This pretty much sums up a lot of the development projects that get pitched to the general public. This one is from an Alan Bedenko (Buffalopundit) piece about a proposed Buffalo megacasino. Looks like we need an open thread.
Reader Interactions
45Comments
Comments are closed.
SiubhanDuinne
Joni Mitchell nailed it in 1970.
Raven
Huge fight against walmart here in Athens.
“We think Athens can do better than put a 100,000 sq. ft. (counting the loading dock of course!) in downtown. The staggering weight of evidence that shows Wal-Mart kills jobs especially concerns us. Athens, Georgia has a 40% poverty rate.”
Walker
@Raven:
We fought WalMart in Ithaca for a decade. All it took was one change in city council to finally lose that fight.
Omnes Omnibus
I thought this was going to be about the mobile site.
Raven
@Walker: Yea, I’m not optimistic. From most accounts the developer has every right to do this. It’s funny, a few years back we had a big fight over rental registration. Many of the people fighting walmart tooth and nail fought the rental rules because they didn’t want the government telling them what to do with THEIR property.
Punchy
I didnt know bison gambled.
Anya
What do the find legal minds at BJuice think, are we losing the health care fight because the government lawyer sucked? My frantic co-worker told me so.
Linda Featheringill
@Punchy:
“I didnt know bison gambled.”
They do gambol, though, especially the younger ones.
:-)
Linda Featheringill
@Anya:
Health care fight and the SCOTUS:
IANAL but it has been my unscientific observation through the years that the Court makes decisions when it wants to and how it wants to. Not only can we not control it, we also can’t predict what it’ll do.
Lucky we’re as well off as we are?
jnfr
@Anya:
The fine folks at Ezra’s Wonkblog, as usual, have a good summary of what happened yesterday and what might happen next. I don’t know enough to say.
Egg Berry
@Anya: From what I’ve read, trying to figure out what the court will do based on oral arguments is a sucker’s bet. Ninety-nine percent of their decision-making process is done out of public view. And if the HCR fight is lost at the Supreme Court level, it was lost in late 2000, not yesterday.
__
I would add that I have found the breathless reporting and “analysis” of the last two days off-putting.
Omnes Omnibus
@Anya: Oral arguments mean a lot less than most people would think. Decision by the Court are really made based primarily on the research done in the chambers of the Justices and on the arguments made in the briefs that were submitted by the parties to the suit and other interested groups. Appellate judges use oral argument for a variety of purposes including signaling their concerns to other members of the panel so that those concerns may be addressed in any written opinion, trying to get answer to a small niggling point that bothers the judge, tormenting counsel, and so on. I have had cases where softball questions were lobbed at me by appellate counsel and I got crushed in the opinion. I have had cases where I got shelled and preformed poorly in oral argument and won. Also too, vice versa on both counts. O would not rely on any analysis of oral argument to predict the end result.
WhoopTDu
Scalia flip flops.
Via Buzzfeed:
In exchange with Solicitor General, Justice Scalia contradicts his concurrence in Gonzales v. Raich.
Maude
@Omnes Omnibus:
The justices have fun giving lawyers a rough time.
Anya
Thanks for the informative responses. I don’t know enough about the law or the SCOTUS to make any informed comment. But I get what everyone is saying. However, I hate that if we lose this fight, it will be atributed to the inadequate work the Solicitor General did and not about the partisan judges who ignored their own past rulings and legal precedence in favor of partisanship.
HRA
Last nights news did not say it was going to be a mega casino.
It seems like the powers to be nixed it and they shrunk the land on where it is going to be built.
A lot of big ideas going on downtown. We’ve been there too many times.
The ad touting Cuomo for his budget without raising taxes makes me want to throw something at the TV even though I am not one to normally have those thoughts. There is nothing mentioned about the state workers who had to give him 5 days without pay and a reduced pay check.
Cap'n Swag
I awoke this morning to find out that the gas price average is up again ($3.91) for like the 19th straight day or something. And amazingly, the price of crude is $106. When prices hit their $4.11 peak in 2008, crude was $147. So we might actually surpass that peak while crude won’t hit its previous peak.
Naturally I’m confused about why this is happening. So I search “Google news” for answers. What a revelatory experience. Every story is either a) who is getting the most blame for gas prices or b) why Republicans say its Obama’s fault. No media outlet knows how to properly write about it. They either don’t know who to call or are too lazy to write anything else.
RAM
It occurs to me that Dean Baker is, if not THE best, at least one of the best economics bloggers on the web.
No need to pay me for this vital information; I do stuff like this for free all the time.
Kirbster
Everyone is looking for the quick and easy fix. Seriously, how many casino resorts can a country have before the market is saturated? The states thought that lottery games would solve all their budget problems. Now they think that casinos will be the answer to their unemployment and shrinking tax revenue woes.
NotMax
Kudos for the decision to not succumb to sensationalism by AlJazeera TV:
The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik
Your Tone-Deaf Moment of the week:
NRA’s online store selling new Concealed Carry Hoodie. According to them, “We want concealed carry to fit around your lifestyle — not the other way around.”
dr. bloor
@Anya: I didn’t get the impression that the latter part of your comment is actually true of Kennedy. He seemed to be trying to wrap his brain around fitting the mandate in the framework of the constitution as he understands it. I think that understanding is archaic, but not necessarily corrupt. If one of the minority can find a limiting principle that he can live with, he might be the fifth vote.
Or, they may go 9-0 to uphold the mandate just to avoid dealing with the goat@$&” that the severabilty argument will generate today.
bemused
@RAM:
Subpar journalism in msm bears a large responsibility for so many Americans being absolutely clueless on most issues.
Marcellus Shale, Public Dick
@Punchy:
they didn’t used to, but going to the verge of extinction can really change a species.
honus
Well, the balloon still looks like beach ball and the I miss the clown-pants guy, but other than that the new site has been sorted out so it is pretty much almost as good as the old one.
redshirt
@bemused: It’s the lynchpin to everything, and the first step in correcting the current insanity.
Imagine a world where the media held all politicians and those in power to account for their deeds, accurately reporting details and providing context.
Well, quite simply, the Republican party could not exist as it does today.
It seems like this is a thread we could follow – reform the media. Seems hopeless to wish for changes to the Repukes before that happens.
curiousleo
Since this is an open thread, I’ll post about the NC fight against the anti-gay amendment to the state constitution. A number of conservatives have publicly stated their opposition to the amendment, including the leader of the John Locke Fnd (that was a surprise) and conservative former state supreme court justice Bob Orr. Business leaders in NC do not want this amendment either.
But now the NOM folks and others are starting to pull out all the hate stops.
This fight in NC is winnable IF we can get out message out and that takes everyone contacting folks they know in NC and getting them to the polls on May 8. Many people think the vote is on the general election day and it isn’t. May 8 (primary day). twitter DM your NC friends and get them to vote against on May 8.
https://secure.actblue.com/page/ncmoneybomb?refcode=actblue_homepage
lethargytartare
@WhoopTDu:
unpossible. the Balloon Juice “lawyers and law-followers that know more than John Cole because John Cole is ignorant of the inner workings of the Supreme Court and also because he’s a knee-jerk reacting scaredy balls” club assured me yesterday that Scalia wouldn’t dare deviate from his Raich opinion. It cannot be so.
Mnemosyne
@Cap’n Swag:
And yet when we were arguing about oil prices a few weeks ago, we had otherwise sensible comments swearing up and down that the price of gasoline is so tied into the price of crude that it was impossible that the oil companies were manipulating the price of gas. Impossible!
.
But this is one of the reasons I’m picking up my nice shiny new commuter bike this weekend. I really only drive back and forth to work (6 miles roundtrip) and to do errands (usually within a 5 miles radius) so it’s starting to seem foolish to spend $4 a gallon for such short distances.
.
(Have I made everyone admire my future bike today? Isn’t she pretty?)
.
Mnemosyne
.
Also, too, because I am old and unhip, can someone tell me who the guy in the photo is? I’m assuming he’s someone famous and not just a random dude.
vernon
Taibbi links to McMegan fun: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/appearance-tonight-talking-wall-street-accountability-with-spitzer-ratigan-and-others-in-washington-20120327
Did you think Reasonable Doubt was what a jury’s decision hinged on in a trial? Nope! It’s what McMegan has regarding the Trayvon Martin case—and it means no trial is necessary!
burnspbesq
@Anya:
Verilli missed one fairly obvious opportunity to remind the Court that for the last 70 years, the standard of review in Commerce Clause cases has been “rational basis,” which is a pretty deferential standard. Other than that, I don’t think he has sucked.
I think Neal Katyal, who was acting SG between the time Justice Kagan was nominated for the Supreme Court and the time Verrilli was confirmed, would have done a better job. But it would have been impossible to get him confirmed because of the great work he did on behalf of Gitmo detainees before he joined the SG’s office.
burnspbesq
The former head of the Polish intelligence service is facing criminal charges for what amounts to turning a blind eye to what was allegedly going on at an alleged CIA “black site” in Poland.
http://harpers.org/archive/2012/03/hbc-90008514
This could get really interesting.
ThresherK
Are the people of that area “undercasinoed”? At what point is building another one going to increase the total take, v. simply cannibalizing the not-so-growing pool? Where are the clients going to be drawn from?
This isn’t 1995 any longer.
(I also figure someone has studied the ease of access to casinos with problem gambling, but that’s another conversation, and I have no information on it.)
Steeplejack
@Mnemosyne:
__
That is a sweet-lookin’ ride.
__
What would be the equivalent manly Trek? Bro-man is talking about getting a bike, thought I could give him a recommendation. He’s just looking to cruise around the neighborhood for exercise and maybe take the occasional longer weekend ride.
Mnemosyne
@ Steeplejack:
There really isn’t an equivalent men’s bike from Trek right now — the closest is probably the Allant.
When I was first looking, someone on here recommended Linus Bikes, which are at a similar price point. It looks like either their Mixte or their Roadster might be something he would like. Other people were recommending Nirve, which has some urban bikes.
.
If he hasn’t been on a bike for a while, he might want to consider an Electra. They’re best-known for their beach cruisers, but they also have a men’s Amsterdam bike (though I’m not really sure why the men’s model has a skirt guard — maybe they’re West Hollywood urban?)
Steeplejack
@Mnemosyne:
__
Thanks for the information and leads. I’ll check ’em out.
Tonal Crow
On the ACA mandate, I don’t get why Verilli didn’t answer the broccoli question with:
Too forward for a Democratic administration?
replicnt6
I thought for sure that this was about Romney’s 4-car garage… elevator.
burnspbesq
@Tonal Crow:
No, not too forward. Just inconsistent with 190 years of Commerce Clause jurisprudence.
burnspbesq
@lethargytartare:
A question in oral argument is a pretty weak indicator of what might turn up in an opinion. Which you would know if you had asked any of the commenters here who know what they’re talking about on this subject, or read any of the many lawyer-run blogs that are following the case closely. You could start with SCOTUSBlog.
Tonal Crow
@burnspbesq: Read it again.
__
The ACA is constitutional if rooted in any Congressional power. The proposed argument is that it is firmly rooted in the Art.I s.8 cl.1 tax-and-spend clause, because there is no substantive difference between the government taxing a person for health insurance and then buying it with the resulting cash, and the government requiring a person directly to buy the health insurance or face a tax penalty.
__
The proposed argument makes no Commerce Clause argument whatsoever, so it can hardly be inconsistent with any Commerce Clause jurisprudence.
burnspbesq
@Tonal Crow:
It still doesn’t work. The taxing and spending power doesn’t exist in a vacuum ( or, put another way, Congress can’t tax and spend just for shits and giggles). A valid exercise of the taxing and spending power must be linked to a valid exercise of some other enumerated power.
In the case of the ACA, the guaranteed issue and community rating provisions are unquestionably valid exercises of the commerce power. Congress could, and did, rationally conclude that because of the problems of adverse selection and moral hazard, a mandate was necessary and proper to make the guaranteed issue and community rating provisions work without bankrupting all of the insurance companies.
Clearly, some mechanism is needed to enforce the individual mandate (thus, Chief Justice Roberts’ question about “or else what?”). That is, in my view, why the penalty is a valid exercise of the tax and spend power, I.e., because it is rationally related to a valid exercise of some other enumerated power.
Where Congress screwed up was in not calling it a tax. There are plenty of excise taxes in the Internal Revene Code that burden lawful commercial activity, and that nobody doubts are Constitutionally OK. One example is the Section 4371 excise tax on the purchase of insurance covering US risks from foreign insurance companies. If Congress had called the Section 5000A payment an excise tax and put it in Subtitle D of the Code, all of the confusion about the applicability of the Anti-Injunction Act would be eliminated, Williams Packing would be dead on point, and we could all get on with our lives and not worry about this until 2015.
Tonal Crow
@burnspbesq:
I have never heard of this limitation, and the tax-and-spend clause itself does not contain it, saying only:
My somewhat old (but I doubt outdated on this point) Rotunda, Nowak & Young, s.5.2, says that the taxing power is “plenary” except for some limits on duties which aren’t relevant here. Congress routinely uses the tax code to reach all kinds of conduct that are at the outer edges, if not beyond, its commerce power, for example the tax on imputed income from bartering of even the smallest magnitude (like, way smaller than the wheat at issue in Wickard) and entirely intrastate.
__
On the spending power, U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936) held that the spending power is coterminous with the taxing power. It explicitly discussed and rejected your idea, finally writing that “…the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution. Id. at 65-66 (emphasis added).
__
Please cite some precedents overturning Butler or otherwise supporting your idea that the tax-and-spend power is limited to fulfilling some other enumerated power.
ETA: Also, I have never heard of a requirement that Congress identify the powers in which a statute is rooted, nor that, if it does identify such powers, that it’s limited to arguing only those powers upon judicial review. Thus, whether Congress calls the mandate penalty a “tax” or a “unicorn” is irrelevant to whether it’s constitutional.
Laertes
I just now got caught up on Bullshitgate, having watched last night’s Daily Show at lunch, and I just want to say: Santorum is absolutely right.
That reporter was quibbling. It was a shameless, in-your-face act of dishonesty to frame his question in that way. I hate that shit. I hate it when people willfully misunderstand you, then repeat their dishonest mishearing back at you with that dumb-ass shit-eating-grin on their face (you can’t see the reporter’s face in that clip but I just know it was there) that says “Ha ha you have to waste time correcting me now, and that’s going to amuse me and annoy you. Dance for me, my puppet!”
Asshole. I don’t blame Santorum one bit for snapping him off. I’d have used much ruder language myself. It’s a genuinely endearing display.