I worked as a private business consultant with a number of government clients for many years, including the Pentagon, the Navy, the USPS, and various state and local entities.

Hate to tell you, Tanq, but the government routinely excludes certain specific vendors, or certain classes of vendors, routinely, for any number of reasons.

(07-08-2025 10:17 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(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:  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.

To cut them solely due to a *political* viewpoint is absolutely prohibited. Its called the 1st Amendment, mind you. The government cannot regulate participation in and with wide programs based simply on political viewpoint.

Quote:The USG has already specifically singularly cut entities like NPR and others.

And that is being litigated under the 1st Amendment as we speak.

Further, NPR is different aspect -- it is the beneficiary of specific, named funding. Again, that falls into the 'direct funding' bucket. Not the 'participation in a widely available program' bucket.

Quote:The Constitution cannot and does not require the executive branch to use taxpayer money to fund specific program and prohibit from unfunding programs.

In your view the Executive has unfettered power to use, and to prohibit use, of designated funds? Lot of SCOTUS law on that point, my friend.

Last I saw, his job is to 'execute' those laws that Congress passes. As opposed to your junta major domo view of the Executive that you put forth above.

Maybe you should double check if that word 'execute' is the exact word used in Art. 2. That seems to be my recollection of it.

Quote:The unconstitutionally is a single district judge believe he can trample on the Constitution to force the federal government to do something that politically aligns with his views.

That still doesnt sit with the facts in the case, and pretty much a bunch of rhetoric you toss out above.

Last I saw, a judge can determine the Constitutionality of a law, and provide actions of justice to the parties in front of them. Maybe you can educate me where that has changed. And also, there is one party sitting in front of this judge, and the order reaches that one party only.

(07-08-2025 10:29 AM)TripleA Wrote:  I worked as a private business consultant with a number of government clients for many years, including the Pentagon, the Navy, the USPS, and various state and local entities.

Hate to tell you, Tanq, but the government routinely excludes certain specific vendors, or certain classes of vendors, routinely, for any number of reasons.

Cant do it solely for *political* viewpoint, good sir. That is the point.

That is cant exclude simply because Acme Widgets donates or supports any specific political cause in a legal manner.

(07-08-2025 10:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 10:29 AM)TripleA Wrote:  I worked as a private business consultant with a number of government clients for many years, including the Pentagon, the Navy, the USPS, and various state and local entities.

Hate to tell you, Tanq, but the government routinely excludes certain specific vendors, or certain classes of vendors, routinely, for any number of reasons.

Cant do it solely for *political* viewpoint, good sir. That is the point.

That is cant exclude simply because Acme Widgets donates or supports any specific political cause in a legal manner.

Hey genius, if they don't like a political viewpoint, they can always find another legit reason to exclude a vendor.

(07-08-2025 10:35 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 10:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 10:29 AM)TripleA Wrote:  I worked as a private business consultant with a number of government clients for many years, including the Pentagon, the Navy, the USPS, and various state and local entities.

Hate to tell you, Tanq, but the government routinely excludes certain specific vendors, or certain classes of vendors, routinely, for any number of reasons.

Cant do it solely for *political* viewpoint, good sir. That is the point.

That is cant exclude simply because Acme Widgets donates or supports any specific political cause in a legal manner.

Hey genius, if they don't like a political viewpoint, they can always find another legit reason to exclude a vendor.

Then they shouldnt be such a dumb*** and codify it as they did for this issue.

(07-08-2025 10:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 10:35 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 10:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 10:29 AM)TripleA Wrote:  I worked as a private business consultant with a number of government clients for many years, including the Pentagon, the Navy, the USPS, and various state and local entities.

Hate to tell you, Tanq, but the government routinely excludes certain specific vendors, or certain classes of vendors, routinely, for any number of reasons.

Cant do it solely for *political* viewpoint, good sir. That is the point.

That is cant exclude simply because Acme Widgets donates or supports any specific political cause in a legal manner.

Hey genius, if they don't like a political viewpoint, they can always find another legit reason to exclude a vendor.

Then they shouldnt be such a dumb*** and codify it as they did.

They codify it by the other reason. If they did otherwise, then that's dumb. But it happens.

(07-08-2025 10:37 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 10:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 10:35 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 10:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 10:29 AM)TripleA Wrote:  I worked as a private business consultant with a number of government clients for many years, including the Pentagon, the Navy, the USPS, and various state and local entities.

Hate to tell you, Tanq, but the government routinely excludes certain specific vendors, or certain classes of vendors, routinely, for any number of reasons.

Cant do it solely for *political* viewpoint, good sir. That is the point.

That is cant exclude simply because Acme Widgets donates or supports any specific political cause in a legal manner.

Hey genius, if they don't like a political viewpoint, they can always find another legit reason to exclude a vendor.

Then they shouldnt be such a dumb*** and codify it as they did.

They codify it by the other reason. If they did otherwise, then that's dumb. But it happens.

And when the political reason is unmasked, thank you for implicitly acknowledging it isnt proper with the above. Which is the point of the issue, mind you.

Or is your bringing up 'it happens all the time' your attempt at justifying the issue?

Man, you get him talking and he doesn't stop (till the vodka makes him pass out I guess).

(07-08-2025 10:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 10:29 AM)TripleA Wrote:  I worked as a private business consultant with a number of government clients for many years, including the Pentagon, the Navy, the USPS, and various state and local entities.

Hate to tell you, Tanq, but the government routinely excludes certain specific vendors, or certain classes of vendors, routinely, for any number of reasons.

Cant do it solely for *political* viewpoint, good sir. That is the point.

That is cant exclude simply because Acme Widgets donates or supports any specific political cause in a legal manner.

Again, Congress holds the power of the purse. They decide what can and cannot be funded. Want to talk about Articles of the Constitution. It's No. 1.

If you think you're so right on this let's do a similar bet to what you did last year. Bottom line. This is going to be overturned. If that happens you go away until Jan 1. If it doesn't get overturned I will got away until Jan. 1.

So, put your money where you mouth is if you really believe the asinine drivel coming from your fingers.

If a hate group wanted to provide the non abortion services PP provided, should they be able to participate in the gov't big pile of money, or would the govt have a legitimate right to exclude them?

(07-08-2025 10:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(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.

:yawn:

You bore us with your continual ignorance or lack of understanding of something you are supposed to have expertise in.

Common sense eludes your madness. Over and over you defend a losing proposition

I am led to believe you are a masochist or just completely out of touch with reality and the way things work

Personality Disorders 101

This thread should, once and for all, put to bed the notion that Tanq only cares about the rule of law.

(07-08-2025 11:11 AM)solohawks Wrote:  If a hate group wanted to provide the non abortion services PP provided, should they be able to participate in the gov't big pile of money, or would the govt have a legitimate right to exclude them?

The government may not exclude people from a widely available program based on political viewpoint.

Nor can the government target them for participating in otherwise legal activities.

Would most (including me) be happy if there was a doctors group who was solely made up of physicians who were members of the Aryan Nation participating as physicians for *any* Medicare ? No. Not at all.

But the 1st Amendment is clear. The government cannot discriminate against them for political viewpoints. As is the equal protection clause. Wash rinse and repeat for any group exercising their political views in a wholly legal manner.

Wash, rinse and repeat for any group that has an odorous viewpoint.

In this case, PP has a very progressive viewpoint. They provide abortion services where they are legal (and not covered by Medicare, mind you). They provide a massive amount of non-abortion medical services that are covered by Medicare.

The State of Tennessee routinely reduces appropriations by name in the Appropriation Bill and declines to renew appropriations for entities . It is customary, normal, and appropriate.

PC 530, Section 60 is a good example. https://publications.tnsosfiles.com/acts...pc0530.pdf

(07-08-2025 11:08 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 10:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 10:29 AM)TripleA Wrote:  I worked as a private business consultant with a number of government clients for many years, including the Pentagon, the Navy, the USPS, and various state and local entities.

Hate to tell you, Tanq, but the government routinely excludes certain specific vendors, or certain classes of vendors, routinely, for any number of reasons.

Cant do it solely for *political* viewpoint, good sir. That is the point.

That is cant exclude simply because Acme Widgets donates or supports any specific political cause in a legal manner.

Again, Congress holds the power of the purse. They decide what can and cannot be funded. Want to talk about Articles of the Constitution. It's No. 1.

And the No. 1 Amendment says that an individual's free speech cannot be infringed by the government.

When Congress specifically removes a person from participation in wide and open program, based on political viewpoints, or political activity, that is a no no.

Quote:If you think you're so right on this let's do a similar bet to what you did last year. Bottom line. This is going to be overturned. If that happens you go away until Jan 1. If it doesn't get overturned I will got away until Jan. 1.

Easier solution -- do you think it is proper for a government to discriminate on participation in an open program and against entities based solely on their political viewpoint? Easy to answer as yes or no question. One side says you agree with the 1st amendment and political views, and the other side says you do not.

So -- yes or no?

If yes, who makes the decision on what political viewpoints should be protected, and what should be targeted?

Quote:So, put your money where you mouth is if you really believe the asinine drivel coming from your fingers.

Maybe you put your money where your mouth is and answer my very simple question above. It really is a simple question. It might go to the core of who each you and I are.

(07-08-2025 11:40 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  The State of Tennessee routinely reduces appropriations by name in the Appropriation Bill and declines to renew appropriations the entities. It is customary, normal, and appropriate.

PC 530, Section 60 is a good example. https://publications.tnsosfiles.com/acts...pc0530.pdf

For the more than 4th time, one cannot do so based *solely* or *primarily* on political viewpoint.

Those last 7 words are very material, and continue to be overlooked in whole.

(07-08-2025 11:16 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 10:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(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.

You bore us with your continual ignorance or lack of understanding of something you are supposed to have expertise in.

Common sense eludes your madness. Over and over you defend a losing proposition

I am led to believe you are a masochist or just completely out of touch with reality and the way things work

Personality Disorders 101

And (once again) you do your insto presto devolution to thin crappy name calling instead of responding to actual issues. Cool cool, my friend.

Please don't take the bet. I'll miss all the laughter you provide.

(07-08-2025 11:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 11:40 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  The State of Tennessee routinely reduces appropriations by name in the Appropriation Bill and declines to renew appropriations the entities. It is customary, normal, and appropriate.

PC 530, Section 60 is a good example. https://publications.tnsosfiles.com/acts...pc0530.pdf

For the more than 4th time, one cannot do so based *solely* or *primarily* on political viewpoint.

Those last 7 words are very material, and continue to be overlooked in whole.

In this case, you are incorrect. Throughout the years, governors and legislators from both parties have excluded organizations falling out of political favor. Furthermore, just as the General Assembly and Governor can decline to fund the KKK due to political viewpoints, so too can they exclude funding Planned Parenthood.

I am not attempting to convince you - just stating the facts and I will not get bogged down in a futile debate. Carry on.....

(07-08-2025 11:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 11:08 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 10:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 10:29 AM)TripleA Wrote:  I worked as a private business consultant with a number of government clients for many years, including the Pentagon, the Navy, the USPS, and various state and local entities.

Hate to tell you, Tanq, but the government routinely excludes certain specific vendors, or certain classes of vendors, routinely, for any number of reasons.

Cant do it solely for *political* viewpoint, good sir. That is the point.

That is cant exclude simply because Acme Widgets donates or supports any specific political cause in a legal manner.

Again, Congress holds the power of the purse. They decide what can and cannot be funded. Want to talk about Articles of the Constitution. It's No. 1.

And the No. 1 Amendment says that an individual's free speech cannot be infringed by the government.

When Congress specifically removes a person from participation in wide and open program, based on political viewpoints, or political activity, that is a no no.

Quote:If you think you're so right on this let's do a similar bet to what you did last year. Bottom line. This is going to be overturned. If that happens you go away until Jan 1. If it doesn't get overturned I will got away until Jan. 1.

Easier solution -- do you think it is proper for a government to discriminate on participation in an open program and against entities based solely on their political viewpoint? Easy to answer as yes or no question. One side says you agree with the 1st amendment and political views, and the other side says you do not.

So -- yes or no?

If yes, who makes the decision on what political viewpoints should be protected, and what should be targeted?

Quote:So, put your money where you mouth is if you really believe the asinine drivel coming from your fingers.

Maybe you put your money where your mouth is and answer my very simple question above. It really is a simple question. It might go to the core of who each you and I are.

No. 1: I will not. Your question is inherently flawed. It's like asking the man do you prefer to beat your wife in the morning or in the evening. An ideologically motivated question leads to a false assumption and a flawed outcome based on presumption rather than facts. Your presentation of your question is not factually based or relevant. So, no I'm not going to answer a question that is laced with innuendo and lack of objectivity. The right question is can Congress add or remove single entities by name in a discretionary funding decisions and and the answer is unequivocally yes. Moreover, the discretion and use of federal tax payer funding for any reimbursement program is not a 1st amendment/free speech issue.

No. 2: Your second question is even worse and defeats your own arguments. If you subscribe to the notion that PP was only cut for political viewpoint reasons, you're acknowledging that PP was only funded for political reasons in the first place. So, the question should go back to you. What political viewpoint deserve taxpayer funding. Here you trap yourself into the flawed logic of the presentation of the entire argument and questions you presented. If PP and you believe it is only being cut for its views then why is the taxpayer money being used to fund political activism in the first place? That should never happen.

Lastly, it's clear you know you're wrong or you would take the bet. You just want to argue on behalf if your liberal ideology.