(07-08-2025 09:04 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 08:16 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 07:27 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 07:21 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 04:24 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  when is a law NOT targeted ... that's why it's a fk'n law...

you advocate changing the law ... they did(s)...

now, it's subjective (again)...

you'll lose this one too, counselor...

He ain’t Tanqi O-fer Bois for nothing. It takes quite a bit of effort to not even stumble into a win.

Even a 1L law student can explain why this political actor in a robe is about to get clubbed like a baby seal on appeal.

They don't even try to hide the ball anymore. District court judges are now too often just political operatives.

Most 1Ls can recognize a restriction based on political viewpoint as a first amendment isdue.

And an equal protection issue.

And a potential bill of attainder issue.

And ehat the purpose of either a TRO or a PI are intended to do.

Not so obvious on the actual facts as it is when they ate glossed over as simply 'funding'.

You are obviously a sharp guy. The corner of the table you stub your toe on repeatedly is mixing personal advocacy interests with predictive legal analysis. Such is life.

This injunction ruling is going to get pounded flat. Even the judge knows that.

My personal advocacy is not PP. its about basic Constitutional issues.

What do *you* call the issue when someone who is removed from a program for payment for providing broad services based on their political viewpoint?

What do *you* call the issue someone is specifically targeted from a program for payment for providing broad services and is then specifically and singularly pulled out of that broad program?

What do *you* call the issue someone is specifically excluded from a program for payment for broad services provided, for no germane reason, while literally everyone else in that program is allowed to continue?

Im being generic in the issue above. Im not the one using my political bent to deem a result as you steadfastly do. I dont care if the service being targted is PPH, or Cletus's Oncology Service in Mobile Alabama.

I do have a problem in the manner that the law was structured, and aimed. An absolute problem. But please pound that table on how my political advocacy shades that, or the above questions posed to you.

And no, with the record that PP shows, they have reams of political based targeting throughout the public record. Seems each of the 1st Amendment, Bill of Attainder, Violation of equal protection issues, and retaliation issues has legs on that record.

As does the request for DJ that denotes a structural error in the bill and the targeted corporate entities in the issue.

Not necessarily so on the cause of action based on vagueness.

Look forward to your own viewpoint absent your own political advocacy you seemingly think I employ.

(07-08-2025 08:56 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  You mean the videos after the Congressional visits that forced the El Salvadoran government to consider his initial prison stint? Yep, sure did.

Still doesnt impact the due process problems with his issue. Or perhaps it does. Care to enlighten us how that impacts the due process issues? I dont quite see it from those videos. Apparently those videos have fairly significantly affected you. Care to tell us why?

No, Clarence, I just thought it ironic that you have been so in love with a wife beating, human smuggling piece of trash who is likely legally liable for multiple murders in the semi accident incident.

All for the sake of due process for an illegal alien. That is where you and I differ. You can scream due process all you want. He was ordered deported twice. How much due process do you want?

The only reason they were stopped is b/c he convinced an immigration judge that his life was in danger, but that gang no longer exists.

I just think you picked a horrible case to champion, which gave me the impression you believed in the letter of the law, no matter what the real-life implications.

But THEN...you come along and declare the new BBB law unconstitutional from the start, which makes me think, as TIBL said, that you pick and choose your laws dependent on your personal views.

(07-08-2025 09:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 09:04 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 08:16 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 07:27 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 07:21 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  He ain’t Tanqi O-fer Bois for nothing. It takes quite a bit of effort to not even stumble into a win.

Even a 1L law student can explain why this political actor in a robe is about to get clubbed like a baby seal on appeal.

They don't even try to hide the ball anymore. District court judges are now too often just political operatives.

Most 1Ls can recognize a restriction based on political viewpoint as a first amendment isdue.

And an equal protection issue.

And a potential bill of attainder issue.

And ehat the purpose of either a TRO or a PI are intended to do.

Not so obvious on the actual facts as it is when they ate glossed over as simply 'funding'.

You are obviously a sharp guy. The corner of the table you stub your toe on repeatedly is mixing personal advocacy interests with predictive legal analysis. Such is life.

This injunction ruling is going to get pounded flat. Even the judge knows that.

My personal advocacy is not PP. its about basic Constitutional issues.

What do *you* call the issue when someone who is removed from a program for payment for providing broad services based on their political viewpoint?

What do *you* call the issue someone is specifically targeted from a program for payment for providing broad services and is then specifically and singularly pulled out of that broad program?

What do *you* call the issue someone is specifically excluded from a program for payment for broad services provided, for no germane reason, while literally everyone else in that program is allowed to continue?

Im being generic in the issue above. Im not the one using my political bent to deem a result as you steadfastly do. I dont care if the service being targted is PPH, or Cletus's Oncology Service in Mobile Alabama.

I do have a problem in the manner that the law was structured, and aimed. An absolute problem. But please pound that table on how my political advocacy shades that, or the above questions posed to you.

And no, with the record that PP shows, they have reams of political based targeting throughout the public record. Seems each of the 1st Amendment, Bill of Attainder, Violation of equal protection issues, and retaliation issues has legs on that record.

As does the request for DJ that denotes a structural error in the bill and the targeted corporate entities in the issue.

Not necessarily so on the cause of action based on vagueness.

Look forward to your own viewpoint absent your own political advocacy you seemingly think I employ.

Obama violated the freedom of speech of these groups
https://afajournal.org/past-issues/2010/...ed-groups/

No one in the MSM complained

Oh, come on, judge. It's just a clump of money anyway. /sarcasm

But seriously, so we should all be okay with our tax dollars funding an abortion mill organization that was founded by a lady who wanted to control the black population in this country and therefore aiding in the destruction of the black family unit that was started by LBJ's Great Society, where everybody ultimately sucks on the government teat, which really stems from the lack of a true father figure in LBJ's life? I don't think so, especially when they turn around and fund Democrat-supported causes and politicians. They're a private organization anyway.

(07-08-2025 09:14 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 09:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 08:41 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 08:05 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Tanq, good to see you declaring which laws are proper, and which are not.

Tanq along with other Progressive Judicial Activist’s apparently didn’t get the memo.

They’ve been neutered and spayed

Glad to note actually caring about whether a bill (law) adheres to the Constitution is being a (checks notes) one of a group of "Progressive Judicial Activist’s"

If caring whether the 1st, 5th, 14th, or prohibition on Bills of Attainder are proper is being a (scary thunder crash) "Progressive Judicial Activist" (spooky organ music), then -- yeah, sign me up as a (scary thunder crash) "Progressive Judicial Activist" (spooky organ music) 7 days a week and four times on Sunday.

Cool cool.

What is your nomenclature for people who *dont* give a **** about basic Constitutional principles? Obviously *not* (scary thunder crash) "Progressive Judicial Activist" (spooky organ music), so what do you deem those folks wo dont care about those basic Constitutional issues? Im really interested in finding out....

You're still mixing issues.

Do I think this was targeted specifically because of Planned Parenthood's overt political activism? Yes. I do. You do have a point there, but to suggest its unconstitutional is laughable. Again, show me another "medical institution" that uses its platform for political activism. If they exists, I bet they've been cut before too.

I agree they have a political viewpoint, and have a platform for that. And the broad point bolded above simply doesnt matter.

Quote:The crux of the issue is that Planned Parenthood does not have a "right" to federal funding.

Correct, they do not have a "right" to direct federal funding. That isnt the issue.

Quote:No more so than Johns Hopkins or the Mayo Clinic does. If the federal govt decides it doesn't want to provide federal funding to Hopkins any longer it's well within its right and purview to do so. There is nothing unconstitutional about the federal govt defunding Planned Parenthood no more than it is any other institution like Hopkins. A district judge simply cannot tell the federal government that it has to fund an independent entity. That, itself, is what is unconstitutional and this is going to be struck down in about five minutes.

This isnt an issue of 'direct funding', Three. If it were, your points would be absolutely valid, on point, and correct.

This is an issue of participation in a broad program that is designed to pay medical providers for services rendered.

In order,

1) PP has a right not to discriminated against in participating in that broadly defined and broadly available program. That is a basis for an equal protection problem, when they are singled out.

2) PP has a right not to discriminated against in participating in that broadly defined and broadly available program based on *any* political viewpoints. That is a basis for 1st Amendment problem, when they are singled out *for* a political view.

3) PP has a right not to literally singled out in a law for no rational basis against in participating in that broadly defined and broadly available program. That is a basis for a bill of attainder problem, when they are singled out specifically as they are.

4) PP has a right not to targeted and barred from participating in that broadly defined and broadly available program because they provide, apart from that program, a legal service of abortion. That is a basis for a targeting problem, when they are singled out because of engaging in a completely legal activity.

Again, if this were direct funding -- you would be absolutely correct that the Fed Govt would have a proper basis for cutting direct funding.

When it comes to a broadly available public program, the Govt *can* cut, but has to show a pretty good reason to do so. Like they *can* cut practices that engage in Medicare fraud as specific participants. But when a program is available as a broad 'paid services' like Medicare, they do not have the power to do that style in named, specific, individual removal under the law when the distinguishing factors are political viewpoint, and such.

But this goes to the misnomer of 'funding'. Which pretty much everyone here has glommed onto in the manner that was intended. And doesnt accurately protray what is really happening under the hood.

(07-08-2025 09:39 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  Don't want to have a baby? Don't have sex. It really is that simple. Quit making it more complicated than it is.

That requires discipline and a semblance of morals. Both seriously lacking in our modern world.

Oh great, tanq thinks he's in court again. I wish he'd get some help for his delusions.

(07-08-2025 09:42 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 09:39 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  Don't want to have a baby? Don't have sex. It really is that simple. Quit making it more complicated than it is.

That requires discipline and a semblance of morals. Both seriously lacking in our modern world.

Yeah. I know.

(07-08-2025 08:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 07:28 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 07:19 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(07-07-2025 11:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-07-2025 11:35 PM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  Exactly.

Remember when Obama defiantly stated, "Elections have consequences"?

Remember when Pelosi and countless other Dems on Capitol Hill chirped with glee before the cameras, "No one is above the law"?

After all of that we don't want to hear it. Talk to the hand!

So if there are a million places providing medical services covered by Medicaid, you are all for passing a law that bars one and only one provider from being paid for medical services by Medicaid?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Yes.

Clearly it's unconstitutional for Congress to withdraw funding from an organization that has become a core component of the Democrat party makeup

A very expansive use of the word 'funding'. And yes, if they were targeted for that issue, and others who dont gave that political bent were not -- yeah, it's a problem. Called the 1st amendnent.

Just scratch off Medicaid providers when they dont meet your political litmus test. Glad you are honest about that point. And thank you for clearly pointing out the actual legal problem instead of acting as though the issue is canceling a handout, and s the canceling of payments for medical services based simply on political viewpoint.

A medical service they can get elsewhere. Minus the eugenics of course.

(07-08-2025 08:16 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 07:27 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 07:21 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 04:24 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-07-2025 11:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  What other medical service providers should be barred from collecting Medicaid funds for provided medical services by being named specifically in a targeted law?

when is a law NOT targeted ... that's why it's a fk'n law...

you advocate changing the law ... they did(s)...

now, it's subjective (again)...

you'll lose this one too, counselor...

He ain’t Tanqi O-fer Bois for nothing. It takes quite a bit of effort to not even stumble into a win.

Even a 1L law student can explain why this political actor in a robe is about to get clubbed like a baby seal on appeal.

They don't even try to hide the ball anymore. District court judges are now too often just political operatives.

Most 1Ls can recognize a restriction based on political viewpoint as a first amendment isdue.

And an equal protection issue.

And a potential bill of attainder issue.

And ehat the purpose of either a TRO or a PI are intended to do.

Not so obvious on the actual facts as it is when they ate glossed over as simply 'funding'.

As your hero was happy and proud to proclaim “Elections have consequences”.

(07-08-2025 08:41 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  [quote='TripleA' pid='20212909' dateline='1751979948']
Tanq, good to see you declaring which laws are proper, and which are not.

He's like those that read the Bible and pick and choose which verses they'll obey.

Give me a lot of that, but hold back on that one, I'm having too much fun and it'll stifle my life.

(07-08-2025 09:04 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 08:16 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 07:27 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 07:21 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 04:24 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  when is a law NOT targeted ... that's why it's a fk'n law...

you advocate changing the law ... they did(s)...

now, it's subjective (again)...

you'll lose this one too, counselor...

He ain’t Tanqi O-fer Bois for nothing. It takes quite a bit of effort to not even stumble into a win.

Even a 1L law student can explain why this political actor in a robe is about to get clubbed like a baby seal on appeal.

They don't even try to hide the ball anymore. District court judges are now too often just political operatives.

Most 1Ls can recognize a restriction based on political viewpoint as a first amendment isdue.

And an equal protection issue.

And a potential bill of attainder issue.

And ehat the purpose of either a TRO or a PI are intended to do.

Not so obvious on the actual facts as it is when they ate glossed over as simply 'funding'.

You are obviously a sharp guy. The corner of the table you stub your toe on repeatedly is mixing personal advocacy interests with predictive legal analysis. Such is life.

This injunction ruling is going to get pounded flat. Even the judge knows that.

The judge knows it, yes. But it’s a good progressive addition to her resume for the next looney leftist president to appoint her to the SC.

(07-08-2025 09:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 08:41 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 08:05 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Tanq, good to see you declaring which laws are proper, and which are not.

Tanq along with other Progressive Judicial Activist’s apparently didn’t get the memo.

They’ve been neutered and spayed

Glad to note actually caring about whether a bill (law) adheres to the Constitution is being a (checks notes) one of a group of "Progressive Judicial Activist’s"

If caring whether the 1st, 5th, 14th, or prohibition on Bills of Attainder are proper is being a (scary thunder crash) "Progressive Judicial Activist" (spooky organ music), then -- yeah, sign me up as a (scary thunder crash) "Progressive Judicial Activist" (spooky organ music) 7 days a week and four times on Sunday.

Cool cool.

What is your nomenclature for people who *dont* give a **** about basic Constitutional principles? Obviously *not* (scary thunder crash) "Progressive Judicial Activist" (spooky organ music), so what do you deem those folks wo dont care about those basic Constitutional issues? Im really interested in finding out....

According to the constitution who controls spending? Of course. So who here is promoting unconstitutional procedure? Of course. And I don’t have some fancy law degree.

(07-08-2025 09:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 09:14 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 09:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 08:41 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 08:05 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Tanq, good to see you declaring which laws are proper, and which are not.

Tanq along with other Progressive Judicial Activist’s apparently didn’t get the memo.

They’ve been neutered and spayed

Glad to note actually caring about whether a bill (law) adheres to the Constitution is being a (checks notes) one of a group of "Progressive Judicial Activist’s"

If caring whether the 1st, 5th, 14th, or prohibition on Bills of Attainder are proper is being a (scary thunder crash) "Progressive Judicial Activist" (spooky organ music), then -- yeah, sign me up as a (scary thunder crash) "Progressive Judicial Activist" (spooky organ music) 7 days a week and four times on Sunday.

Cool cool.

What is your nomenclature for people who *dont* give a **** about basic Constitutional principles? Obviously *not* (scary thunder crash) "Progressive Judicial Activist" (spooky organ music), so what do you deem those folks wo dont care about those basic Constitutional issues? Im really interested in finding out....

You're still mixing issues.

Do I think this was targeted specifically because of Planned Parenthood's overt political activism? Yes. I do. You do have a point there, but to suggest its unconstitutional is laughable. Again, show me another "medical institution" that uses its platform for political activism. If they exists, I bet they've been cut before too.

I agree they have a political viewpoint, and have a platform for that. And the broad point bolded above simply doesnt matter.

Quote:The crux of the issue is that Planned Parenthood does not have a "right" to federal funding.

Correct, they do not have a "right" to direct federal funding. That isnt the issue.

Quote:No more so than Johns Hopkins or the Mayo Clinic does. If the federal govt decides it doesn't want to provide federal funding to Hopkins any longer it's well within its right and purview to do so. There is nothing unconstitutional about the federal govt defunding Planned Parenthood no more than it is any other institution like Hopkins. A district judge simply cannot tell the federal government that it has to fund an independent entity. That, itself, is what is unconstitutional and this is going to be struck down in about five minutes.

This isnt an issue of 'direct funding', Three. If it were, your points would be absolutely valid, on point, and correct.

This is an issue of participation in a broad program that is designed to pay medical providers for services rendered.

In order,

1) PP has a right not to discriminated against in participating in that broadly defined and broadly available program. That is a basis for an equal protection problem, when they are singled out.

2) PP has a right not to discriminated against in participating in that broadly defined and broadly available program based on *any* political viewpoints. That is a basis for 1st Amendment problem, when they are singled out *for* a political view.

3) PP has a right not to literally singled out in a law for no rational basis against in participating in that broadly defined and broadly available program. That is a basis for a bill of attainder problem, when they are singled out specifically as they are.

4) PP has a right not to targeted and barred from participating in that broadly defined and broadly available program because they provide, apart from that program, a legal service of abortion. That is a basis for a targeting problem, when they are singled out because of engaging in a completely legal activity.

Again, if this were direct funding -- you would be absolutely correct that the Fed Govt would have a proper basis for cutting direct funding.

When it comes to a broadly available public program, the Govt *can* cut, but has to show a pretty good reason to do so. Like they *can* cut practices that engage in Medicare fraud as specific participants. But when a program is available as a broad 'paid services' like Medicare, they do not have the power to do that style in named, specific, individual removal under the law when the distinguishing factors are political viewpoint, and such.

But this goes to the misnomer of 'funding'. Which pretty much everyone here has glommed onto in the manner that was intended. And doesnt accurately protray what is really happening under the hood.

Huh? The entire lawsuit is about its funding being cut through Medcaid. That is a federally funded program. Therefore, that is federal funding. As to your bolded statement above, uh excuse me but yes it does.

The bill doesn't stop PP from providing those services. It prohibits the federal govt for paying for them. Seriously, aren't you tired of losing arguments yet?

(07-08-2025 10:00 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Seriously, aren't you tired of losing arguments yet?

lol! Never!

(07-08-2025 09:29 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 08:56 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  You mean the videos after the Congressional visits that forced the El Salvadoran government to consider his initial prison stint? Yep, sure did.

Still doesnt impact the due process problems with his issue. Or perhaps it does. Care to enlighten us how that impacts the due process issues? I dont quite see it from those videos. Apparently those videos have fairly significantly affected you. Care to tell us why?

No, Clarence, I just thought it ironic that you have been so in love with a wife beating, human smuggling piece of trash who is likely legally liable for multiple murders in the semi accident incident.

There is a stark difference between being a champion of due process, which is available to everyone (last I saw) and your thin attempt to change my viewpoint to the bolded above.

Yes, bad people may exercise due process. And if reached with due process in mind, I have zero problem with the reach of the law snaking out and touching him. But, as has been my point ALL ALONG -- Do. It. The. Right. Way.

But please feel free to mischaracterize my point of view even in light of constant corrections. But relatedly, I will let the issue on the italicized be dependent on the facts presented in a court of law, and not those in the court of public opinion. I see that you choose the latter. Free country and all that jazz.

Quote:All for the sake of due process for an illegal alien. That is where you and I differ. You can scream due process all you want. He was ordered deported twice. How much due process do you want?

How about due process on his *actual* removal for a start? The one performed in violation of a very specific court order itself, mind you.

Quote:The only reason they were stopped is b/c he convinced an immigration judge that his life was in danger, but that gang no longer exists.

I am glad you are the judge-jury of that incident. I dont claim the same. Ill rely on the actual judge who saw the actual issue, and issued the actual order all the same. As opposed to your self-professed all omniscient command of the above.

Quote:I just think you picked a horrible case to champion, which gave me the impression you believed in the letter of the law, no matter what the real-life implications.

I do. Absolutely. I dont care to live in a society that decides which words in laws belong on a whim, nor one that decides to pick and choose which laws should be enforced on a whim.

Quote:But THEN...you come along and declare the new BBB law unconstitutional from the start, which makes me think, as TIBL said, that you pick and choose your laws dependent on your personal views.

It strikes me as very much problematic.

See my response to Three about my misgivings about the law. Feel free to comment on those issues.

Sorry, its problematic to strike by law a single, named group or individual from participating in a program that is literally open to everyone who can provide legal services -- based on a political issue.

If the issue were direct funding, then I wouldnt have problem.

But that isnt the issue. If the government sets up a wide public program to pay for medical services, the government should not be able to state 'I disagree with Dr Joe Blows political stance, and will bar him from the program' and proceed to do so. When the program is literally open to *anyone* who can provide the services. And that is *exactly* what happened in the section of the bill in question and with PPH.

If you support that, then again you and I will choose to disagree.

Instead of simply accepting the verb 'funding' as most did here, I instead chose to educate myself on the underlying issues. And with those underlying issues more in focus, yeah -- I think that portion of the BBB is highly problematic under the Constitution. Absolutely.

(07-08-2025 09:43 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Oh great, tanq thinks he's in court again. I wish he'd get some help for his delusions.

No one would touch one of his arguments. They are all losers on an atomic bomb scale.

Well maybe Tommie Bois, Menstra, Elvus or Davidst may chime in in TOFB’s defense. Or maybe even those numbskulls see the losing battle clearly.

(07-08-2025 10:00 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 09:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 09:14 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 09:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 08:41 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  Tanq along with other Progressive Judicial Activist’s apparently didn’t get the memo.

They’ve been neutered and spayed

Glad to note actually caring about whether a bill (law) adheres to the Constitution is being a (checks notes) one of a group of "Progressive Judicial Activist’s"

If caring whether the 1st, 5th, 14th, or prohibition on Bills of Attainder are proper is being a (scary thunder crash) "Progressive Judicial Activist" (spooky organ music), then -- yeah, sign me up as a (scary thunder crash) "Progressive Judicial Activist" (spooky organ music) 7 days a week and four times on Sunday.

Cool cool.

What is your nomenclature for people who *dont* give a **** about basic Constitutional principles? Obviously *not* (scary thunder crash) "Progressive Judicial Activist" (spooky organ music), so what do you deem those folks wo dont care about those basic Constitutional issues? Im really interested in finding out....

You're still mixing issues.

Do I think this was targeted specifically because of Planned Parenthood's overt political activism? Yes. I do. You do have a point there, but to suggest its unconstitutional is laughable. Again, show me another "medical institution" that uses its platform for political activism. If they exists, I bet they've been cut before too.

I agree they have a political viewpoint, and have a platform for that. And the broad point bolded above simply doesnt matter.

Quote:The crux of the issue is that Planned Parenthood does not have a "right" to federal funding.

Correct, they do not have a "right" to direct federal funding. That isnt the issue.

Quote:No more so than Johns Hopkins or the Mayo Clinic does. If the federal govt decides it doesn't want to provide federal funding to Hopkins any longer it's well within its right and purview to do so. There is nothing unconstitutional about the federal govt defunding Planned Parenthood no more than it is any other institution like Hopkins. A district judge simply cannot tell the federal government that it has to fund an independent entity. That, itself, is what is unconstitutional and this is going to be struck down in about five minutes.

This isnt an issue of 'direct funding', Three. If it were, your points would be absolutely valid, on point, and correct.

This is an issue of participation in a broad program that is designed to pay medical providers for services rendered.

In order,

1) PP has a right not to discriminated against in participating in that broadly defined and broadly available program. That is a basis for an equal protection problem, when they are singled out.

2) PP has a right not to discriminated against in participating in that broadly defined and broadly available program based on *any* political viewpoints. That is a basis for 1st Amendment problem, when they are singled out *for* a political view.

3) PP has a right not to literally singled out in a law for no rational basis against in participating in that broadly defined and broadly available program. That is a basis for a bill of attainder problem, when they are singled out specifically as they are.

4) PP has a right not to targeted and barred from participating in that broadly defined and broadly available program because they provide, apart from that program, a legal service of abortion. That is a basis for a targeting problem, when they are singled out because of engaging in a completely legal activity.

Again, if this were direct funding -- you would be absolutely correct that the Fed Govt would have a proper basis for cutting direct funding.

When it comes to a broadly available public program, the Govt *can* cut, but has to show a pretty good reason to do so. Like they *can* cut practices that engage in Medicare fraud as specific participants. But when a program is available as a broad 'paid services' like Medicare, they do not have the power to do that style in named, specific, individual removal under the law when the distinguishing factors are political viewpoint, and such.

But this goes to the misnomer of 'funding'. Which pretty much everyone here has glommed onto in the manner that was intended. And doesnt accurately protray what is really happening under the hood.

Huh? The entire lawsuit is about its funding being cut through Medcaid. That is a federally funded program. Therefore, that is federal funding.

The bill doesn't stop PP from providing those services. It prohibits the federal govt for paying for them. Seriously, aren't you tired of losing arguments yet?

And the program at law is open to literally anyone who can provide them.

And to deny any single provider from that program based on a political viewpoint is highly problematic.

End of story.

Let me put it into more of your perspective. Assume the Federal government sets up a program to buy LE vehicles, and the only criteria is 'if you have the vehicles as described we will buy them'. (shorthand "The LE Car Program")

A broad program available across the board.

The government cannot amend the law to say 'the LE Car Program is not available to Jim Bobs LE Cars, LLC, because the government doesnt like his individually held stance on federal game laws.'

If you offer a broad program to the general population of physicians, you cant single one of them out because you dont like their political viewpoint. Again, end of story.

(07-08-2025 10:11 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 10:00 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 09:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 09:14 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 09:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Glad to note actually caring about whether a bill (law) adheres to the Constitution is being a (checks notes) one of a group of "Progressive Judicial Activist’s"

If caring whether the 1st, 5th, 14th, or prohibition on Bills of Attainder are proper is being a (scary thunder crash) "Progressive Judicial Activist" (spooky organ music), then -- yeah, sign me up as a (scary thunder crash) "Progressive Judicial Activist" (spooky organ music) 7 days a week and four times on Sunday.

Cool cool.

What is your nomenclature for people who *dont* give a **** about basic Constitutional principles? Obviously *not* (scary thunder crash) "Progressive Judicial Activist" (spooky organ music), so what do you deem those folks wo dont care about those basic Constitutional issues? Im really interested in finding out....

You're still mixing issues.

Do I think this was targeted specifically because of Planned Parenthood's overt political activism? Yes. I do. You do have a point there, but to suggest its unconstitutional is laughable. Again, show me another "medical institution" that uses its platform for political activism. If they exists, I bet they've been cut before too.

I agree they have a political viewpoint, and have a platform for that. And the broad point bolded above simply doesnt matter.

Quote:The crux of the issue is that Planned Parenthood does not have a "right" to federal funding.

Correct, they do not have a "right" to direct federal funding. That isnt the issue.

Quote:No more so than Johns Hopkins or the Mayo Clinic does. If the federal govt decides it doesn't want to provide federal funding to Hopkins any longer it's well within its right and purview to do so. There is nothing unconstitutional about the federal govt defunding Planned Parenthood no more than it is any other institution like Hopkins. A district judge simply cannot tell the federal government that it has to fund an independent entity. That, itself, is what is unconstitutional and this is going to be struck down in about five minutes.

This isnt an issue of 'direct funding', Three. If it were, your points would be absolutely valid, on point, and correct.

This is an issue of participation in a broad program that is designed to pay medical providers for services rendered.

In order,

1) PP has a right not to discriminated against in participating in that broadly defined and broadly available program. That is a basis for an equal protection problem, when they are singled out.

2) PP has a right not to discriminated against in participating in that broadly defined and broadly available program based on *any* political viewpoints. That is a basis for 1st Amendment problem, when they are singled out *for* a political view.

3) PP has a right not to literally singled out in a law for no rational basis against in participating in that broadly defined and broadly available program. That is a basis for a bill of attainder problem, when they are singled out specifically as they are.

4) PP has a right not to targeted and barred from participating in that broadly defined and broadly available program because they provide, apart from that program, a legal service of abortion. That is a basis for a targeting problem, when they are singled out because of engaging in a completely legal activity.

Again, if this were direct funding -- you would be absolutely correct that the Fed Govt would have a proper basis for cutting direct funding.

When it comes to a broadly available public program, the Govt *can* cut, but has to show a pretty good reason to do so. Like they *can* cut practices that engage in Medicare fraud as specific participants. But when a program is available as a broad 'paid services' like Medicare, they do not have the power to do that style in named, specific, individual removal under the law when the distinguishing factors are political viewpoint, and such.

But this goes to the misnomer of 'funding'. Which pretty much everyone here has glommed onto in the manner that was intended. And doesnt accurately protray what is really happening under the hood.

Huh? The entire lawsuit is about its funding being cut through Medcaid. That is a federally funded program. Therefore, that is federal funding.

The bill doesn't stop PP from providing those services. It prohibits the federal govt for paying for them. Seriously, aren't you tired of losing arguments yet?

And the program at law is open to literally anyone who can provide them.

And to deny any single provider from that program based on a political viewpoint is highly problematic.

End of story.

Let me put it into more of your perspective. Assume the Federal government sets up a program to buy LE vehicles, and the only criteria is 'if you have the vehicles as described we will buy them'. (shorthand "The LE Car Program")

A broad program available across the board.

The government cannot amend the law to say 'the LE Car Program is not available to Jim Bobs LE Cars, LLC, because the government doesnt like his individually held stance on federal game laws.'

If you offer a broad program to the general population of physicians, you cant single one of them out because you dont like their political viewpoint. Again, end of story.

Yes it can. Hell, the federal govt can establish multi-billion proposals and retract them for any number of reasons. I mean a bid to Boeing can be cut simply because they didn't like the way they ran the contract.

The USG has already specifically singularly cut entities like NPR and others. The Constitution cannot and does not require the executive branch to use taxpayer money to fund specific program and prohibit from unfunding programs. The unconstitutionally is a single district judge believing he can trample on the Constitution to force the federal government to do something like fund a program that politically aligns with his views.

And again, I will remind you this isn't an executive branch policy or order. It's a Congressionally passed bill. Only Congress has the authority to determine the federal governments budget of what can and can't be spent on federally funded programs. Not a single unelected judge.

(07-08-2025 09:39 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  Oh, come on, judge. It's just a clump of money anyway. /sarcasm

But seriously, so we should all be okay with our tax dollars funding an abortion mill organization that was founded by a lady who wanted to control the black population in this country and therefore aiding in the destruction of the black family unit that was started by LBJ's Great Society, where everybody ultimately sucks on the government teat, which really stems from the lack of a true father figure in LBJ's life? I don't think so, especially when they turn around and fund Democrat-supported causes and politicians. They're a private organization anyway.

No doubt the political viewpoint of the founder sucks.

And I have no problem with our tax dollars being used to fund many other medical services, as provided for in the law.

To try and say that PP cannot participate in that broadly offered program is as specious as saying a raging white nationalist cannot participate. I may not support either's political goals, but the government cannot deny either's participation in the program based on those political goals. Nor on a founder's background.

And hate to tell you, just about all the participants in Medicare are 'private organizations' --- called corporations. That point doesnt sway the justification meter an iota.