PeepinGoodArgs

...but how?

Human beings are social animals. The only way that other people wouldn't be able to hurt me non-physically is if I were to cut myself off from my humanity.

...why would anyone want to do this?

Mmm nah I hate it.

Sheldon Whitehouse must feel vindicated af

Americans are not required to have health insurance. Generally, health insurance is tied to one's job. Perhaps OP is a business owner and has decided to forego insurance for other things? Idk. And neither do you.

Also, it's not like American health insurance is effective in reducing hospital bills to the point of being reasonable. It's a trope that health insurance is a scam because it's so bad.

Also, like all economic decisions, health insurance vs a home is a trade off, one that OP made for whatever reason. It's not something to blame them for.

And finally, it sounds like they can afford their home just fine with outfit tradeoffs.

This is ignorance and/or maliciousness.

You're implicitly generating a fantasy to say this person pays too much for their home when that information is only compared to hospital bills. Idk about you, but I don't have hospital bills every year or even every decade like a monthly mortgage. To "put myself in a situation where I can't afford my house" may mean just getting cancer or getting diabetes or dealing with another disease or ailment that I wasn't before.

So either you don't know how hospital bills can be financially debilitating. Or you do and you're blaming them for addressing their health, as if they should just die.

Which is it?

There is literally nothing any President going forward can promise without Congress completely having the President's back or the Justices agreeing with the President.

This was always true. The Affordable Care Act was met with repeated judicial challenges and survived thanks to judicial interpretation.

Regulatory rules have alsp always been subject to judicial review, especially after the public comment period. If an agency does not respond to comments, a rule can be struck down as arbitrary.

The difference now is that the courts can evaluate rules not based on scientific and administrative expertise but on ~~ideology~~ whether they adhere to the legal authority Congress granted them. Chevron deference implied that Congress gave agencies the legal authority to adapt to new situations. The misanthropes of the Supreme Court disagree because, for them, the Constitution is a dead document allowing adaptation to anything at all.

Demagogues. All demagogues are populists, but not the other way around. And the former are the death of civilization. But they get their power from a demagogic society.

I could've lived my whole life ignorant of what munting was. Now I have a word to describe something I can only think, never say outloud to another living soul.

I really liked Sotomayor's dissent that basically said, "The Founders explicitly did not provide immunity for the president when given several chance to do so. This is not what they intended. The majority, supposed Originalists, are blatantly making shit up."

Who doesn't want peace? Not many.

One of the most difficult things for me to learn was that some people really prefer violence over more peaceful alternatives. I still haven't quite wrapped my head around it, but I accept it.

I've engaged with the articles core argument about the legitimatization of violence, but the only answer is more violence for some of you people.

Fight fire with fire and watch the whole world burn. Just like it is because of the oppressor's violence.

What liberal position would?