Apparently, enough people in Congress agreed to make it a law.

Which a district judge has no jurisdiction to overrule.

(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:  

(07-07-2025 11:24 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  Not a government institution, Planned Abortionhood can suck a big veiny ****

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.

(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:  

(07-07-2025 05:23 PM)TripleA Wrote:  That's now law. Screw that idiot.

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

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

(07-07-2025 11:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-07-2025 11:24 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  Not a government institution, Planned Abortionhood can suck a big veiny ****

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...

When it is a law targeted at one organization, based on legal activity, and based on prohibiting payment provided everyone else, that law becomes highly problematic.

And it isn't a law that prohibits "funding". It is a law that prohibits payment *to* an organization for any service they provide, and that service is routinely paid by the program to literally millions of othe people that provide those same services.

On its face there is a problem. Much if, for no reason, a law was passed to prohibit Medicaid from remitting payment to the Pediatric Group of Bugtussle, Alabama -- for no particular reason.

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

And you think the above law specifically targeting the Buggtussle group passes the smell test? Sorry it doesn't. For many reasons.

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

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

Cool cool. Whatever you say ghetto pardner.

Glad you think political targeting in payment is a neat thing.

But the funny thing is that a "news source" changes the verb to 'funding' instead of the more accurate 'denies any payments for services rendered and which are paid regularly to every Tom Duck and Harry in the world', and you all swallow that change whole without bothering to look at the underlying issue, and you all go on the warpath.

Whether you like or dislike PPH, they do provide massive medical services which are wholly covered by Medicaid. Now, hey, for no real reason except they piss you off by providing other legally proper services that aren't covered by Medicaid, let's just write a law to scratch them off the overall ability to receive Medicaid for every thing they provide under the program.

You be you if you think that a proper law.

Tanq, good to see you declaring which laws are proper, and which are not.

(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:  

(07-07-2025 05:23 PM)TripleA Wrote:  That's now law. Screw that idiot.

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.

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

Glad yo see you avoiding the core issue in play.

Maybe you might try and answer to the previous questions. Or simply fo your deflection schtick like above.

(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:  

(07-07-2025 11:24 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  Not a government institution, Planned Abortionhood can suck a big veiny ****

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'.

(07-08-2025 07:23 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Apparently, enough people in Congress agreed to make it a law.

Doesn't add or subtract from the issue if it is a proper law under the Constituion, mind you.

Quote:Which a district judge has no jurisdiction to overrule.

Cool. A Federal District judge doesn't have jurisdiction yo decide the Constitutionality of a bill in their court. That is certainly a novel viewpoint.

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

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

Glad yo see you avoiding the core issue in play.

Maybe you might try and answer to the previous questions. Or simply fo your deflection schtick like above.

I'm not that interested in the core issue. Just find it funny that you are choosing which laws you like or don't like.

Btw, did you see the video of your buddy Kilmar fishing and gardening and having a good time in prison?

(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

(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.

Exactly! That’s how life works. You either meet the criteria or you don’t

It should not be a cookie jar for anyone who decides they need to a freebie


Enlighten us on who these folks are that being subjected to this scrutiny

(07-08-2025 08:28 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

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

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

Glad yo see you avoiding the core issue in play.

Maybe you might try and answer to the previous questions. Or simply fo your deflection schtick like above.

I'm not that interested in the core issue. Just find it funny that you are choosing which laws you like or don't like.

I tend to reserve policy opinions to ones that pass actually not in violation of the Constitution.

When they are done in an unconstitutional manner, I do choose to not like them out of hand.

Kind of a major difference between us I surmise.

If the policy were simple straight out direct funding -- I wouldnt have an issue with the bill, to be honest.

When it touches the issues it does (restricting payment for all medical services, based on political outlook, bill of attainder, violation of equal protection) -- those little things actually do matter to me. Bummer.

Quote:Btw, did you see the video of your buddy Kilmar fishing and gardening and having a good time in prison?

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?

(07-08-2025 08:45 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(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:  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.

Exactly! That’s how life works. You either meet the criteria or you don’t

It should not be a cookie jar for anyone who decides they need to a freebie


Enlighten us on who these folks are that being subjected to this scrutiny

Im glad you are for the issue of simply deleting Medicare providers and say they shouldnt be paid for provided medical services when they dont meet a political litmus test. Cool cool. Sounds like a fun time in BDville.

As to your last sentence -- in this issue PPH. Maybe look at the facts underlying the situation.

(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'.

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.

(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....

(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.

If true the judge has more acumen than our resident atty

(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.

Maybe Planned Parenthood shouldnt have been so political and focused on medical care

When you become a political agency you risk your funding getting cut when the party you support is not in charge.

Happens all the time

Also, to help me understand your argument, Congress is not allowed to single out a particular agency for whom they don't want public funds going towards?

(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.

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