.

You'd think the Republicans would be all over that. But then you remember Mark Sanford trying to tell Clinton to resign, decades before he told the world about his Argentinean “love story.”

So they aren't really interested in living up to the lofty ideals they set out for others.

I'm really pleased that the GOP showed its ass so much during the Sotomayor nomination hearings. It just helps drive the point home that the Republican party IS a big tent. And the tent says, a la P.T. Barnum, “This Way to the Great Egress.”


stephenperry
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 4:53 am

Did you get a load of the part where he claimed to have written an amicus brief against gay marriage in California?

Good Christian that he is, I have no doubt that he WISHES he could have written such a brief. It makes a good story to tell at RedState. Not so much here.


stephenperry
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 4:55 am

What kind of professor or attorney writes things like “an especiality of the house?”

Sounds like you got a foreign education. No native English speaker would do such violence to the King's English.

Of course, there is zero chance that you're a professor or an attorney. You're not even a good liar, let alone lawyer.


jimhenderson
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 4:59 am

I have had the discussions. I have watched and listened as a doctor continuously recurred to termination of extraordinary care measures. Knowing that the power of the fed will buck up behind medical bullying, and will command reporting back of outcomes of such counseling is more real to me because I have lived through it during end of life care.


jimhenderson
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 5:01 am

I practice federal civil rights and constitutional law. I have done so for 22 plus years. I teach the law of religious liberties. I have taught First Amendment law. I have taught methods of constitutional litigation. I teach a course in litigation practice.


David
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 5:01 am

We have GOT to quit meeting over wingnuts! :-) Grew up in ABQ huh? Me in Los Alamos. :-) No telling how I didn't come out of that place a wingnut. Good genes I guess.

He's a good little backwoods wingnut. Can't (or won't) answer a simple question but moves the goalposts around and around and around hoping everyone will forget that he made a stupid and baseless statement as “fact” that he cannot back up with any *real* facts.

Goes on and on touting his supposed qualifications, all the while his lack of critical thinking skills, and appalling reading comprehension deficit, reveal that he actually HAS no qualifications. Unless McDonalds is still hiring in this shithole of an economy his party left us with after the pillaging, raping and burning of the past 8 years.


David
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 5:05 am

Please tell us where you teach, so we can avoid all lawyers from there on the off-chance they took a class from you. Clearly English is a second language to you, and critical thinking is entirely absent.

What's a Republican? That's easy, just take a Democrat, and remove all reason, accountability, or morality. (apologies to Jack)


jimhenderson
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 5:08 am

Especiality was in keeping with the inanity of the conversational level in this discussion.


stephenperry
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 5:13 am

Why answer a simple question when you can pose eight disingenuous ones, David?

I still can't figure out why a guy who lies to you about what is written in a bill will try to claim that he is an attorney licensed in a half-dozen jurisdictions, has argued before the SCOTUS, and is a professor.

“Bart, why couldn't you at least forge PLAUSIBLE grades?” –Lisa Simpson


stephenperry
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 5:16 am

The only inane conversation comes from you. None of us is trying to mislead people about what is written in a publicly available document.

Nor are we lying about what we do for a living or taking credit for keeping gays from marrying.

Write for yourself, Muppet.


stephenperry
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 5:18 am

Los Alamos? Hey that's great. A good friend of mine's Dad worked as a scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory. I always liked talking to him, but his work made him a little weird. He started collecting guns. I mean lots of guns.

And you have to picture that this “good friend” of mine was, at the time, a girl in my high school in ABQ, and we wanted to date. It's hard to be relaxed when your date's father wants to have long conversations with you while he's cleaning a semi-automatic rifle.

I decided it would be better if we were “just friends.”


stephenperry
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 5:23 am

You lack the intellectual capacity to understand when you are wrong, or the integrity to fess up.

So are you still telling us that voluntary counseling is mandatory, or did mantis manage to embarrass you into changing the subject?

Care to tell us how you wiped out smallpox in Antarctica during a summer abroad as a Boy Scout?


stephenperry
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 5:25 am

Hey at least Palin's incoherence makes for good Beat Poetry. It's almost enough to make me forgive Captain Kirk for the Priceline commercials.

Well, his success at bedding green women on Star Trek makes me overlook the Priceline thing.

But the point is, Palin is at least good for comedic relief or a launch point for stoned deep thinking.


stephenperry
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 5:27 am

uh, David, this is kinda awkward…

It looks like you're writing exactly what I would write.

But don't expect me to split my paid Obot blogger check with you. I don't believe in redistributing my own income. Just other people's.


daveinboca
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 5:28 am

The only linens you can talk about is those sheets of yours I got all wet. You retired that libtard eff-wit cup a long time ago, Davidito. And it looks like the drone hive is swarming with the stingless buzzbombers tonight!

Enjoy your two-year run at fucking up again, just like '92-'94! Float like butterflies, sting like…..butterflies!!!


stephenperry
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 5:31 am

Oh man that's one of my favorite Nicholson movie quotes!

As Good As It Gets isn't a great movie, but that line is great.

“How do you write women so well?”

“I think of a man, and then I take away reason and accountability.”


jjfitz
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 5:53 am

I like some of your thoughts, but my dad is a very spry mid-80's WW2 vet. He voted democrat for long time then Clinton freaked him out, then voted Republican to find Bush freaked him out even bigger, now he's just watching Obama. He liked the stimulus because he thought FDR helped his generation, but thought Obama was too proud and premature vs the Cambridge Police… even if he was right in the end, he didnt think he had the right info at the time to judge. For me, its good to see the semi-black zen master get jaded from time to time, it's helpful to me to know we all have issues on which we lose our cool, even if you are POTUS.


jjfitz
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 5:55 am

What I'm trying to say is sometimes Obama is too cool for his own good, such an issue such as the Cambridge one should not be the first time ppl see the underlying humanity stressed.


jjfitz
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 6:07 am

StephenPerry is a my hero and former fellow of the paid blogger brotherhood of the Obama Regime. I was once a paid blogger, but was fired for things like 'lunch' and 'sleep'. And having a horible contracting job that is 56 hours on and 128hours off, or whatever the hell the fake emergency I didnt create now is. Anyone need a steady software engineer? I hate contracting.


voxmagi
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 6:09 am

Well, it's hard to say if you're just (A)lying like a cheap rug to cover your badly exposed ass, or (B)genuinely insane/stupid enough to have had these experiences and learned nothing from them.

Since this is the internet, and you've already made some contradictory claims and displayed an inability to comprehend comparatively easy language, I'm gonna bet on A.

Reporting outcomes and tracking the degree/comprehensiveness of counseling in no way implies any of the crazed lunacy that you seem to ascribe to that passage from the bill. Even the Republican who wrote in that part was point blank interested in guaranteeing that end of life counseling was included in 'covered' costs, and that the quality of that counseling met a minimum standard. This isn't the evil perils of socialism, its holding people to accountable and transparent standards of conduct. If you're afraid of that, AND a doctor, I pity the poor bastards who are stuck with you for care.


jjfitz
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 6:10 am

Hi sir, haven't met you. I'm Joe. Was that mostly English?


jjfitz
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 6:12 am

I'm not trying to discourage! You stick with that English kiddo, you'll get it!


jjfitz
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 6:15 am

Some of us here have been debating a long time. You show up after Ted died to bluster. If you showed up another time, you might even seem sincere; you are a jerk.

I am from Massachusetts, and Ted was the best senator ever, we had the best senator ever. And nothing you can say can change it.


voxmagi
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 6:17 am

Im with your dad all the way then…I've watched both parties freak me out and dissappoint me badly for decades…my trust for anyone party or person is minimal. I can't even say I support Obama, but I CAN say I hate the pathetic idiots that pass off corporate slogans fed to them by talking heads as if they're knowledge and foster an environment of fear and panic. The one and possibly only thing that defines Obama as 'good' is the fact that his opponents and critics are so spectacularly ignorant and hateful that ANYONE would look good compared to them.


voxmagi
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 6:30 am

See? You get it! The irony of it all just kills me. The GOP has a ready made army of social conservatives whose presence helps to lower average wages and increase businesses buying power for labor, and instead of taking advantage of both at once, they cater to rifle toting hicks that spew racial epithets. It's like they want to become a permanent minority and politically irrelevant.

Oddly, I like OLD conservative values, before the neo cons came to town. Less religious bullshit, less time wasting over minor social issues, just hawkish on defense and all about getting business done (within the boundaries of the law).

An infusion of Hispanic culture won't ruin this country, it might very well help to fuel a new period of growth, but in the last 30 years I havent seen one ideal of classical conservatism that hasnt been turned on its head or dumped by the side of the road. I've seen only naked hatred, spectacular greed, overwhelming hypocrisy and conduct so shameful that even Democrats blush and back away.

For the record…I voted for Obama and mostly Democrats last year, not because of party affiliation or personal liking for them, but just to uniformly punish the idiots that pass themselves off as Republicans now. I'll probably vote conservative again someday…but first I have to find one! The GOP fired all the real ones years ago, and what we're left with is a pack of low watt bulbs who can't keep their Jesus in their pants where it belongs.


jimhenderson
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 6:41 am

Yes yes. I understand. You feel the trunk. So it's a snake. You feel the leg, so it's a tree. You feel the side, so it's a wall. In your world, nothing comes together to make an elephant. Not a doctor. A son. A son whose mother asked his assistance when doctors would not refrain from pushing conversations about EOL decisions for her husband, his dad.

So, go ahead and prove yourself the ass wipe that you have the stench of being.

Reporting outcomes of counseling back to Washington serves what purpose? Balancing the cost of this grab on 500 billion dollar cost reduction in Medicare is accomplished how?

That you fail to comprehend your own proboscis does not mean that there is no stink.


jimhenderson
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 6:45 am

That you are too lazy to google, westlaw, or lexis a name is your fault not mine.

Is Jim Henderson, as he claims, a member of the Kentucky or DC bars? Easy enough to find out.

Remember, with respect to the issue of proposition 8, it was the people of the state that enacted proposition 8 and restored the 150 plus year legal principle of California that marriage is a legal arrangement limited to one man and one woman. All I did in that case is what I have already said I did: work on an amicus supporting the proposition. when you set up the strawman of me claiming to defeat same sex marriage and then knock it down with derision, you simply show laxity of intellect and dishonesty in summarizing the words of others.


jimhenderson
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 6:46 am

oh, jeepers. you are going to challenge the ethics of others?

when you're rolling around in the dumpster, do you complain about the sour smell of others?


jjfitz
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 6:55 am

While I think its a great idea, what the liberals lack is an echo chamber that would propagate any single message across the land, Republicans merely need a catchy slogan oft repeated; Democrats have to be right. Sobeit! So my hope is that in being right, they are watching for the right opportunities, but I'm not sure they are. The Democrats are quite factious, and they need to know a given message is stronger than an insurance lobby…. and if I knew how to do that, I'd be way smarter than Obama. But they're pumping out the fake town hall plants in droves, or should I say Roves?

The easiest method is to keep writing or calling your senators and congressmen, there are way more of us than them, as evidenced by the fact that we need waaaay less money than them to be elected… why?.

Fear monger this: If you want to see the grandest bureaucracy ever, the one that stands between an honest businessman and a valid insurance claim, this is the grandest bureaucracy ever. And this bureaucracy makes the one they complain about a trifle, just look at the money behind the insurance lobby message. Billions of dollars to say they work for us? Why on earth should we believe them and why on Earth can't the Democrats generate an ounce of doubt t here?

Has anyone here not made a claim against an insurance company? Where you greeted with smiles and handshakes?


voxmagi
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 6:59 am

Falling back on Eastern proverbs?…and still so insecure about death as the inevitable cost of living? Cling all you want, it will come anyway.

So far, all along these threads, you've managed to repeat without evidence the same allegations spread by insurance-lobbied political hacks, retreated again and again to different and ever finer points and split hairs, boasted your fictional personal accomplishments and continued to insist that 'mandatory' is part of a document that never uses or implies the word in any way shape or form.

No matter how much you bend or twist, the previous assertions you've made come back to haunt you. They, and likely you, are spun from total falsehood. Stick to twittering with Sarah Palin. It's harmless fun and doesn't involve trying to pass off bunk and conjecture as proven fact in front of any thinking audience. (and more importantly, with Sarah, any flapjawed gobbledygook will be accepted as holy writ, unlike here…where you might be expected to back it up with some hard evidence.)


jjfitz
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 7:33 am

daveinboca,

How dare you! you piece of dogmess. And what have you done? what legislation have you proposed?

According to your picture you are a cross between Amish and Chewbakka, and with due respect to the former and the latter, neither would know much of real American affairs… just like you!

So just crouch down Torrie asshole and do what the ignoble feudal lords tell you to do, we in Massachusetts have been true patriots a long time… history lesson for you. And we have NEVER suffered neither kings nor fools here for long, unlike bocastan obviously. Another history lesson for you….

Where the fuck where you when Boston was bombarded daily by the crown? So stop assuming that Ted, an anti-Tory, is the same as an anti-patriot like you.. a blustered-up Tory-party fools. TRAITORS of the middle class! Blow hard fool, from wheresoever you are. Get the fuck out of my sight traitor!.

There! I speak as you may understand so that you someday may. A true liberal that can shoot strait and first. I'm sick of you Torry traitors disrespecting us.

My fellow Irishman died and at least let us put him in the ground asshole. You ignorant slutfool.


David
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 12:49 pm

Ok, genius, my son is ACTUALLY Mentally Retarded, and is a better person that you could ever hope to be. He shits better people than you. So your use of “retarded” as an insult? Juvenile and ridiculous. Try talking about something you know something about. Which, apparently, is nothing.

So, if “libtards lie and they lose” then how come the Republicans took a HISTORIC beating in November?

And just for the record, we have more advanced degrees in the family that you attended grades.

Run along now, there are adults talking.


jjfitz
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 9:43 am

Well I agree with you on slogans supplanting common thought and folk such as Dad breaking these things down, It always looked so easy to me to divide a people and make them fear that the people from the north/south/west hate their grandkids and all, because THEY sound funny.

But in the whole of things- what message will the whole of the people believe over time? (I have lots of Southern friend from traveling in the military, whom I don't call torys— shhhh, that was merely a post for people whom I don't think read or think very deeply) Just one taunt and 4 hours is locked in a single post, just spin the once-firm vacuum-carpet on which they stand.

Obama had lots of hates to get thru, sure, and masterfully so, and I too wonder if too masterful the aversions of the art, over the substance gained. Then again I'm only 43, and politics is the one art that never got simpler over time… sure, computer engineering did, heady issues of war and peace, life and death are now self-evident, I can even understand the strategic efficacy, albeit not the moral worth of 'global repositioning'. But as far as Presidents go… Obama is as real as it gets.. Howsoevershort it might be, I wish I could report a time better than this one, or one trying harder… alas I cannot. We all wanted more, but they ALL have too many rings to kiss.

Republicans have learned much from Sun Tsu… Attack from where you are weakest, accuse from where you are softest. Never Stop. Democrats think they can play the high game.

One day a Democrat ought to pick up a copy of that ancient book and read it and read it, but hey, I'd be delighted if any of our elected officials read anything proposed today, or for that matter ratified.


lindacastillo
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 12:10 pm

Typical Republican lies and evil tactics. The Republican Party opposes anything that really helps people. Misinformation is their middle name. EVIL-EVIL. Does the FIRST and ABandoned Mrs. McCain have good coverage?


David
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 12:40 pm

That was cute daveinboca, but can you try that again in making sense mode please? Or have they cut your meds to save money down there in the the Boca Bunny Hutch?


David
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 6:35 pm

So let me get this straight: You accuse others of intellectual midgetry when they insult YOU, and then you insult others.

And promote another blatant LIE without providing the repeatedly-asked-for evidence to back up your FIRST lie.

Please, provide the line number in the bill that references this supposed reporting back to washington of outcomes of counseling. You cannot. Because it is not there.

The stink here is you Jimmy. You’ve been asked DOZENS of times to provide a single fact to back up your assertions. So far, you have provided a link to the entire bill, self-promoting of your supposed qualifications and accomplishments, and more ducking and weaving that a one-armed boxer. So far, not a single fact. Not a single attempt to back up your lies.

Asked at every turn, you deflect, ignore, change the subject, or just restate the lie. But you have yet to prove your assertion with a fact.

Again, post the specific section and line numbers in the bill that supposedly require this reporting back to Washington on the results of counseling.

If you cannot, or will not, then STFU.


David
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 6:35 pm

So let me get this straight: You accuse others of intellectual midgetry when they insult YOU, and then you insult others.

And promote another blatant LIE without providing the repeatedly-asked-for evidence to back up your FIRST lie.

Please, provide the line number in the bill that references this supposed reporting back to washington of outcomes of counseling. You cannot. Because it is not there.

The stink here is you Jimmy. You’ve been asked DOZENS of times to provide a single fact to back up your assertions. So far, you have provided a link to the entire bill, self-promoting of your supposed qualifications and accomplishments, and more ducking and weaving that a one-armed boxer. So far, not a single fact. Not a single attempt to back up your lies.

Asked at every turn, you deflect, ignore, change the subject, or just restate the lie. But you have yet to prove your assertion with a fact.

Again, post the specific section and line numbers in the bill that supposedly require this reporting back to Washington on the results of counseling.

If you cannot, or will not, then STFU.


Anonymous
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 6:59 pm

David,

it passes strange that you want to pick on daveinboca for the name calling. There has been a sewer drain load of name calling on here in the last 24 hours. Ultimately, I gave in and called someone on here an asswipe. But not until the moronic lack of intellect of mantis, stephenperry and others became just more taxing than i cared to entertain.


Anonymous
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 7:22 pm

You would have Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, perform at least two distinct duties. First, you would have it endow Congress with a power to law and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises. With this obvious construction, I entirely agree. Second, you would have that same section endow Congress with the power to legislate for the general welfare of the United States. With that construction I entirely disagree.

This provision does one thing: empowers Congress to gather money for the payment of obligations. Some obligations were already in existence. Other obligations were predictably coming. But the question is which obligations had Congress the power to undertake.

If your reading were correct, then Article I, Section 8, Clauses 11 and 12 would be surplussage.

Clause 1 authorizes Congress to raise funds. It does not authorize Congress to create any plan for the exercise of federal power other than those expressly granted to the general government by the States, which ceded to Congress only limited power.


Anonymous
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 7:22 pm

You would have Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, perform at least two distinct duties. First, you would have it endow Congress with a power to law and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises. With this obvious construction, I entirely agree. Second, you would have that same section endow Congress with the power to legislate for the general welfare of the United States. With that construction I entirely disagree.

This provision does one thing: empowers Congress to gather money for the payment of obligations. Some obligations were already in existence. Other obligations were predictably coming. But the question is which obligations had Congress the power to undertake.

If your reading were correct, then Article I, Section 8, Clauses 11 and 12 would be surplussage.

Clause 1 authorizes Congress to raise funds. It does not authorize Congress to create any plan for the exercise of federal power other than those expressly granted to the general government by the States, which ceded to Congress only limited power.


mantis
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 2:36 pm

I'm just walking by your dumpster, garbage man.


Anonymous
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 7:40 pm

Hey I actually used the parable of the 3 blind men and the elephant in a pleading I filed in Santa Clara county to contest a good faith settlement in an environmental contamination case on behalf of my client, one of several dry cleaners who operated at a site that ended up being contaminated with perchloroethelate (perc).

The judge allowed the motion for good faith settlement, which meant that a dry cleaner who colluded with the property owner was allowed to escape for less money than he should have paid, but the judge did laugh at my usage of the parable and said that it was his first time seeing that in a pleading, and it was a nice try.

No one laughed when you used it. It’s because you’re a dumbass who is trying, without success, to insult others to deflect them from noticing that you’re a dumbass.


Anonymous
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 7:40 pm

Hey I actually used the parable of the 3 blind men and the elephant in a pleading I filed in Santa Clara county to contest a good faith settlement in an environmental contamination case on behalf of my client, one of several dry cleaners who operated at a site that ended up being contaminated with perchloroethelate (perc).

The judge allowed the motion for good faith settlement, which meant that a dry cleaner who colluded with the property owner was allowed to escape for less money than he should have paid, but the judge did laugh at my usage of the parable and said that it was his first time seeing that in a pleading, and it was a nice try.

No one laughed when you used it. It’s because you’re a dumbass who is trying, without success, to insult others to deflect them from noticing that you’re a dumbass.


Anonymous
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 7:57 pm

I like the line about the one-armed boxer. Is it a David original? I want to know who to attribute when I use it.


Anonymous
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 7:57 pm

I like the line about the one-armed boxer. Is it a David original? I want to know who to attribute when I use it.


jimhenderson
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 6:52 pm

You are either ignorant or deceptive.

Seminar callers to Limbaugh, etc. put the lie to your claim that libs have no echo chambers.

Talking points emailed out daily by moveon.org prove the same.

slick sophisticated messagery is the name of the game for politicos on both side of the aisle.


jimhenderson
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 6:54 pm

Please, you are no more an attorney, than I am an Argentinian.


Twitter Trackbacks for The Washington Independent » RNC Mail Suggests Republicans Could Be Discriminated Against, Lose Their Health [washingtonindependent.com] on Topsy.com
Pingback posted August 28, 2009 @ 8:07 pm

[...] The Washington Independent » RNC Mail Suggests Republicans Could Be Discriminated Against, Lose The… washingtonindependent.com/56820/rnc-mail-suggests-republicans-could-be-discriminated-against-lose-their-health-care – view page – cached #The Washington Independent RSS Feed The Washington Independent » RNC Mail Suggests Republicans Could Be Discriminated Against, Lose Their Health Care Comments Feed The Washington Independent Biden Time If You’re Old Enough to Be Tortured, You’re Old Enough to Sue for Being Tortured Remember — From the page [...]


stephenperry
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 7:14 pm

jimhenderson the Muppet continues to tell me that I should use Lexis or Westlaw to look up his name and see that he in fact has been at the center of every legal controversy since King Solomon decided whether to split the baby.

I have no doubt that I could find the name “Jim Henderson” attached to legal pleadings.

Just as I have no doubt that the person posting here is not THAT Jim Henderson.

I could just as well tell you that I'm the lead singer of Journey. Go ahead, google “Steve Perry” and see what you find. That IS my name, after all.

Says so right on my birth certificate. Oops, that's for another thread. :)


stephenperry
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 7:15 pm

Hey jj! WB.

What took you so long to get here? Were you out looking for Tuci78, who has been in hiding for a week?


stephenperry
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 7:19 pm

FORMER fellow?

jj, we're still getting paid. We took the money from Cash For Clunkers. Have you ever actually SEEN 4 billion dollars? It's very hard to spend it. It takes up a whole room.

Ever seen “Brewster's Millions?” Richard Pryor flick. He inherits $300 million, but only if he can spend $30 million in 30 days and have nothing to show for it. My Dad loved that movie, but he got in trouble for suggesting that my Mom could have done without any visible effort.

So yeah, anyway, Obama hates living white people but loves dead black people, so he got the idea from Brewster's Millions. We're blowing through stimulus dollars as fast as we can, to try to win a bet we made with Nick Sarkozy that we could spend the stimulus dollars before he could find a teenage woman he's not sexually attracted to.


stephenperry
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 7:24 pm

“You are either ignorant or deceptive.”

Holy cognitive dissonance, Batman!

Do your ears burn when you type about yourself, or is it your fingers?

What the hell do “seminar callers” to Rush Limbaugh have in common with an official RNC statement? What seminar? Who are the callers? What the hell are you writing about?

What talking points emailed daily by Moveon? Any indication that said talking points are FALSE? Any indication that the talking points came from the DNC?

See, Muppet, the problem with telling me that you're a lawyer is that you're a bad liar. Lawyers use reasoning skills. I'm using mine to show that you have none.

And if there's a Jim Henderson who is a lawyer, that person is not you. Just like I'm not the lead singer of Journey even though I have the same name as the guy who is.


stephenperry
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 7:31 pm

That's a good one. I graduated law school in 2000 at USC. I've been a member of the California Bar ever since. You can find me at the calbar.org website under “attorney search.” Don't even need to use Lexis.

I've been posting at this site for a month, exposing the idiocy of birthers. You're the first person stupid enough to tell me I'm not an attorney. Even the birthers understood that I am.

Of course, the difference between me and you is obvious, since I don't make up gibberish or try to lie to people about published draft legislation, like you do.

Last night I quoted you an excerpt from a Bryan Garner advanced legal drafting book I got at one of his seminars (MCLE credit, you wouldn't know what that is, but it stands for mandatory continuing legal education) to prove that “shall” is not mandatory.

Today, what do you want? A primer on civil procedure?

So now you're Argentinean? Say hi to Mark Sanford for me.


stephenperry
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 7:34 pm

No.

You are not a lawyer. There may be, and probably is, a lawyer with the name “Jim Henderson.” It's a very common name.

Prop 8 passed and was challenged in court. Had the court not ruled the way it did, the proposition would have been overturned.

There is no “strawman” here. Care to insert more gibberish? How about something about the “least-cost-avoider” or “res ipsa loquitor” or “presto change-o rearrange-o?”

Ask someone to help you if I'm moving too fast for you.


stephenperry
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 7:43 pm

Muppet, mantis challenged you with three cogent, logical responses to your gibberish.

What are we to make of the fact that you had no substantive response to any of his points?

Aside, of course, from the fact that you're utterly full of shit.


stephenperry
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 7:50 pm

vox,

I can certainly see where you're coming from. I am not a conservative, but in the days before Bush, I considered myself a social liberal and fiscal conservative.

Now that Bush has mangled what that means, I don't want anything to do with the word “conservative.”

But I do respect and hold to values that conservatives SAY they hold. I like the idea of staying out of your neighbors' business; of small, limited government where possible; of a foreign policy that is cautious and not over-extended; and of a strong national defense.

Of course, modern conservatism is none of these things.

An influx of Hispanic culture will be GREAT for this tossed salad experiment we call America. In fact, the heat from their cuisine might just turn us into the “melting pot” we claim to be.

I can understand a protest vote against the GOP. In fact, I'm sure that is what took place in a lot of voting booths in the Mountain West and the Northeast. By 2012, I'm sure Obama will have accomplished enough housecleaning to have earned your vote, and that of millions of other anti-GOP'ers, in his own right.

I enjoy your posts. Please keep 'em coming.


stephenperry
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 7:55 pm

Agreed. I was worried that now that the birther thing has died a noisy death (the body is still twitching, but it's not getting up off the operating table), I would have no comic relief until the networks stop showing summer re-runs.

But then along came health care and a bunch of people who want me to believe that the government is proposing a trillion dollar plan to kill Grandma.

All I need is a Jamba Juice and something to rest my feet on, and I'm set! Non-stop comedy, streamed live and for free, right onto my computer. Well, I have to pay AT&T for the internet access, but still, the comedy itself is free.


David
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 9:14 pm

That would be the one he was fooling around with while she was married to his friend and classmate, right? The one who waited for him while he was a POW and whom he then ran around on, and ultimately dumped for the rich current Mrs. McCain? That one?

And he represented the party of Family Values? Like his buddy the C-Streeter Sen. Ensign who had mommy and daddy pay off his mistress and her family? Or the other C-Streeter Mark Sanford who Ran off to nail some Argentinian Tail (or was that Hike the Appalachian Trail?)? Yeah, those Republicans sure have “Family Values” down to an art!


daveinboca
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 9:57 pm

I'm from MA myself, and TK was the worst Senator in the history of the state, wtih the exception of course, of John Kerry.


daveinboca
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 10:00 pm

Your racism (“Chiquita Obama”? Seriously? You even suck at right-wing racist attacks) is showing. Of course, Chiquita doesn't have racial connotations, but your room temp IQ doesn't understand that. It refers to Latino machismo gone terribly wrong, another thought [you seem to have problems with thinking] that went way over your witless head.


daveinboca
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 10:03 pm

I noticed you and Davidito have trouble with dependent clauses, and it seems you're both effectively ESL types, either from defective frontal lobes or outright inability to understand the USA. What is your language of origin, besides gibberish?


daveinboca
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 10:10 pm

The Democrats are quite factious If you were more intelligent, you'd know that the real word is “factitious” to describe Democrats, who indeed are “factious” or as a non-software engr would put it, get into factional disputes. Your English is stilted and moronic, much like your factitious comments.


David
Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 3:37 am

Of course not Slippery Jimmy. It’s only moronic to you when someone ELSE does it.

All you have to do is answer the simple question you started this whole thing with. Post your evidence to prove your point.

But you can’t because you KNOW it’s not there. And you’re to small to man up and admit you’ve been lying.

Pretty funny to see you jumping to the defense of daveinboca who has the intellect of a houseplant and the vocabulary of a chimp, but I guess you wingnuts have to stick together these days, there being so few of you left and all.


David
Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 4:07 am

Ok, interesting in a “What the FUCK?” kind of way … but you still haven’t backed up your assertions that MANDATORY counseling and MANDATORY reporting back to the Federal Government are in the bill.

So, until you can prove those simple facts which you stated so many days ago, pretty much anything else you say is just blathering on to avoid backing up your (baseless) assertions.


voxmagi
Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 3:24 am

It seems we see relatively eye to eye then. I tend to lean towards social liberalism when it applies to questions of personal privacy, basic civil rights, and the retention of personal freedoms (always using the old Lincoln maxim “my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins” as a guideline.) Then I veer sharply into hawkishness when it comes to support for a strong and flexible military and intelligence apparatus (always including the expectation that all persons are always accountable for their actions…no exceptions) and fiscal moderacy.

It stings that the word 'conservative' has evaporated into a fog of neo con double talk while the ideals are lost in limbo. The Bush years pimped 0-accountability, 0-transparency, 0-fiscal sanity, and 0-respect for individual rights. Not to mention the blatant data manipulation, naked lies, internal staff purges, shredded evidence, secret prisons, torture by proxy corporate agents instead of professional interrogators, betrayal of a CIA agent (an act of treason that should involve a real tribunal and the death sentence for Cheney, Rove, Libby and anyone else involved. Unveiling a spy…in wartime…for a petty political grudge???? And conservatives(?) supporting this??) It was 8 years of partisan neo con insanity…

…and because of it, the word Republican has become a synonym for hypocritical fanatic idiot. I told my chums that McCain lost the election when he lobbied and pandered the ultra right and picked Palin, thereby chasing away every centrist/moderate left in the country directly into waiting arms of the Obama camp.

I may not offer unilateral support to Obama or to the DNC, and I have endless criticisms about the weak stances and complacency they've shown despite having the numbers to make a difference, but by God!! I will vote for them by default until hell freezes over or until the GOP starts cleaning itself off from 30 years of Reagan-spindoctored hyper-capitalist neo-con evangelical-snakehandling BS.


David
Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 3:27 am

Still won't answer the question, huh slippery jimmy? STILL won't answer the simple, basic question which, for a self-professed “lawyer” and “professor” should be so easy. Just cite the line numbers of the bill which back up your assertion.

But you can't can you? Nope. You can't because it's not there. And you're not even man enough to ADMIT to what you're doing.


stephenperry
Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 6:45 am

Well the rich current Mrs. McCain is a USC Trojan. So she gets one point. No points for marrying beneath herself though.


stephenperry
Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 6:52 am

Oh dear. Factitious means “contrived,”
“produced by humans as opposed to nature,” or
“produced by special effort.”

When you finish pretending that you understand words, please explain why you pretend not to notice the area rug that is slowly but surely covering your face in your avatar.


stephenperry
Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 6:53 am

Whoa whoa whoa. No grammar snarking allowed from a man who tries to correct others' English usage by randomly picking words that are phonetically somewhat similar.

Mr. Factitious, I'm not being the slightest bit facetious when I tell you that you're full of feces.


stephenperry
Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 7:05 am

We do see eye-to-eye. I agree with each of the ideas expressed in your four paragraph post.

I cannot believe how blithely people treated that Valerie Plame – Joseph Wilson thing. And now Cheney is publicly airing his anger at Bush for not pardoning Libby! I cannot believe that Cheney hasn't had a heart attack by now. All his blood must be in his balls. Where does that guy's ego end? He outed a covert spy in wartime and wants his fall guy pardoned!

And THAT is the only thing he decided to go public with, after 8 years of Bush Administration atrocities? How about giving us the goods on the botched Katrina response? Abu Grahib? Operation Anaconda in Tora Bora? Greeted as liberators? Enron? AIG? 40 meetings with oil & gas execs, one meeting with green energy people? No, we have to hear about his paternal or fraternal love for Scooter.

Yikes.

And I'm not an Obamaphile by any stretch. I voted for Hillary. I still think her skin is thicker, but she didn't run a very good campaign. I support Obama's health care plan, but still don't think Obama is God's gift or anything. I just don't have weird issues that make me unable to get behind a team effort. America is all one team now, and the Democrats were one team as soon as we finally picked a candidate.

I am a Democrat but not a blind one. I too see complacency and weak-kneed stances on the left. If the Republicans had 60 Senators and a 40 vote majority, then no white people would have to pay taxes, no women would be allowed to work, all immigrants would have to wear ankle bracelets like prisoners, all school children would be taught that Jesus cured people who were sickened by homosexuality, and all airports would be named after Ronald Reagan.

Anyway, I like the way you express your thoughts, and I agree with the overwhelming majority of those thoughts. Eye-to-eye indeed.


jimhenderson
Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 11:29 am

What the hell is an “official RNC statement”? If you mean a publication approved by the RNC, I suppose it is. I didn't receive one, which I suppose tells you were I stand with them. But don't puff it into more than it is: it is not the RNC Platform. It is not a press release providing a “statement” on some issue of the day.

As for seminar callers and moveon.org talking points, those are simply evidence that a lot of organizations seek to maximize their effectiveness by putting materials in their supporters hands and asking them to echo chamber. Remember my response was to the nonsensical claim that libs don't have one.

Proof of deceptive practices by the Democrat leadership is in their early going claims that health care reform opposition activities (and tea parties before them) were astroturf, rather than grass roots activism. (Despite craigslist advertisements seeking paid astroturf activists.)

More proof of deceptive practices: Obama's claim — now discredited — that AARP supports the democrats proposed reform plan (as contrasted with support for reform at the general level).


jimhenderson
Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 11:41 am

Read the bottom of pg. 431 and the top of pg.432 through to line 19).

The portion to do with physicians and quality reporting. The portion directing the Secretary to prepare standards for use by professionals in submitting data to the Secretary.


lindacastillo
Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 12:04 pm

Thats the one.


David
Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 1:49 pm

Well folks, there you have it. He really IS as stupid as he has sounded this whole times. I'm sure there must be an opening in Sarah Palin's “Department of Law” where you can work, since they are as unconcerned with actual facts as you seem to be.

Those lines you (barely) cite have to do entirely with reporting QUALITY measures. Not the RESULTS of COUNSELING. Now, I am going to make a wild guess that even you are not so brain-damaged as to object to the Federal Government, who would be paying for this program, wanting to be able to somehow measure the QUALITY of if? Or are we having a reading comprehension problem again? I'd contact your representative and ask that treatment for reading comprehension deficiencies be included in the bill. I'll support you on that one.

Since you're to chicken to quote the exact words of the bill (since you know, don't you that it doesn't support your assertion), I will:
•HR 3200 IH
16 (b) EXPANSIONOFPHYSICIANQUALITYREPORTING
INITIATIVEFORENDOFLIFECARE.—
17 (1) PHYSICIAN’S QUALITY REPORTING INITIA-
18 TIVE.—Section 1848(k)(2) of the Social Security Act
19 (42 U.S.C. 1395w–4(k)(2)) is amended by adding at
20 the end the following new paragraphs:
21 ‘‘(3) PHYSICIAN’SQUALITYREPORTINGINITIA-
22 TIVE.—
23 ‘‘(A) INGENERAL.—For purposes of re-
24 porting data on quality measures for covered
25 VerDate Nov 24 2008 00:08 Jul 15, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00431 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:BILLSH3200.IH H3200
432
professional services furnished during 2011 and
1 any subsequent year, to the extent that meas-
2 ures are available, the Secretary shall include
3 quality measures on end of life care and ad-
4 vanced care planning that have been adopted or
5 endorsed by a consensus-based organization, if
6 appropriate. Such measures shall measure both
7 the creation of and adherence to orders for life-
8 sustaining treatment.
9 ‘‘(B) PROPOSEDSETOFMEASURES.—The
10 Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register
11 proposed quality measures on end of life care
12 and advanced care planning that the Secretary
13 determines are described in subparagraph (A)
14 and would be appropriate for eligible profes-
15 sionals to use to submit data to the Secretary.
16 The Secretary shall provide for a period of pub-
17 lic comment on such set of measures before fi-
18 nalizing such proposed measures.’’. 3
19

So when you get to do all that fancy lawyerin' for Sarah Palin's Department of Law, here's a couple of tips: 1) Make sure that your evidence actually supports your assertion (always a good starting point, really, though not required of Palin's disciples and other residents of wingnuttia) and 2) Providing evidence, when specifically requested, usually means actually citing the evidence. Not just “the top of page 432.” You know, like “Page 432, lines 6 – 9 specifically call out the need for reporting quality measures on any end-of-life counseling measures and does not in any way indicate that the actual results of individual end f life counseling sessions will be reported back to the Federal Government in any way (since that would be a breach of Doctor-Patient Confidentiality laws *anyway*).” Try something like that next time (when you actually have the evidence on your side, that is.

That kind of thing. You know? Simple, really.

Thanks for playing. Had you actually won anything, you'd still not receive a prize, but you could at least keep your dignity. As it stands .. well, sorry about that. If you had any dignity or decency when you got here, please be sure to leave it at the door on your way out.


Anonymous
Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 11:59 pm

Yes, we know that you lie about who you are.

The question under discussion was instead why you lie about what is written in a publicly-available bill.


David
Comment posted August 30, 2009 @ 12:58 am

That line is mine, as far as I know. Feel free to use it. Not you wingnut buffoons, but stephenperry for sure, since I used to like Journey.


jimhenderson
Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 9:49 pm

Well, Dense old Davey,

here's how quality and reporting works. The Secretary sets standards for services. The providers provide services and report back the services provided. The Secretary evaluates the service reporting provided to make quality and other determinations.

Hard to follow, I suppose.


jimhenderson
Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 10:04 pm

Perhaps you've never performed services under grant funding structures. Perhaps you've never represented parties who have.

Just precisely how will the Secretary undertake the quality assurances?

Reports on services and outcomes are the means by which the Secretary assures quality of services.


jimhenderson
Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 10:22 pm

Your comment covers several points.

Like California, both Kentucky and the District of Columbia provide searchable pages for their bar members.

Kentucky: http://www.kybar.org/26 enter James Henderson

DC: http://www.dcbar.org/find_a_member/index.cfm? enter James Henderson

When you started practicing law in 2000, I had been practicing for some 13 years. While juvenile argumentation seems the hallmark of this board, I refrain from calling you “Sonny” or “Junior.”

Since you are unlikely to go to either of the websites, and are unlikely to have searched westlaw or lexis, I provide a listing quickly pulled off Lexis of cases in which we have appeared for parties or as amici in the Supreme Court only. I leave out lower federal courts and state courts. I am particularly proud, in the State Court collection, of my work on Ex Parte Tucci, 859 SW2d 1 (1993), a habeas corpus proceeding that resulted in the release of seven imprisoned protesters arrested for praying on a public sidewalk near an abortion business.

United States Supreme Court Briefs:

1. SALAZAR v. BUONO, No. 08-472, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 8, 2009, Amicus Brief, AMICI CURIAE BRIEF OF THE AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE AND FIFTEEN MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS
… COLBY M. MAY, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., WALTER M. WEBER, …

2. PLEASANT GROVE CITY v. SUMMUM, No. 07-665, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 12, 2008, Initial Brief: Appellant-Petitioner, BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS
… COLBY M. MAY, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., WALTER M. WEBER, …

3. PLEASANT GROVE CITY v. SUMMUM, No. 07-665, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, March 7, 2008, Reply Brief: Appellant-Petitioner, REPLY TO BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
… COLBY M. MAY, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., WALTER M. WEBER, …

4. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER, No. 07-290, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, February 11, 2008, Amicus Brief, AMICUS BRIEF OF THE AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT
… COLBY M. MAY, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., JACQUELINE M. SCHAFFER, …

5. PLEASANT GROVE CITY v. SUMMUM, No. 07-665, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, November 20, 2007, Petition for Writ of Certiorari, PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
… COLBY M. MAY, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., WALTER M. WEBER, …

6. FEC v. WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE, Nos. 06-969, 06-970, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, March 23, 2007, Amicus Brief, BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF THE AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE AND OF FOCUS ON THE FAMILY IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEE
… STUART J. ROTH, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., AMERICAN CENTER FOR …

7. MORSE v. FREDERICK, No. 06-278, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, February 20, 2007, Amicus Brief, AMICUS BRIEF OF THE AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT
… STUART J. ROTH, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., WALTER M. WEBER, …

8. HAMDAN v. RUMSFELD, No. 05-184, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, February 23, 2006, BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE & EUROPEAN CENTRE FOR LAW AND JUSTICE SUPPORTING RESPONDENTS
… STUART J. ROTH, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., COLBY M. MAY, …

9. GONZALES v. OREGON, No. 04-623, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, May 9, 2005, AMICUS BRIEF OF AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS, AMICUS BRIEF OF AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS
… COLBY M. MAY, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., WALTER M. WEBER, …

10. HAMDI v. RUMSFELD, No. 03-6696, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, March 24, 2004, BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW & JUSTICE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS, BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW & JUSTICE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS
… COLBY M. MAY, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., JOEL H. THORNTON, …

11. RUMSFELD v. PADILLA, No. 03-1027, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, March 17, 2004, BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW & JUSTICE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS, BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW & JUSTICE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS
… COLBY M. MAY, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., JOEL H. THORNTON, …

12. RASUL v. BUSH, Nos. 03-334, 03-343, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, March 3, 2004, BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW & JUSTICE, EUROPEAN CENTRE FOR LAW & JUSTICE & SLAVIC CENTRE FOR LAW & JUSTICE SUPPORTING RESPONDENTS, BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW & JUSTICE, EUROPEAN CENTRE FOR LAW & JUSTICE & SLAVIC CENTRE FOR LAW & JUSTICE SUPPORTING RESPONDENTS
… COLBY M. MAY, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., JOEL H. THORNTON, …

13. SCOTTSDALE UNIFIED SCH. DIST. NO. 48 v. HILLS, No. 03-693, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, December 18, 2003, BRIEF IN OPPOSITION, BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
… COLBY M. MAY, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., WALTER M. WEBER, …

14. LOCKE v. DAVEY, No. 02-1315, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, September 8, 2003, BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT, BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT
… COLBY M. MAY, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., WALTER M. WEBER, …

15. FEC v. McCONNELL, No. 02-1676 and consolidated cases, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, August 20, 2003, Joint Reply Brief on the Merits of Appellees Emily Echols and Barret Austin O'Brock, et al. (FINAL VERSION), Joint Reply Brief on the Merits of Appellees Emily Echols and Barret Austin O'Brock, et al. (FINAL VERSION)
… SEKULOW, Counsel of Record, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., STUART J. ROTH, …

16. FEC v. McCONNELL, No. 02-1676 and consolidated cases, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, July 8, 2003, Joint Brief on the Merits of Appellees Emily Echols and Barret Austin O'Brock, et al., Urging Affirmance of the Judgment that BCRA Section 318 is Unconstitutional (FINAL VERSION) The minor Appellees, by their next friends, urge this Court to affirm the judgment of the three judge court of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia that Section 318 of BCRA is unconstitutional., Joint Brief on the Merits of Appellees Emily Echols and Barret Austin O'Brock, et al., Urging Affirmance of the Judgment that BCRA Section 318 is Unconstitutional (FINAL VERSION) The minor Appellees, by their next friends, urge this Court to affirm the judgment of the three judge court of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia that Section 318 of BCRA is unconstitutional.
… SEKULOW, Counsel of Record, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., STUART J. ROTH, …

17. FEC v. MCCONNELL, No. 02-1676, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, May 29, 2003, Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Joint Motion to Affirm Summarily
… SEKULOW, Counsel of Record, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., COLBY M. MAY, …

18. LOCKE v. DAVEY, No. 02-1315, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, April 10, 2003, Initial Brief: Appellee-Respondent, BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
… COLBY M. MAY, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., AMERICAN CENTER FOR …

19. GARNER v. TEXAS, No. 02-102, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, February 18, 2003, AMICUS BRIEF OF THE AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT, AMICUS BRIEF OF THE AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT
… COLBY M. MAY, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., JOEL H. THORNTON, …

20. SCHEIDLER v. NOW, INC., Nos. 01-1118, 01-1119, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, October 18, 2002, REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONER OPERATION RESCUE The core issues in this case are: first, whether private parties can obtain equitable relief under civil RICO; and second, whether a nonviolent protest sit-in, conducted without any attempt to obtain property, qualifies as predicate extortion under the Hobbs Act. The Seventh Circuit answered both these questions incorrectly and must be reversed. See OR Br., REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONER OPERATION RESCUE The core issues in this case are: first, whether private parties can obtain equitable relief under civil RICO; and second, whether a nonviolent protest sit-in, conducted without any attempt to obtain property, qualifies as predicate extortion under the Hobbs Act. The Seventh Circuit answered both these questions incorrectly and must be reversed. See OR Br.
… STUART J. ROTH, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., VINCENT P. McCARTHY, …

21. SCHEIDLER v. NOW, INC., Nos. 01-1118, 01-1119, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, July 12, 2002, BRIEF FOR PETITIONER OPERATION RESCUE, BRIEF FOR PETITIONER OPERATION RESCUE
… STUART J. ROTH, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., VINCENT P. McCARTHY, …

22. OPERATION RESCUE v. NOW, No. 01-1119, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, March 18, 2002, Reply Brief: Appellant-Petitioner, REPLY TO BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
… COLBY M. MAY, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., DAVID A. CORTMAN, …

23. SCHEIDLER v. NOW, No. 01-1118, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, February 20, 2002, Initial Brief: Appellee-Respondent, RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
… COLBY M. MAY, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., DAVID A. CORTMAN, …

24. OPERATION RESCUE v. NOW, Nos. 01 1119, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, January 28, 2002, Petition for Writ of Certiorari, PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
… COLBY M. MAY, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., DAVID A. CORTMAN, …

25. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINNESOTA v. KELLY, No. 01-521, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, January 17, 2002, Brief Amicus Curiae of the American Center for Law and Justice Supporting Petitioners, Brief Amicus Curiae of the American Center for Law and Justice Supporting Petitioners
… SEKULOW, Counsel of Record, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., AMERICAN CENTER FOR …

26. ZELMAN v. SIMMONS-HARRIS, Nos. 00-1751, 00-1777, 00-1779, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, November 9, 2001, BRIEF OF THE AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE, INC. AND FOCUS ON THE FAMILY, INC. AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS, BRIEF OF THE AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE, INC. AND FOCUS ON THE FAMILY, INC. AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS
… SEKULOW, Counsel of Record, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., AMERICAN CENTER FOR …

27. ASHCROFT v. ACLU, No. 00-1293, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, July 27, 2001, Brief Amicus Curiae of The American Center for Law and Justice Supporting Petitioners, Brief Amicus Curiae of The American Center for Law and Justice Supporting Petitioners
… SEKULOW Counsel of Record, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., COLBY M. MAY, …

28. ASHCROFT v. FREE SPEECH COALITION, No. 00-795, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, March 7, 2001, Brief Amici Curiae of Hons. Sam Brownback, Robert Aderholt, Richard K. Armey, Bob Barr, Michael Collins, Randy Cunningham, Jeff Flake, Melissa Hart, Duncan L. Hunter, Henry J. Hyde, Ernest Jim Istook, Jr., Walter B. Jones, Jr., Steve Largent, Charles Pickering, Joseph R. Pitts, Bob Riley, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and J. C. Watts Supporting Petitioners, Brief Amici Curiae of Hons. Sam Brownback, Robert Aderholt, Richard K. Armey, Bob Barr, Michael Collins, Randy Cunningham, Jeff Flake, Melissa Hart, Duncan L. Hunter, Henry J. Hyde, Ernest Jim Istook, Jr., Walter B. Jones, Jr., Steve Largent, Charles Pickering, Joseph R. Pitts, Bob Riley, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and J. C. Watts Supporting Petitioners
… STUART J. ROTH, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., DAVID A. CORTMAN, …

29. BUSH v. GORE, No. 00-949, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, December 10, 2000, BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF WILLIAM H. HAYNES, CONNIE MENDEZ, MARNEE BENZ, BERT CARRIER, et al. SUPPORTING PETITIONERS, BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF WILLIAM H. HAYNES, CONNIE MENDEZ, MARNEE BENZ, BERT CARRIER, et al. SUPPORTING PETITIONERS
… COLBY M. MAY, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., DAVID A. CORTMAN, …

30. GOOD NEWS CLUB v. MILFORD CENT. SCH., No. 99-2036, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, November 30, 2000, BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE THE AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW & JUSTICE, FOCUS ON THE FAMILY, AND THE ETHICS & RELIGIOUS LIBERTY COMMISSION OF THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS, BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE THE AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW & JUSTICE, FOCUS ON THE FAMILY, AND THE ETHICS & RELIGIOUS LIBERTY COMMISSION OF THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS
… COLBY M. MAY, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., WALTER M. WEBER, …

31. BUSH v. PALM BEACH COUNTY CANVASSING BD., No. 00-836, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, November 28, 2000, BRIEF AMICI CURIAE SUPPORTING PETITIONER OF WILLIAM H. HAYNES, CONNIE MENDEZ, MARNEE BENZ, BERT CARRIER, et al., BRIEF AMICI CURIAE SUPPORTING PETITIONER OF WILLIAM H. HAYNES, CONNIE MENDEZ, MARNEE BENZ, BERT CARRIER, et al.
… COLBY M. MAY, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., DAVID A. CORTMAN, …

32. SANTA FE INDEP. SCH. DIST. v. DOE, No. 99-62, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, March 28, 2000, SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FOR PETITIONER, SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FOR PETITIONER
… COLBY M. MAY, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., MARK N. TROOBNICK, …

33. SANTA FE INDEP. SCH. DIST. v. DOE, No. 99-62, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, March 8, 2000, REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONER, REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONER
… COLBY M. MAY, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., MARK N. TROOBNICK, …

34. STENBERG v. CARHART, No. 99-830, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, February 28, 2000, BRIEF OF THE AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW & JUSTICE AND THE THOMAS MORE CENTER FOR LAW & JUSTICE AS AMICI SUPPORTING PETITIONERS, BRIEF OF THE AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW & JUSTICE AND THE THOMAS MORE CENTER FOR LAW & JUSTICE AS AMICI SUPPORTING PETITIONERS
… SEKULOW, Counsel of Record, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., WALTER M. WEBER, …

35. HILL v. COLORADO, No. 98-1856, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, December 29, 1999, REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS, REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS
… SEKULOW, Counsel of Record. JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., WALTER M. WEBER, …

36. SANTA FE INDEP. SCH. DIST. v. DOE, No. 99-62, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, December 29, 1999, BRIEF FOR PETITIONER, BRIEF FOR PETITIONER
… COLBY M. MAY, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., MARK N. TROOBNICK, …

37. No. 98-1856, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, November 10, 1999, BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS, BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS
… SEKULOW, Counsel of Record. JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., WALTER M. WEBER, …

38. HILL v. COLORADO, No. 98-1856, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, July 2, 1999, Petition for Writ of Certiorari, REPLY TO BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
… JAY ALAN SEKULOW *, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., WALTER M. WEBER, …

39. HILL v. COLORADO, No. 98-1856, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, May 17, 1999, Petition for Writ of Certiorari, PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
… SEKULOW, Counsel of Record, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., WALTER M. WEBER, …

40. No. 97-0371, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, October Term, 1997, January 9, 1998, BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF THE AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE SUPPORTING PETITIONERS, BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF THE AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE SUPPORTING PETITIONERS
… Colby M. May, James M. Henderson, Sr., The American Center for …

41. CITY OF BOERNE, TEX. v. FLORES, No. 95-2074, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, October Term, 1996, January 8, 1997, BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT, BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT
… SEKULOW, COUNSEL OF RECORD, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., WALTER M. WEBER, …

42. VACCO v. QUILL, Nos. 95-1858 and 96-110, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, October Term, 1996, November 12, 1996, BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF THE AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW & JUSTICE SUPPORTING PETITIONERS IN NOS. 95-1858 AND 96-110, BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF THE AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW & JUSTICE SUPPORTING PETITIONERS IN NOS. 95-1858 AND 96-110
… JAY ALAN SEKULOW *, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., WALTER M. WEBER, THE …

43. SCHENCK v. PRO-CHOICE NETWORK OF WESTERN NEW YORK, No. 95-1065, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, October Term, 1995, August 1, 1996, REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS, REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS
JAY ALAN SEKULOW, * JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., WALTER M. WEBER, …

44. SCHENCK v. PRO-CHOICE NETWORK OF WESTERN NEW YORK, No. 95-1065, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, October Term, 1995, May 17, 1996, BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS, BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS
JAY ALAN SEKULOW, * JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., WALTER M. WEBER, …

45. Nos. 95-124 and 95-227, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, October Term, 1995, January 29, 1996, AMICUS CURIAE OF THE FAMILY LIFE PROJECT OF THE AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE SUPPORTING RESPONDENTS, AMICUS CURIAE OF THE FAMILY LIFE PROJECT OF THE AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE SUPPORTING RESPONDENTS
… JAY ALAN SEKULOW, * JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., COLBY M. MAY, …

46. No. 94-1039, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, October Term, 1994, April 20, 1995, BRIEF OF THE AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW & JUSTICE FAMILY LIFE PROJECT AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS, BRIEF OF THE AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW & JUSTICE FAMILY LIFE PROJECT AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS
… SEKULOW, (COUNSEL OF RECORD), JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., 1000 Thos. Jefferson …

47. No. 93-880, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, October Term, 1993, March 2, 1994, AMICUS BRIEF OF DEFENDANTS OPERATION RESCUE, PATRICK MAHONEY, RANDALL TERRY, AND BRUCE CADLE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS, AMICUS BRIEF OF DEFENDANTS OPERATION RESCUE, PATRICK MAHONEY, RANDALL TERRY, AND BRUCE CADLE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS
… MARK N. TROOBNICK, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., AMERICAN CENTER FOR …

48. No. 91-2024, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, October Term, 1992, February 3, 1993, REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS, REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS
… MARK N. TROOBNICK, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., JORDAN W. LORENCE, …

49. No. 92-94, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, October Term, 1992, November 19, 1992, BRIEF OF DEAF COMMUNITY CENTER, INC. AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS, BRIEF OF DEAF COMMUNITY CENTER, INC. AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS
… SEKULOW, (Counsel of Record), JAMES M. HENDERSON SR., MARK N. TROOBNICK, …

50. No. 91-2024, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, October Term, 1992, November 19, 1992, BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS, BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS
… MARK N. TROOBNICK, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., JORDAN W. LORENCE, …

51. No. 90-985, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, October Term, 1992, September 16, 1992, SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS ON REARGUMENT, SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS ON REARGUMENT
… SEKULOW, (Counsel of Record), JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., DOUGLAS W. DAVIS, …

52. No. 90-985, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, October Term, 1991, October 3, 1991, SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS, SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS
… SEKULOW, (Counsel of Record), JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., DOUGLAS W. DAVIS, …

53. No. 90-985, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, October Term, 1990, June 12, 1991, REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS, REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS
… SEKULOW, (Counsel of Record), JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., DOUGLAS W. DAVIS, …

54. BRAY v. ALEXANDRIA WOMEN'S HEALTH CLINIC, No. 90-985, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, October Term, 1990, April 11, 1991, BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS, BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS
… SEKULOW, (Counsel of Record), JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., DOUGLAS W. DAVIS, …

55. UNITED STATES v. PEARL, No. 88-2031, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, October Term, 1989, February 22, 1990, SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF RESPONDENTS, SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF RESPONDENTS
… ERIC A. DALY, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., 1000 Thomas Jefferson …

56. UNITED STATES v. PEARL, No. 88-2031, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, October Term, 1989, December 20, 1989, BRIEF FOR RESPONDENTS, BRIEF FOR RESPONDENTS
… Sekulow, (Counsel of Record), James M. Henderson, Sr., 1000 Thomas Jefferson …

57. UNITED STATES v. PEARL, No. 88-2031, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, October Term, 1989, November 22, 1989; PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED JUNE 13, 1989; CERTIORARI GRANTED OCTOBER 2, 1989, JOINT APPENDIX, JOINT APPENDIX
… ERIC ALAN DALY, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., 520 Rhodes-Haverty …

58. BOARD OF EDUC. OF THE WESTSIDE COMMUNITY SCHS. v. MERGENS, No. 88-1597, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, October Term, 1988, October 24, 1989, BRIEF FOR RESPONDENTS, BRIEF FOR RESPONDENTS
… ERIC ALAN DALY, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., 1000 Thomas Jefferson …

59. TURNOCK v. RAGSDALE, No. 88-790, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, October Term, 1989, August 31, 1989, BRIEF OF FREE SPEECH ADVOCATES AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS, BRIEF OF FREE SPEECH ADVOCATES AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS
Thomas Patrick Monaghan, * James M. Henderson, Sr., Free Speech Advocates, …

60. UNITED STATES v. PEARL, No. 88-2031, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, October Term, 1988, July 11, 1989, RESPONDENTS' BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, RESPONDENTS' BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
… ERIC ALAN DALY, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., 520 Rhodes-Haverty …

61. WEBSTER v. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVS., No. 88-605, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, October Term, 1988, February 23, 1989, BRIEF OF CHRISTIAN ADVOCATES SERVING EVANGELISM AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS, BRIEF OF CHRISTIAN ADVOCATES SERVING EVANGELISM AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS
… ERIC A. DALY, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., Christian Advocates Serving …

62. FRISBY v. BRAUN, No. 87-168, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, October Term, 1987, March 26, 1988, BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF AMERICAN LIFE LEAGUE, INC., CHRISTIAN ADVOCATES SERVING EVANGELISM, AND FREE SPEECH ADVOCATES IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES, BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF AMERICAN LIFE LEAGUE, INC., CHRISTIAN ADVOCATES SERVING EVANGELISM, AND FREE SPEECH ADVOCATES IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES
THOMAS PATRICK MONAGHAN, JAMES M. HENDERSON, SR., American Life League, …€


stephenperry
Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 10:45 pm

Wow, that's a lot of words. Most of them in some way involve a guy named
James Henderson. He is apparently a lawyer. You went to a lot of trouble
to prove that. Nicely done.

Now, the interesting thing is, are YOU James Henderson? See, that's the
important part.

And then, of course, we'll need to establish that you are THE James
Henderson who did all these things.

But first, let's see that birth certificate, sonny. Long-form. Original.
Doctor's signature. Length. Footprint. You know the drill. No JPEG's
either. “The image of a thing is not the thing itself,” as a crackpot on
this site often wrote.

Oh, and I like the way you included “ex parte Tucci” as one of the matters.
Someone needs to speak up for Tuci78 during his conspicuous absence.


jimhenderson
Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 10:51 pm

Congrats on discovering Bryan Garner. You may be quite surprised to discover that while Bryan is quite noted in the field of legal writing, he does not decide the meaning of statutory terms. He reports the meanings assigned to them in various contexts. He also is an advocate for changes in legal writing. I happen to like some of his proposals (such as the use of reference notes and the elimination of “speaking” footnotes), as well as his proposal to use issue questions.

Bryan's preference to use other terms than “shall” does not mean that legislatures have uniformly, or even widely done so. More importantly, Bryan's preference does not change the thousands of statutes and regulations that already use the term, “shall,” to impose a duty to act.

I provide some selected examples below of legislative language indicating that “shall” imposes a mandatory duty.

Oh, by the way, while you were attending law school, I attended my first Bryan Garner writing seminar. I've taken three courses taught by him over the course of more than a decade. I've also taken more than a dozen other legal writing courses because I write for a living as a lawyer. One thing you'll discover as you spend more time learning to practice law is that Bryan has a great program and method, but it is not the only one, and not everyone shares his approach.

Regarding the use of the term “Shall” and duty to act:

The Texas Government Code:

§ 311.016. “May,” “Shall,” “Must,” etc.

The following constructions apply unless the context in which the word or phrase appears necessarily requires a different construction or unless a different construction is expressly provided by statute:

(1) “May” creates discretionary authority or grants permission or a power.

(2) “Shall” imposes a duty.

Or, as Nevada Revised Statutes states:

NRS 0.025 Use of “may,” “must,” “shall” and “is entitled”; explanation of flush lines.

1. Except as otherwise expressly provided in a particular statute or required by the context:

* * * *

(d) “Shall” imposes a duty to act.

Or, from an Oklahoma Attorney General's Opinion:

¶3 In applying these principles of statutory construction to the above-quoted portions of 63 O.S.1991, § 1-317, we conclude that the primary intent of the Legislature was to impose a “duty” to file a death certificate in a timely manner. That the Legislature intended to impose a mandatory duty is shown by the Legislature's use of the term “shall.” It is well-settled that “[i]n the construction of statutes, `shall' is usually given its common meaning of `must.'” “Shall” is thus usually interpreted as “implying a command” or being mandatory in nature. Sneed v. Sneed, 585 P.2d 1363, 1364 (Okla.1978). Therefore, in using the term “shall” within the body of Section 1-317(a), it is clear that the Legislature intended to ensure that a death certificate would be filed within three (3) days after death. This mandatory duty is imposed upon one of two people, either the funeral director, or if no funeral director is involved, the person acting as funeral director. 1995 Oklahoma Attorney General Opinion 52.


jimhenderson
Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 10:52 pm

So, it takes an idiot to tell an attorney he/she is not an attorney?

Congrats, idiot.


jimhenderson
Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 10:55 pm

You feel free to dish out a civil procedure primer. Given your nonsensical insistence on charging others (me) with misrepresenting themselves as attorneys, I suspect any primer you offer would omit a substantive evaluation of the obligations arising under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.


jimhenderson
Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 11:05 pm

So you are the “birther” of attorneys?

Yes, that James Henderson is me.

Wasn't aware of a Tuci78. Please do note that the case reference is to Tucci, not Tuci.

If you are, in fact, an attorney, you will understand how singular a decision is granting habeas relief against claim that the collateral bar rule should prevent a challenge to an injunction by disobedience of it. It is a feature of Texas law, and of a few other states.


stephenperry
Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 11:05 pm

No. You are making an unsupported leap.

The language of the bill is heading in one direction, and you are going in the other.

This portion of the bill is aimed at having a general notion of two things:

1 – how many people are choosing to create a living will once they have this end-of-life-planning discussion? and,

2 – how many people decide to adhere to the living will, once they've made it?

(“Such measures shall measure both the creation of and adherence to orders for life-sustaining treatment.” p. 432, lns. 6-8)

All this requires is for a physician to tell the government GENERALIZED information about how many patients he or she saw in a month or how many times a person consulting that physician left the consultation having stated that they intended to prepare a living will.

David is right. There is no indication that any information pertaining to a specific individual would be divulged.

Otherwise it would violate the physician-patient privilege, which, if you were really a lawyer named James Henderson instead of just a guy on this comment board posting with that name, you would know is the PATIENT'S privilege to waive, not the physician's.

More to the point, there is nothing in this language whatsoever that MANDATES that physicians comply with the Federal government's data collection effort.

Did you read the words “to the extent that measures are available?” How about the words “would be appropriate for eligible professionals to use to submit data to the Secretary?”

Nothing in there requires any physician to do anything.

If you claim otherwise, as you do, you're just making it up. Reports are the means by which the Secretary is to gather data, but there's not a requirement to report, nor is there a requirement to report specifics about identifiable people.

You can try to argue that because you don't trust the government, they're going to pass a bill that says one thing, and then do another, but then that's just another variant of making things up.

For example, pretending to be a lawyer named James Henderson is still another variant of making things up. You're on a roll!


stephenperry
Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 11:08 pm

I don't care about Texas law. I will if and when I get arrested in Texas.

I'm not a birther of anything. I am an attorney, but we established that a while back.

I wrote “ex parte Tucci” in my post, genius. I don't need to be reminded that it's not spelled the same as Tuci78. But I do like being reminded that you're not nearly as bright as you would have to be if you were really THE James Henderson.


stephenperry
Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 11:25 pm

It's not nonsense. My insistence on telling you that you're lying is merely a function of your insistence on lying about who you are.

Don't worry. No FRCP 11 violation here. I'm not presenting my posts for any improper purpose. Should you feel harassed, annoyed, or otherwise a victim of wrongs that FRCP 11 was written to right, I must remind you that, like the birthers, you have no standing to complain.

You haven't sued me or been sued by me. So spare me the shit you remember from Law & Order.

You misrepresent a totally innocuous provision of legislation that anyone with an internet connection can access. And you have no evidence to support your misrepresentation, the continuance of which is deliberate and thus not an innocent misrepresentation but instead an attempt to deceive.

If I was to issue you a primer on civil procedure, it would have special emphasis on the burden of proof and the need to present admissible evidence to satisfy it.

So you'd need to review those materials more carefully than you would need to look at the representation an ACTUAL attorney makes to the Court by filing a document in light of Rule 11.

You'll never make it out of the first year of law school if you can't learn to apply rules to facts. Issue – Rule – Application – Conclusion. IRAC, try to keep up!

For starters, go hit the books instead of lying to us about who you are.

Or, post your birth certificate here.

“This could all be laid to rest so easily.” – Florida Christian

It's so easy for you to prove who you are. Why not do it? I can only imagine one reason. Because you're not him.


stephenperry
Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 11:30 pm

“Bryan is quite noted in the field of legal writing, he does not decide the meaning of statutory terms. He reports the meanings assigned to them in various contexts.”

Genius, those contexts are, in my post, identified as “courts in virtually every English-speaking jurisdiction.” Garner was looking at reported judicial opinions. Illustrative examples are cited in his footnotes.

So, yes, you are right! Bryan does not decide the meaning of statutory terms. But judges do. And Bryan is reporting on what those judges decided.

So really, you're right about something irrelevant. And I'm right about the big picture.

Which is that you're not James Henderson the attorney. You're, at best, Jimmy the functionally illiterate liar.


stephenperry
Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 11:46 pm

“What the hell is an 'official RNC statement'? If you mean a publication approved by the RNC, I suppose it is.”

Did you just pose your own disingenuous question, and then in the next sentence, answer it?

Wow.

And punctuation goes inside the quotation marks. (not “statement”? but “statement?”) Tell your imaginary secretary to pay attention.

No. Your plucked-from-thin-air “Seminar callers to Limbaugh, etc.” are not “evidence that a lot of organizations seek to maximize their effectiveness by putting materials in their supporters [sic] hands and asking them to echo chamber.”

They are just more irrelevant things you added to the discussion. The RNC issued a statement. What some unofficial person or group does is not the same thing. Not the same ballpark. Not the same sport. Nods to Vincent and Jules from Pulp Fiction.

And you have no proof that this unofficial group or person even did anything. Post the link to the moveon.org press release or statement. Where can we read what Limbaugh's seminar callers said? And what's that got to do with the price of ammo in Appalachia again?

You haven't provided “proof of deceptive practices by the Democratic leadership.” Their early claims that these protests were astroturf is SUPPORTED by your baffling decision to tell us that there were craigslist ads for paid astroturf activists.

Besides, we watch MSNBC, remember? We've seen reporting about this and commentary about it by guests on Countdown, Hardball, Maddow, even David Shuster.

WHAT GALL you must have to post that lie about the AARP. Of course they support Obama's plan. They even called out Michael Steele for lying about what's in it.

Here's what the AARP actually said:

“AARP agrees with Chairman Michael Steele’s goals for reforming our health care system, and we are pleased nothing in the bills that have been proposed would bring about the scenarios the RNC is concerned about. Older Americans should not be unfairly burdened by the costs of fixing our broken health care system. Medicare should not be cut arbitrarily to fund health care reforms that do nothing to help older Americans. And no one—whether a government bureaucrat or a private health insurer—should come between you and your doctor when making important health care decisions.

“That’s why we’re supporting provisions in the health care bills that would improve Medicare benefits, including closing the prescription drug program’s dreaded doughnut hole—a gap in coverage that forces millions of older Americans to pay the full cost of their prescription drugs on top of their monthly premiums. Other smart provisions would add needed preventive benefits to Medicare so older Americans can get the screenings and tests they need without worrying about costly bills. We also support plans to increase pay for doctors with Medicare patients and encourage medical students to go into primary care so that everyone in Medicare can continue to see their own doctor.

“We can pay for these improvements without adding to our deficit by rooting out the waste, fraud and abuse that are driving up older Americans’ Medicare premiums and other health care bills. That means cutting subsidies for private insurers, rewarding hospitals and doctors for providing follow-up care to prevent unnecessary readmissions to the hospital and lowering the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs that are straining the federal budget and our own wallets.

“AARP will not support a health care bill that cuts Medicare benefits or puts bureaucracy between you and your doctor. We’re glad to have Chairman Steele and his colleagues voice their support for older Americans and we look forward to their support of health care legislation that improves the health care system for Americans of all ages.”

http://www.aarp.org/aarp/presscenter/pressrelea…

Wow. You really should reflect on why you feel compelled to tell lies to try to cover the fact that you got caught in previous lies. It doesn't work well.


stephenperry
Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 11:50 pm

No. I didn't tell any attorney that he/she is not an attorney.

I told you that you're a liar. And you are.

There's no associated prize, so congratulations aren't really in order. If I was like you, I could lie and say that they are.


Anonymous
Comment posted August 30, 2009 @ 6:05 am

Stephen,

Perhaps once you get out of junior high, high school and college, and finally get admitted to Uncle Eddie’s Night Law School and Coffee Shop, you will stop depending so heavily on your erroneous misreading of Garner:

From Garner, “Legal Writing in Plain English,” at 105 sec. 35, “Delete every shall: … Often, it’s true, shall is mandatory.” Likewise is Garner, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage (2d ed. 1995), pages 939-942.

Accepting that, as Garner has said, shall is poorly used by attorneys and draftsmen, the word still is capable of proper use (as a mandatory term). See, e.g., http://www.adamsdrafting.com/downloads/nylj-shall-101807.pdf; http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/11/30/law-firm-forbids-shall-question-mark/; http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/06/23/law-firm-forbids-shall-addendum/.

Though your inept approach induces doubts that you have the intellectual rigor or vigor to pursue it, a Garner & shall search reveals both his recognition of correct uses and the observation by others that his hard and fast rule on “shall” goes to far. You could try this one: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=bryan+garner+%26+shall+%26+duty&start=20&sa=N&fp=9b1c6ebfff7f9103.

Good luck.


David
Comment posted August 30, 2009 @ 2:33 am

I give up. You actually are almost too stupid for words.

I actually HAVE performed services under grant funding. Federal Grant funding, no less.

I've even had to report on them. What you are saying is, quite frankly, a complete and utter load of shit.

“Reports on services and outcomes are the means by which the Secretary assures quality of services”

Really. Reports. Used to assure quality of services. No shit. Really? That *is* complex. Good thing you went to the Chuck E. Cheese school of law and pizza and other really hard shit.

You're not worth the time. You are either NOT a lawyer (my guess) or quite possibly the lawyer with the lowest IQ in the entire history of lawyers. Dumb as a bag of hair. And, it would appear, intentionally so.

You couldn't reason your way out of a wet paper bag. You couldn't out-think a ham sandwich, let alone indict one. I'm amazed you can turn your computer on all by yourself.

Now you can properly whine about how I've name-called and been disrespectful and been mean and all that. And how your feelings are all hurt and everything and feel vindicated that the mean liberal wouldn't debate you and instead just insulted you.

But here's the thing, fuckwit. (yeah, I just did it again. And used a dirty word too! Heavens!). YOu are incapable of actually debating a fact, because you wouldn't know a proper fact if it up and bit your tiny little dick off and then spit it down your throat. You've got so little a grasp on actual reality that you have ceased to even NOTICE that you are now unconnected from it.

You're a self-proclaimed birther. No one with an IQ over about 12 believes that load of shit. You're a deather too. Again, something that no one with more than a room-temperature IQ actually believes. I'm willing to bet that you're a tenther too, which, while it leaves you in the good company of a LOT of other fuckwits, does, indeed, win you the trifecta of fuckwittery. It does take a special kind of stupid to believe all that shit at once.

Yeah, I'm being really mean and using dirty words. Deal with it or fuck off. Better yet, just fuck off. You're not worth having an intellectual discussion with because you are completely lacking in intellect and ability. You don't even have the intellectual honesty to admit what you're doing (if you're even smart enough to KNOW what it is you're doing).

So now, feel free to proclaim victory because some mean liberal used dirty words and insulted you. But anyone with more than 3 or 4 brain cells (in the same skull. Figure I better add that caveat) will see clearly what you have been doing, and what you are doing.

Are we clear now? Good. Now, run along.


Anonymous
Comment posted August 30, 2009 @ 9:42 am

Goodness. I hadn’t realized the depth of your stupidity.

Rule 11 does not apply. We are not in court. There is no quiz. I humored you for one round. No more.

I know what Rule 11 requires. That’s why I wrote “Should you feel harassed, annoyed, or otherwise a victim of wrongs that FRCP 11 was written to right…”

See, it’s that “otherwise a victim of wrongs” part. I don’t need to elaborate on those wrongs. The one at issue was whether I was writing for the purpose of harassing or annoying you, and if so, whether that purpose was improper.

You’re the one with the burden of proof. YOU have to do the investigating before filing a complaint. I don’t need to investigate diddly squat. So I don’t feel any stress. Just annoyance. You’re a twit.

I’m not wrong. You’re the dolt trying to misrepresent what is written in a bill that in no way mandates that any physician report any data from which any individual can be identified.

You’re also the one “pretending to be an attorney.” I’m just the attorney pretending to be amused by your idiocy.

You’re giving liars a bad name. Seek help. Or keep it up. There’s no mercy rule here.


Anonymous
Comment posted August 30, 2009 @ 9:46 am

I quoted Garner reporting that shall has eight different senses.

Congratulations on failing reading comprehension, as well as failing to convince us that you’re an attorney.

Your silly attempts go “to” far. Idiot.


jimhenderson
Comment posted August 30, 2009 @ 5:16 am

Hey Davey Wavey

you should learn to distinguish between having your potty mouth incapacity for the language being identified as such, and your use of potty mouth language hurting anyone.

What an oddkin you continue to be. You claim, quite without support, that you are, in fact, a federal grantee and that you have had to prepare grants and report on grants. Then you dispute the point that — if you were a federal grantee — you must needs know to be true.

Grantees propose or promise; then they report on the outcomes. From the process of grant selection, grant supervision, and grant review, governments learn (at least in theory).


jimhenderson
Comment posted August 30, 2009 @ 5:24 am

Nice lie, but bad try:

From AARP's letter to members (appearing in print on September 1, 2009, but available at http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourhealth/policy/arti….

“AARP has been working with Republican and Democratic leaders for years, and we will continue to do so. To be clear: AARP has not endorsed any comprehensive health care reform bill—but we are fighting for a solution that improves health care for our members.”

As I said before, Obama directly lied (White House says “misspoke”) about the AARP endorsement of the Democrats' plan. News coverage has been fairly broad so if you're getting your news from only MSNBC maybe you should broaden your perspective. This link should take you to results of a google news search on the Obama lie: http://news.google.com/news/more?pz=1&ned=us&cf….


jimhenderson
Comment posted August 30, 2009 @ 5:30 am

Sorry. Forgot you are only pretending to be an attorney. Elsewise you would have known that Rule 11 goes beyond improper purpose to the more basic problem from which you suffer: failure to sufficiently investigate facts and/or the law.

Steve, you can bang on the table all you want. Your frustration at being wrong is, I'm sure, stressful. If you could only be right about the facts, or about the law, I'm sure it would soothe you. Perhaps if you had attended a real law school rather than simply sleeping on a grate next to the garbage chute behind one, you'd have clearer sense of the law.


Anonymous
Comment posted August 30, 2009 @ 11:29 am

See, this illuminates your inability to understand that Obama lied, even when his pooper scooper, Gibbs, has to admit it. You didn’t see the lie in Obama because you don’t see your own deception above. When referred to Rule 11, you ignored (or were unaware) of the fundamental premise of the rule — an attorney’s obligation to conduct a sufficient investigation of law and facts so that an ungrounded claim or defense is not asserted.

As for being the one “who has the burden of proof,” actually you are wrong on that. I have the pre-existing legal construct on my side. You appear to be a fan of the entire toilet bowl of reform that is up for grabs. Since you are with the “change is necessary” crowd, you have that burden.


Anonymous
Comment posted August 30, 2009 @ 11:34 am

No, Stevie, you did more than that. You referred to Garner — authoritatively — as disproving that “shall” makes a mandatory duty to act.

Fact is, if you had actually comprehended Garner you would have understood his view that “shall” is often times misused NOT TO IMPOSE A MANDATORY DUTY and that it is correctly used TO IMPOSE A MANDATORY DUTY. It is the misuse of the word NOT TO IMPOSE A MANDATORY DUTY that causes confusion. If a duty is not imposed by HR 3200′s commands, if it is a polite suggestion or a helpful indication, then that is another reason to reject to offal with the awful.

You keep trying. Never stop trying. One day, your folks are bound to let you walk to school on your own.


stephenperry
Comment posted August 30, 2009 @ 9:35 am

I didn't lie about anything, Muppet. I presented a quote from the AARP website in its entirety.

You're silly.

Obama didn't lie. He made two statements.

He said “we have the AARP on board because they know this is a good deal for our seniors.” My quote from the AARP's own website shows that in fact the AARP does like a lot of things about Obama's plan.

He also said “AARP would not be endorsing a bill if it was undermining Medicare.” My quote also shows that to be a true statement; the AARP said they would not endorse such a bill.

Didn't you notice the part where they said “we are pleased nothing in the bills that have been proposed would bring about the scenarios the RNC is concerned about?”

Honestly, jimmy, you're starting to bore me. You're really overplaying the “I'm stupid and can't do research” thing. It's getting old. Can you at least start giving us random Latin legalese?


stephenperry
Comment posted August 30, 2009 @ 9:50 am

Where's jimhenderson's response to THIS?

*crickets*

No wonder he spends all his time trying to embellish his lie about being a lawyer. He doesn't want to be reminded of his spectacular failed attempt at his initial lie, which was that there was mandated counseling and mandated reporting of same…

He's just lucky that I don't cuss him out like David decided to do. David's more pragmatic than I am. Cuts right to the heart. I prefer to let the victim suffer a while first.


jimhenderson
Comment posted August 30, 2009 @ 11:21 am

Except for the fact that there is way more than Fox News or Major Garrett in those articles, you'd be right. Because there is way more than that, and because Gibbs, whose job cleaning up after that incontinent buffoon of a liar almost creates sympathy in those who watch his work, acknowledged that Obama mispoke, it turns out that the answer to the question, “when did the Democrats ever do something like the RNC,” is “when Obama lied to the American people about AARP support.

That you are “bored” when you are being corrected shows insolence and a juvenile propensity to temper. Keep eating your vegetables, Steve, and remember, don't do dope and stay in school. One day, you just might get to go to college.


Anonymous
Comment posted August 30, 2009 @ 4:27 pm

FakeJim, give it a rest.

You don’t have a leg to stand on.

Obama didn’t lie. Gibbs didn’t have to admit it. Gibbs didn’t admit it. I didn’t deceive anyone about Rule 11. It has several components, and I picked the only one applicable to the situation in ANY way. I keep reminding your dumb ass that we’re not in court!

I don’t have the burden of proof, idiot. There’s no burden-shifting because of “a pre-existing legal construct.” What a doofus!

You should watch more Law & Order or re-runs of Ally McBeal if you can find them.

You’re the dolt lying about what you CLAIM is mandatory counseling. YOU have to prove that. I’ve already gone to the trouble,as has David, of proving you wrong. So I’m doing your work for you.

Unsurprising, since I’m a lawyer and you’re a liar.


Anonymous
Comment posted August 30, 2009 @ 4:32 pm

Doofus. My words are there in print. I told you that shall means may. And it does. I quoted Garner indicating that.

I also quoted Garner indicating shall has at least 8 senses.

You’re really stupid. Do you understand that?

You can’t even get cute properly. You can’t type a coherent sentence. “that is another reason to reject to offal with the awful” is gibberish. Like the rest of your posts, FakeJim.

Go to church and ask God to forgive you. Lying is a sin.


Anonymous
Comment posted August 30, 2009 @ 7:51 pm

Sorry, Stevie,

I have found no evidence that you are a lawyer.

A lawyer would not offer a Primer on civil procedure in a discussion of this sort, and then behave as petulantly as you have when he gets tagged for failing to meet as basic an obligation as that of sufficient research of laws and facts.

You keep talking about Law and Order, now adding Ally McBeal. I cite cases, statutes, constitutions and you cite Law and Order. Honestly, the truth is, you cannot be an attorney; you lack the arts and sciences to have been both trained in the law, and to have demonstrated sufficient proficiency to obtain a license to practice.


Anonymous
Comment posted August 30, 2009 @ 7:59 pm

Stevie,

you stated that Garner was your authority for the proposition that shall is not mandatory duty language.

But Garner says precisely to the contrary in the materials I CITED. He says that the proper use of SHALL is to indicate a mandatory duty.

His proper concern for precision in language cause him to warn the attorneys that are artless that if they use SHALL to mean other than mandatory duty then they are risking precision in construction.

Sorry that offal with the awful stretches that sixth grade vocabulary of yours.


Anonymous
Comment posted August 30, 2009 @ 9:09 pm

LOL

So you have found no evidence that I’m a lawyer, huh? That’s as instructive as Pat Buchanan telling us that he hasn’t read any articles written by Justice Sotomayor. They exist. He just hasn’t read them.

I didn’t behave petulantly. You’re the dolt who misrepresented the pending draft legislation about health care reform by telling us that it contains mandatory counseling and mandatory reporting.

Look, even Sarah Palin said “could ya stop makin’ stuff up?” I don’t know how to dumb this down any further for you. I tried to come down to your level with Ally McBeal and Law & Order.

Don’t tell me about arts & sciences. I was an English major. It’s in the College of Letters, Arts & Sciences at USC, where I graduated undergrad and law school. I have yet to see the graham cracker box where you got your law degree. When I do, I’ll stop mocking you for lying.

Until then, FakeJim, you know the drill:

I keep reminding you that you lied about health care reform and about who you are, and you keep lying about other things to try to distract people from your lies about health care reform and about who you are.


Anonymous
Comment posted August 30, 2009 @ 9:18 pm

FakeJim, stop misquoting me. No real lawyer would do that.

I did not state “that Garner was [my] authority for the proposition that shall is not mandatory duty language.”

You write poorly.

I told you that shall means may. I proved it with a quote from Garner. You’ll fuck it up again, but I’ll give it to you again anyway, because I like proving you wrong:

“courts in virtually every English-speaking jurisdiction have held – by necessity – that shall may mean may in some contexts, and vice versa.” (Advanced Legal Drafting, p. 13)

Garner also reports that “Shall’ commonly shifts its meaning even in mid-sentence.” (Id.)

I also reported that Garner wrote that “‘Shall’ has as many as eight senses in drafted documents.” (Id.)

So, naturally, I understand that shall can sometimes impose a duty. But all lawyers understand that this is not necessarily the case in all instances in which that word is used.

Including, for example, in the health care legislation you lied about.

But of course, you don’t understand any of this. You’re too busy trying to avoid answering David or me about why you lied about “mandatory counseling” and “mandatory reporting” in the health care legislation.

FakeJim, I know what “offal” means. I’m an English major and I’ve forgotten more words than you’ll ever master. Oh, and for what it’s worth, I’m sure that when I was in sixth grade, I knew more then than you do now.

It’s just that your sentence (..then that is another reason to reject to offal with the awful.”) was gibberish. “to reject to” is the main culprit. What the fuck did you MEAN to write?

I can usually reconstruct birther doofuses typos and sentence fragments. No idea what you were trying to express there, however.


stephenperry
Comment posted August 30, 2009 @ 4:22 pm

No. It's Fox News, and the only link that isn't Fox News is a guy writing about Major Garrett's bullying and ridiculously transparent questioning of Gibbs. Garrett's clear objective was to get Gibbs to say that people (read: Republicans!) can misspeak about health care without intending to lie.

“Incontinent buffoon of a liar”

Wow. You're so fixated on yourself it's absurd. “You're so vain, you probably think this song is about you.”

So, are you still lying about whether there's mandatory counseling and mandatory reporting in that bill? You keep ignoring my and David's posts that slap you around for lying about that. And now you're fixated on lying about other things.

You're an idiot, FakeJim.


The Washington Independent » RNC Mail Suggests Republicans Could … « Keyword Research Master
Pingback posted August 30, 2009 @ 5:36 pm

[...] David Weigel wrote an interesting post today onThe Washington Independent » RNC Mail Suggests Republicans Could <b>…</b>Here’s a quick excerpt [...]


jimhenderson
Comment posted August 30, 2009 @ 7:44 pm

So, then, Roll Call is a print outlet for Fox News? It doesn't matter to you that you just lie bold-facedly. You and your buddies are big on the “tell the big lie often enough and it becomes the truth” approach. But it's naked error. Roll Call tags Gibbs' remarks.

Incontinent since he is not only full of crap, but he can't keep it within. Buffoon because he chooses to tell the big lie (AARP endorsement) at time when there is no hope of succeeding (not to mention trying to take guests out an Oval Office window) (not to mention his Jerry Lewis-like mastery of the teleprompter).


stephenperry
Comment posted August 30, 2009 @ 9:05 pm

FakeJim, didn't I already tell you that you're boring me?

I didn't say Roll Call is a print outlet for Fox News. You're an idiot. I stopped reading the list of links after the fourth one that said Fox News. The first one is a link to a guy who quotes the conversation between Gibbs and Garrett.

Let me know if that is confusing.

Are you now inventing nonsense about Obama taking guests out the window? You should have stopped him. I think he took your fake law degree with him.

And are you somehow bothered that the President is better at using technology than other politicans? Oooh, look out, he's got a teleprompter!

Wake me up when he wears a wire to a debate and gets his answers piped into his ear like Bush did against Kerry.

FakeJim, you're still a tool.


Anonymous
Comment posted August 31, 2009 @ 11:41 am

Perhaps a greater familiarity with idiomatic expression in standard spoken and written American English would assist you in your endeavors. The expression would be “cracker jack box” not “graham cracker box.”


Anonymous
Comment posted August 31, 2009 @ 11:52 am

Of course, you are an English major! You must be an English major. That explains taking poetic license with otherwise simple obligations of the California State Bar. You know what I mean, treating the “shall pay dues” obligation as a “may pay dues when he wants to do so.” For that matter, treating the “shall complete mandatory hours of CLE” as permissive, rather than mandatory.

Stephen, I don’t mind you claiming to be an attorney admitted to practice since 2000. Of course, accuracy might require an asterisk next to the English major’s bar admission entry. You know what I mean: admitted the first time in 2000; admitted the second time in 2008 when he decided that the rules must apply to him as they do to others.


jimhenderson
Comment posted August 31, 2009 @ 11:37 am

I'm sorry. I realize now, after looking up the attorney whose record you are claiming as your own, that you probably have some difficulty with basic reading and comprehension. I mean the Stephen Perry whose status is available for public inspection on the California Bar search page seemed to have some difficulty understanding simple things like due dates for completion of continuing legal education and bar dues. While impersonating Stephen Perry, Esquire, I guess you have had to play the role of the dolt in order to fit the character of attorney who had to apply for readmission after having been suspended administratively for dead-beating on dues and “skipping school” on those CLE duties.

Perhaps next time you decide to pick an attorney to imitate, you should be an attorney whose record of accomplishments does not require you to play the dullard.


Anonymous
Comment posted August 31, 2009 @ 6:10 pm

No. You’re silly. I wrote graham cracker box and meant it.

It was a nod to RedGraham, who posts on this site, and who I refer to as “Graham Cracker.”

It was also a nod to the Simpsons, in an episode of which Homer gets a trip to Africa because he hurts himself trying to eat a prize from a box of graham crackers.

You really don’t know anything about me. You can’t even properly read my California Bar records.

Your reading comprehension will not win you any prizes. Your stupidity won’t, either.

So, ready to admit you lied about health care reform legislation containing “mandatory counseling” and “mandatory reporting” yet?

And so was it a box of Cracker Jacks where you got your “law degree?” Interesting… They do put cool prizes in those boxes.


Anonymous
Comment posted August 31, 2009 @ 6:19 pm

No matter how many times you post this, FakeJim, it’s still a lie.

I never thought that any actual duty I owe is permissive. And I never denied that shall does, in some senses, mean “must.” It’s just that shall doesn’t necessarily mean that. As I pointed out, via Bryan Garner.

But your post is really about me and not about mandatory duties (otherwise it would be about your lies about health care reform supposedly having “mandatory counseling” and “mandatory reporting”). So let’s dispose of the real issue.

I didn’t need to apply for re-admittance. I have been a member of the bar without interruption since I was first admitted. My account was suspended for ONE DAY to make the point that I paid my dues and submitted my MCLE records a day late. You just cannot comprehend simple things that you read.

That is unsurprising, since you don’t understand the simple language in the health care legislation about voluntary counseling for end-of-life-care, et cetera.

If you had actually read the records closely you’d see that my MCLE compliance records and bar dues were due on Feb.1. I tried to submit them electronically on the day before they were due but that was not possible as the system would not take same-day electronic payments. So I paid the dues and submitted the compliance records in person at the SF office of the California Bar the next day.

My account reflects a ONE-DAY suspension that means nothing except that I get teased by REAL lawyers for being a procrastinator.

See, every other year, my secretary did this for me. But my secretary moved to Idaho, and rather than ask a new person to handle what I was sure I could do, I calendared the due date and then sat down at my computer to pay it when due, as I do with all my bills.

I never had to apply for re-admission. I just had to pay the dues and submit the records of MCLE compliance. Of course, you’re a liar, so that’s not surprising.

Silly me. I never anticipated that someone who lies about being a lawyer would come along and misinterpret anything so simple.

Speaking of misinterpreting simple things, are you ready to admit that you lied repeatedly and transparently about “mandatory counseling” and “mandatory reporting” in the health care legislation yet?

I’m going to keep asking, you know. Better that you get it from me than from David. He seems pretty ticked off at you, after all.


Anonymous
Comment posted August 31, 2009 @ 6:37 pm

You really have comprehension issues. Garner’s point is precisely that the correct use of “shall” and the only one, at that, is the creation of a mandatory duty.

Now HR 3200 uses “shall.” Of course, Congress may not intend to create the mandatory duty that its language imposes. In that case, you ought to take up your plight with Congress. As it is, I read the bill as Garner says the proper reading is: shall means mandatory duty. I get that Congress may decide the language should be changed. They haven’t yet, but they may still. When they do, and the dust settles, I’m sure that you and Garner and I can all appreciate the growing commitment to clarity in legislative language.

In the meantime, though, your assertion that no mandatory duty created under section 1233 is just as incorrect as ever.


Anonymous
Comment posted August 31, 2009 @ 6:37 pm

You really have comprehension issues. Garner’s point is precisely that the correct use of “shall” and the only one, at that, is the creation of a mandatory duty.

Now HR 3200 uses “shall.” Of course, Congress may not intend to create the mandatory duty that its language imposes. In that case, you ought to take up your plight with Congress. As it is, I read the bill as Garner says the proper reading is: shall means mandatory duty. I get that Congress may decide the language should be changed. They haven’t yet, but they may still. When they do, and the dust settles, I’m sure that you and Garner and I can all appreciate the growing commitment to clarity in legislative language.

In the meantime, though, your assertion that no mandatory duty created under section 1233 is just as incorrect as ever.


Anonymous
Comment posted August 31, 2009 @ 7:51 pm

No. Your own quotation of Garner proves that you are lying. He doesn’t say that the “correct” definition of shall, let alone the “only” one is a mandatory duty.

You quoted Garner as follows:

“From Garner, ‘Legal Writing in Plain English,’ at 105 sec. 35, ‘Delete every shall: … Often, it’s true, shall is mandatory.’”

Know what that implies, you doofus?

OFTEN, SHALL IS NOT MANDATORY.

And there’s no mandatory reporting of patient information or mandatory counseling about end of life care in the health care bill. We’ve been over this.

David and I each went through the language of the bill. Your failure to respond to THOSE posts, directed to you, is conspicuous evidence that you know you have been caught in your lies.

Now, as I told you, FakeJim, go fuck yourself.


Anonymous
Comment posted August 31, 2009 @ 7:51 pm

No. Your own quotation of Garner proves that you are lying. He doesn’t say that the “correct” definition of shall, let alone the “only” one is a mandatory duty.

You quoted Garner as follows:

“From Garner, ‘Legal Writing in Plain English,’ at 105 sec. 35, ‘Delete every shall: … Often, it’s true, shall is mandatory.’”

Know what that implies, you doofus?

OFTEN, SHALL IS NOT MANDATORY.

And there’s no mandatory reporting of patient information or mandatory counseling about end of life care in the health care bill. We’ve been over this.

David and I each went through the language of the bill. Your failure to respond to THOSE posts, directed to you, is conspicuous evidence that you know you have been caught in your lies.

Now, as I told you, FakeJim, go fuck yourself.


stephenperry
Comment posted August 31, 2009 @ 5:50 pm

Ah, FakeJim, you disappoint me.

Still nothing of any substance to say about your lies about health care reform so now you lie about me? I don't have difficulty understanding due dates.

If you had actually read the records closely you'd see that my MCLE compliance records and bar dues were due on Feb.1. I tried to submit them electronically on the day before they were due but that was not possible as the system would not take same-day electronic payments. So I paid the dues and submitted the compliance records in person at the SF office of the California Bar the next day.

My account reflects a ONE-DAY suspension that means nothing except that I get teased by REAL lawyers for being a procrastinator.

See, every other year, my secretary did this for me. But my secretary moved to Idaho, and rather than ask a new person to handle what I was sure I could do, I calendared the due date and then sat down at my computer to pay it when due, as I do with all my bills.

I never had to apply for re-admission. I just had to pay the dues and submit the records of MCLE compliance. Of course, you're a liar, so that's not surprising.

Silly me. I never anticipated that someone who lies about being a lawyer would come along and misinterpret anything so simple.

Speaking of misinterpreting simple things, are you ready to admit that you lied repeatedly and transparently about “mandatory counseling” and “mandatory reporting” in the health care legislation yet?

I'm going to keep asking, you know. Better that you get it from me than from David. He seems pretty ticked off at you, after all.


jimhenderson
Comment posted August 31, 2009 @ 6:29 pm

I see that you hope to explain away the facts by harshly tones without denials:

The relevant excerpt:

Status History
Effective Date Status Change
Present Active
7/2/2008 Active
7/1/2008 Not Eligible To Practice Law
6/4/2001 Admitted to The State Bar of California

Explanation of member status

Actions Affecting Eligibility to Practice Law
Effective Date Description Case Number Resulting Status
Disciplinary and Related Actions
This member has no public record of discipline.
Administrative Actions
7/1/2008 Admin Inactive/MCLE noncompliance Not Eligible To Practice Law
7/1/2008 Suspended, failed to pay Bar membr. fees Not Eligible To Practice Law

Of course you got suspended. Of course you got reinstated. Of course of course of course. And nice ploy blaming the internet and the secretary!! Good work that. She took off, left you hanging, and then Al Gore failed to insure that internet payments were failsafe.


stephenperry
Comment posted August 31, 2009 @ 7:31 pm

No, there's no “readmission,” just a change in status from “active” to “not eligible” (in other words, “suspended” like I told you) and then, ONE DAY later, it's back to “active.”

You know, FakeJim, if you continue to post my information, I'm going to think you have a crush on me. I already think you're trying to get yourself in trouble for posting my personal information.

How about you use all your fancy pretend-lawyer tricks to show us where there's “mandatory counseling” or “mandatory reporting” in the health care legislation? Oh, that's right. There isn't. You lied. As usual.

I've already told you that you bore me. Now you're annoying me.

If I was to post Jim Henderson's legal record, the real Jim Henderson would be angry with me for putting his personal information on a website. And he'd be mad at you for impersonating him.

Now go fuck yourself, FakeJim.


stephenperry
Comment posted August 31, 2009 @ 7:40 pm

FakeJim, aka Muppet, aka jimhenderson has grown tired of trying to pretend that he is an attorney.

He is now demonstrating his inability to read and comprehend MY record of membership in the California bar.

But nowhere has he proven his ridiculous lie about how there is allegedly “mandatory counseling” and “mandatory reporting” in the draft health care reform legislation.

It is instructive to note that he has avoided responding to the several posts by myself or David that actually quote and discuss the language he misrepresented.

I never tire of mocking doofuses, whether they are birthers or otherwise, on this site who claim to be something that they are not.

jimhenderson is not an attorney and is not any good at playing “hey look over there and don't pay attention to my lies.”

Even Randwulf is a more convincing liar. And his lies are entertaining.

FakeJim bores me.


jimhenderson
Comment posted August 31, 2009 @ 9:09 pm

Steve

The time has come to apply the Mr. T rule and so, having done all that is proper and necessary to bring light to the dullard brain that rattles loosely in your skull, I now simply pity you.


stephenperry
Comment posted August 31, 2009 @ 10:49 pm

Oh my God.

If you're seriously going to leave us, I will be charitable enough to overlook what you called the “Mr. T rule.” Way to sound like a crotchety old Kentucky lawyer who argued before the SCOTUS.

Don't let the doorknob hit you on the way out, FakeJim.


jimhenderson
Comment posted September 1, 2009 @ 12:36 am

No No No. No, I am not leaving. I am just ending the merciless smackdown of your piteously poor efforts.


stephenperry
Comment posted September 1, 2009 @ 4:03 am

Well if you're not leaving then I am going to have to call you out for that lame Mr. T reference. And I will keep mocking you for lying about who you are, as well as about health care.


packeryman
Comment posted October 8, 2009 @ 6:54 pm

This is typical of GOP insanity. Any party that follows the rants and raves of their defacto leader(Limbaugh)who wants the party flushed and purged of moderates and rinos.That will leave a far right conservative base of fiscal and religious nuts left. As they go more conservative, they lose more of the Independents. The GOP is following a of reactionary political ideology of obstruction and in doing so have become the party of no. They offer nothing on health care. They owe too much to the insurance industry and big pharma. They have shown they would rather waste hundreds of billions in boondoggles like the OCCUPATION of IRAQ rather than rebuild the infra-structure in America. They were rallying in the streets when we did not get the Oplymics because they want to see Obama fail. That is very un-American. Hate has eat the GOP up and we must vote these losers out of office. We must sign up new voters and get everyone out to vote that wants to see an end of these obstructionist.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 13, 2009 @ 3:54 am

Sorry old friend that I had to go away. I”m trying to be the rock in family health concerns, hope you’re still well. Joe


jjfitz
Comment posted October 13, 2009 @ 3:47 am

sorry Dave, I was away. No way was TK the worst Senator. As John McCain said '


jjfitz
Comment posted October 13, 2009 @ 4:03 am

All that 'we the people' shit is just commyism says Rush; all that providing for the common defence! Promoting the General WELFARE!!! You will crouch down and lick the East India Company's hand that feeds you. It's always been what good Torry Americans like you have always wanted. As Sam Adams said: Just crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you, we pray that the chains sit lightly apon you, and that posterity forget you were our countrymen. Go away torry naive, wealth and corporations will guide you. no need for 'we the filthy people' to have any say whatsoever. just blow them, you know you want to.


Driver Robot Download
Trackback posted March 12, 2011 @ 5:01 am

system utilities…

[...]this is a web site which contains some more information and tips you might find helpful[...]…


My Blog Title
Trackback posted March 21, 2011 @ 3:03 pm

Title…

Music64blog…


Check out my facebook profile
Trackback posted March 24, 2011 @ 4:29 pm

Better website?…

Hey this can be a real cool website…


http://www.juleedunekacke.com/blog/2007/03/11/fashion-plates/
Trackback posted April 12, 2011 @ 3:13 pm

You have chek this website out….

Hey I discovered this web site to be actually interesting! Bookmarked!…


8th grade graduation dresses
Trackback posted April 14, 2011 @ 2:12 am

Hey {this is a|this can be a|it is a} {real|actual} cool {website|web site}…

Hey I discovered this web site to be actually interesting! Bookmarked!…


Stefani Spiece
Comment posted September 4, 2011 @ 9:34 am

Iˇ¦ve been exploring for a little bit for any high-quality articles or weblog posts in this kind of house . Exploring in Yahoo I ultimately stumbled upon this site. Studying this info So i am happy to show that I’ve a very excellent uncanny feeling I discovered just what I needed. I most undoubtedly will make certain to do not disregard this site and give it a look a continuing.


Lu Custa
Comment posted September 4, 2011 @ 9:45 am

Excellent read, I just passed this onto a colleague who was doing a little research on that. And he just bought me lunch because I found it for him smile So let me rephrase that: Thanks for lunch!


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.