Terrific: Kennedy Seems to Be Leaning Towards Adopting the Government's Position on Obamacare, Because If He Doesn't, He'll Be Forced to Strike the Whole Law Down as Unconstitutional

The law was written to coerce states into setting up their own exchanges. The threat/inducement was that if you set up your own exchange, your citizens got federal subsidies; if not, then not.

If you don't believe me, you can ask the Architect of Obamacare, Jonathan Gruber.

I mean, you once could have asked him. Now he lies about it, but no one prosecutes him, because The Caste makes its own rules and protects those who break the law to advance Caste goals.

But there is a doctrine of constitutional law which states that a law which would presume to coerce states into action -- which would order them to act, with penalties imposed if they don't -- are a violation of the federalist principle and thus are facially unconstitutional.

There was a lot of talk about this during the last go-round on Obamacare, with various judges noting that Obamacare presumed to take away all Medicaid subsidies for states which refused to expand Medicaid per Obamacare's dictates, that would constitute "coercion," and that would invalidate the act.

I think what they did there, if I remember right, was to strike down that business about losing all subsidies, while, of course, keeping the bulk of the law intact.

Well, in the current case, if you read the law as written -- rather than the Dream Logic manner of reading our chief fantasist Obama urges upon us -- then it is quite coercive indeed as regards subsidies. And that would make that provision unconstituitional.

So what then? Well, I think then Kennedy's preferred reading would be to strike down that line -- that is, read that line out of Obamacare -- and otherwise retain Obamacare as currently implemented.

So, the idea is that Obamacare was drafted so egregiously that it's unconstitutional, but none will dare call it unconstitutional, so instead Kennedy will rewrite the law to achieve conformity with the Constitution, thus delivering President El Jefe Maxima everything he wants from his Enabling Act.

So we've got that going for us.

Posted by: Ace at 05:12 PM

Comments

(Jump to bottom of comments)

1 (Erste?)

Posted by: HR needs cheeseburgers at March 04, 2015 05:14 PM (/kI1Q)

2 first?

Posted by: mallfly at March 04, 2015 05:14 PM (bJm7W)

3 ace, you're into French. Two words:

Fait Accompli

Fat accomplice.

Posted by: BumperStickerist at March 04, 2015 05:14 PM (IDj42)

4 Not surprised.

Posted by: Ronster at March 04, 2015 05:14 PM (ymjdW)

5 I still want to know who had what on John Roberts.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 04, 2015 05:14 PM (FsuaD)

6 well, I'm getting used to this daily shit sandwich, yummy, and also, fyi, the painters came today, and I think the fumes might be impairing my judgement, my spelling, and anything I might post tonight.

Posted by: spypeach at March 04, 2015 05:15 PM (/vbEv)

7 rats

expect BS about "intent" from the lib justices. Actual text is less important.

Posted by: mallfly at March 04, 2015 05:15 PM (bJm7W)

8 Sending that orphan to jail for murdering his parents would be bad.

_

Posted by: Justice Kennedy at March 04, 2015 05:15 PM (IDj42)

9 It's not what the law says, but what they meant...

Posted by: hello, it's Me Donna ....again at March 04, 2015 05:16 PM (Bn6aD)

10 Ace, you're a democrat, you should be thrilled.

Posted by: Nip Sip at March 04, 2015 05:16 PM (0FSuD)

11 Spypeach, what flavor of paint? Asking for a friend .

Posted by: tbodie at March 04, 2015 05:16 PM (tHAoL)

12 Yeah, so that thing where the courts are all about the principled interpretation of law.

No. It's just kings in robes. Constitutionality is just another word for Policy Preference.

Second Estate.

Posted by: AmishDude at March 04, 2015 05:17 PM (b4b5c)

13 I'm not ready to slit my wrists just yet. Because, well, it would hurt and stuff.

Let me live in my rose-colored dreamworld a bit longer, won't you?

Posted by: pep at March 04, 2015 05:17 PM (4nR9/)

14 It's racist vanilla

Posted by: spypeach at March 04, 2015 05:17 PM (/vbEv)

15 I gave up Supreme Court tea leaf reading forever.

I just assume that the USSC will find for Washington and against The People.

It's what they do.

Posted by: filbert at March 04, 2015 05:17 PM (h6Mpm)

16 We're never getting rid of Fredocare and this will literally kill us all.

So how about them Knicks?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 04, 2015 05:17 PM (nzKvP)

17 The last time they were predicting which way everyone was leaning, we got the surprise of Dread Justice Roberts calling it a tax.

Somebody should tally up how often these judicial "leanings" end up predicting outcomes. I bet it's well below 100%.

Posted by: BurtTC at March 04, 2015 05:17 PM (TOk1P)

18
Lithwick's blog post focused on Kennedy.

http://slate.me/1M7UzWJ

Posted by: Bandersnatch at March 04, 2015 05:17 PM (JtwS4)

19 And the record of predicting votes by Justices based on their questioning is just under 50-50, so you could strive for more accuracy by flipping a coin.

Kennedy in particular has often voted in the opposite of the way court-watchers predicted based on oral arguments and questions.

A wise and prudent person would wait until the actual decision comes down to despair or celebrate, but such a person would never get a gig here - or on most other sites where the Truly Pure Conservatives hang out.

Posted by: Adjoran at March 04, 2015 05:17 PM (QIQ6j)

20 Laws are for Losers.

Suck it, Peasants.

Posted by: Barack Obama at March 04, 2015 05:17 PM (ZPrif)

21 OTOH, maybe that traitor in the Matrix had the right idea. What difference does it make if you're a human D-cell if you think you're in Paradise?

Posted by: pep at March 04, 2015 05:18 PM (4nR9/)

22 What about the equal protections problem where people who are savvy enough to do withholding forms can get away with not paying the penalty whereas the average wage workers do not?

Posted by: Serious Cat at March 04, 2015 05:18 PM (UypUQ)

23 A wise and prudent person would wait until the actual decision comes down to despair or celebrate, but such a person would never get a gig here - or on most other sites where the Truly Pure Conservatives hang out.

Posted by: Adjoran at March 04, 2015 05:17 PM (QIQ6j)

Cut, jib. Newsletter?

Posted by: Sean Bannion at March 04, 2015 05:18 PM (V+kmg)

24 Now, wasn't there some talk about severability clause (or lack there of) issues last time around?

As in, if the court says "ehh, this part is not constitutional" they'd have to strike down the whole thing?

Again, not happening. The Supremes are no longer in the business of reading plain text and making decisions as to the constitutionality.

Posted by: mynewhandle at March 04, 2015 05:19 PM (AkOaV)

25 It's not what the law says, but what they meant...

But what the law says *IS* what they meant. They wanted to punish the states who didn't set up exchanges.

Judiciary delenda est.

Posted by: AmishDude at March 04, 2015 05:19 PM (b4b5c)

26 OTOH, maybe that traitor in the Matrix had the right idea. What difference does it make if you're a human D-cell if you think you're in Paradise?
Posted by: pep at March 04, 2015 05:18 PM (4nR9/)

Don't make me go all Catholic on you, pep.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at March 04, 2015 05:19 PM (V+kmg)

27 I still want to know who had what on John Roberts.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 04, 2015 05:14 PM (FsuaD)

----

That aint hard.

"Those are nice, undocumented, kids you adopted there. Be a shame if they had to go back."

Posted by: fixerupper at March 04, 2015 05:19 PM (JmjOe)

28 I still want to know who had what on John Roberts.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 04, 2015 05:14 PM (FsuaD)

Two words: Dead. Gay. Sheep.

Posted by: BurtTC at March 04, 2015 05:19 PM (TOk1P)

29 A wise and prudent person would wait until the
actual decision comes down to despair or celebrate, but such a person
would never get a gig here - or on most other sites where the Truly Pure
Conservatives hang out.

Posted by: Adjoran at March 04, 2015 05:17 PM (QIQ6j)

That's just crazy talk right there. Fire up the tar kettles!

Posted by: GGE of the Moron Horde, NC Chapter at March 04, 2015 05:19 PM (6fyGz)

30
I don't think I've ever read Ace so cynical.

Embrace it, Ace. Just embrace it.

Posted by: Soothsayer at March 04, 2015 05:19 PM (+UCDf)

31 What kind of necrophilia and bestiality photos do the Feds have on these people?

Posted by: Stateless Infidel at March 04, 2015 05:19 PM (AC0lD)

32 I think the fumes might be impairing my judgement, my spelling, and anything I might post tonight.
Posted by: spypeach at March 04, 2015 05:15 PM (/vbEv)

Pro tip: Put down the bottle of Pinot Grigio before you make that call.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at March 04, 2015 05:20 PM (V+kmg)

33 And the veto stands on keystone...

Posted by: hello, it's Me Donna ....again at March 04, 2015 05:20 PM (Bn6aD)

34 The gist of the Lithwick piece at #18 is don't read too much into his questioning and he has been very down on the whole Obamacare thing.

Posted by: Bandersnatch at March 04, 2015 05:20 PM (JtwS4)

35 what would it take for ONE person, just ONE, to have actual integrity, to follow the law, and to not side with their team? I have been shocked by this for the last 6 years.

Posted by: spypeach at March 04, 2015 05:20 PM (/vbEv)

36 Posted by: Adjoran at March 04, 2015 05:17 PM (QIQ6j)

Well, because however they decide, we're boned.

Republicans plan on introducing new subsidies to replace the old ones if the Supremes say the current subsidies are unconstitutional.

If they uphold the law, then hey -- it's gone to the supreme court twice and both times its been found constitutional. Stop being extremists, you wingnuts.

Posted by: mynewhandle at March 04, 2015 05:20 PM (AkOaV)

37 in other news, anyone think Obama Kerry etc want Iran to get the Bomb so they can use it as leverage to get Israel to disarm..? just wondering, since all hope seems lost anyway. Did you know that Scott Walker once set ants on fire with a magnifying glass?

Posted by: mallfly at March 04, 2015 05:21 PM (bJm7W)

38 This was the reason the last time around with the whole healthcare mandate.

If Congress writes, and then votes in, a crappy law then they should have to deal with it falling apart like this. It is not SCOTUS's job to save their bacon.

Doubly so when they *intentionally* wrote it that way so that they could squeeze states to participate.

Posted by: Lizzy at March 04, 2015 05:21 PM (lHHyw)

39 Does the federal government already do this to states: withholding highway funds unless speed limits enforced, withholding education funding unless certain standards are met, etc. If he says this is not permissible for exchanges, then doesn't that jeopardize a whole lot of other laws?

Posted by: dedomeno at March 04, 2015 05:21 PM (+D/2U)

40 I have been shocked by this for the last 6 years.

Posted by: spypeach at March 04, 2015 05:20 PM (/vbEv)

I used to be shocked. Now it's worn down to a sort of grim acceptance.

Posted by: GGE of the Moron Horde, NC Chapter at March 04, 2015 05:21 PM (6fyGz)

41 You know...

Given that Kennedy wanted to get rid of the ACA when it first came up in front of the Supreme Court, and how ticked off he reportedly was about Roberts's switched vote...

You'd think that he'd welcome a chance to torpedo the thing. Or at the very least not look for opportunities to save it.

In any event, as I said in the previous thread, if the court ends up saying that a plainly written law doesn't mean what it's plainly written to say, then I hope those responsible end up living long enough to regret it.

Posted by: junior at March 04, 2015 05:21 PM (UWFpX)

42 Since we're all Democrats now, this is good news then, right?

I get confused.

Posted by: Jaws at March 04, 2015 05:21 PM (WKNX4)

43 A wise and prudent person would wait until the actual decision comes down to despair or celebrate,

Here's the thing.

We know how 4 of the justices will ... and consider the word we use for the judiciary ... "rule".

We know this because they have no fidelity to the law -- written or otherwise.

We should not be in a position where half of America's judges are like this.

I blame the entire legal profession, may it delenda.

Posted by: AmishDude at March 04, 2015 05:21 PM (b4b5c)

44 it's such black letter law that I am shocked that even brain dead box wine chugging libs like RBG would want to go down in history with that type of decision next to their names.

Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at March 04, 2015 05:21 PM (wlWrh)

45 A wise and prudent person would wait until the actual decision comes down to despair or celebrate
--

Cause you know so much, huh?

Posted by: Barack Obama at March 04, 2015 05:22 PM (ZPrif)

46 A wise and prudent person would wait until the actual decision comes down to despair or celebrate
--

Please, more life lessons.

Posted by: Barack Obama at March 04, 2015 05:22 PM (ZPrif)

47 @8 Sending that orphan to jail for murdering his parents would be bad.
-----------------

He's only a lad. Society made him. He's our responsibility.

Perhaps he's a little bit confused.

Posted by: junior at March 04, 2015 05:22 PM (UWFpX)

48 My hair stylist nearly passed out today when I told him what I am paying for Obamacare.

I have no health issues, on no meds, and I'm now paying $975/mo. with a $2,000 deductible.

Husband is paying about the same.

The "good" news is, I'm covering for maternity, and pediatric care for our 25 year old son. And I'm paying for Sandra Fluke's birth control and abortions.

So there's that.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 04, 2015 05:22 PM (FsuaD)

49 in other news, anyone think Obama Kerry etc want
Iran to get the Bomb so they can use it as leverage to get Israel to
disarm..?
Posted by: mallfly at March 04, 2015 05:21 PM (bJm7W)

History suggests that Israel will do what Israel must to ensure the best outcome for Israel, the rest of the world be damned. I wouldn't put money against that happening again.

Posted by: GGE of the Moron Horde, NC Chapter at March 04, 2015 05:23 PM (6fyGz)

50 I'm not holding my breath either way. The federal government has become so capricious and so lawless, that making since of it from one day to the other is impossible.

It's the shits living in tyranny.

Posted by: Soona at March 04, 2015 05:23 PM (/HX7u)

51
@29, and slit the tops off the feather pillows!
(In all honesty, I agree with Adjoran. Let's wait until it comes out one way or t'other. This court has bucked Obama and the admin plenty in the past (heck, even his own appointees have bucked him a number of times), just not on ACA (where, unfortunately,it really, really counts. You can do a lot of good but a flop on that issue can tar the whole.)

Posted by: lurkingestlurker at March 04, 2015 05:23 PM (k8xvx)

52 Posted by: dedomeno at March 04, 2015 05:21 PM (+D/2U)

Right. I think Wyoming challenged the feds after Reagan threatened highway funding from any state that refused to raise the drinking age to 21.

Not sure how that went, but Wyomings drinking age is now 21, so I think I have a pretty good idea.

The feds use their leverage on EVERY PIECE of "free" money they give to the states.

Posted by: mynewhandle at March 04, 2015 05:23 PM (AkOaV)

53 Well, except Kennedy was prepared to tear ObamaCare in half in 2012 and was stopped by the Chief Justice.

You have a very short memory, I guess.

Posted by: Jay in PA at March 04, 2015 05:23 PM (7T0u2)

54 A wise and prudent person would wait until the
actual decision comes down to despair or celebrate, but such a person
would never get a gig here - or on most other sites where the Truly Pure
Conservatives hang out.

Posted by: Adjoran at March 04, 2015 05:17 PM (QIQ6j)

Eh, I put it on about the same level as sports media types speculating on who is going to be drafted where and when. Mel Kaiper and others make quite a good living on spending all of January through May talking about mock drafts. It's what people do. Otherwise we could sit around all day talking about what rotten fartknockers Boehner and McConnell are.

Posted by: BurtTC at March 04, 2015 05:23 PM (TOk1P)

55 I have no health issues, on no meds....

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 04, 2015 05:22 PM (FsuaD)

Yet.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at March 04, 2015 05:23 PM (V+kmg)

56 #s 5 17 ~

When Roberts was nominated, it was well documented and discussed that he goes out of his way not to interfere with acts of Congress or the Executive, his judicial philosophy requires it and his record demonstrated it. At the time, this was considered a favorable aspect of his jurisprudence - but then, we also controlled the Congress and the White House.

Fast forward to the ObamaCare debate: every single Republican in and out of Congress, and every conservative columnist, argued the individual mandate was a tax; Obama and Democrats claimed it wasn't. At SCOTUS, Roberts rules we were right, and goes out of his way to avoid interfering with the political process - just as he was advertised to do.

So my question for those who now smear him for that decision is: are you a hypocrite, or just stupid?

Posted by: Adjoran at March 04, 2015 05:23 PM (QIQ6j)

57 next up: a lawsuit that asks the five Sup Ct conservatives how the gov't can make you pay a penalty (I'm sure the intent was for it to be a tax) for not buying something the 5 Sup Cons said the gov't doesn't have the authority to make you buy?
Bob is dead but Hope Lives.

Posted by: mallfly at March 04, 2015 05:24 PM (bJm7W)

58 I no longer believe in the possibility of "good news" anymore. So none of this is unexpected. Depressing, discouraging, but not unexpected.

Posted by: Null at March 04, 2015 05:24 PM (xjpRj)

59 since = sense

Posted by: Soona at March 04, 2015 05:24 PM (/HX7u)

60 Fugedaboutit. The Supremes will fold like a sheet. The GOPe will let it ride. WASS.

Posted by: Hank at March 04, 2015 05:24 PM (S1NkT)

61 37
in other news, anyone think Obama Kerry etc want Iran to get the Bomb so they can use it as leverage to get Israel to disarm..?

Um, no. I bow to nobody in my contempt for their analytical powers, but even they can't be stupid enough to think Israel would do such a thing.

Posted by: pep at March 04, 2015 05:24 PM (4nR9/)

62 I am going to put an optimistic spin on this since I can't bear anymore bad news today:

Kennedy is just covering his ass for his vote which he knows will bring down Fredocare like the walls at Jericho.

Preach it brother!

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 04, 2015 05:24 PM (nzKvP)

63 You can't read anything into a line if questioning that a Justice has during oral arguments. It may be an indicator, but it may not. He may have been trying to get someone to answer a question or not.

Nobody will know until the decision is released. Even if they vote sooner, which they will, it would be an incredible breach of protocol for the result to leak before announced with a decision and rationale drafted. Votes change based on the analysis and I would expect we would not get a majority opinion in either direction here. There will be a result, but my guess is that there will be different rationales for arriving it. My prediction is two majority opinions and three dissenting opinions. Kagan and Sotomayor will agree with each other. Breyer probably will not. Ginsburg likes to write her own opinions.

All that said, the coercion element is just as much a problem for the liberal justices. I could see a supermajority opinion on narrow grounds and Ginsburg dissenting on standing.

Perhaps given Obama's respect for the law, a decision overturning the subsidies would be met with the same comment that Andrew Jackson made, "Marshall has made his law, now let us see him enforce it."

Posted by: Vairish84 at March 04, 2015 05:24 PM (hjp//)

64 Since we're all Democrats now, this is good news then, right?

I get confused.
Posted by: Jaws at March 04, 2015 05:21 PM (WKNX4)

You obviously know nothing about Democrats. They are never happy nor satisfied. Ever.

Posted by: Meremortal at March 04, 2015 05:24 PM (1Y+hH)

65
Maddening on every level. If the law as written is unconstitutional and Kennedy knows it, strike it down. It's not his job to make it kosher!

In any case, experience dictates that they will preserve this piece of shit.

Hope not, but it's foolish to believe in miracles.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at March 04, 2015 05:24 PM (CMkNk)

66 I used to be shocked. Now it's worn down to a sort of grim acceptance.
Posted by: GGE of the Moron Horde, NC Chapter at March 04, 2015 05:21 PM (6fyGz)

Yes, and how sad is that?

I keep hoping that our children are so spoiled rotten and disrespectful that they will eventually revolt against the government like they do their parents...boy wouldn't that would be something to watch!

Posted by: spypeach at March 04, 2015 05:25 PM (/vbEv)

67 Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 04, 2015 05:22 PM (FsuaD)

Shhh, I recently dropped health insurance. Don't tell anyone.

But I pay $0 a month, with $0 deductible, and on the off chance I wrack up any bills I'm just not going to pay them because HIPAA says medical bills can't be used against me on my credit score.

But SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Posted by: mynewhandle at March 04, 2015 05:25 PM (AkOaV)

68 So, good bye .08 alcohol laws?

Posted by: toby928(C) at March 04, 2015 05:25 PM (evdj2)

69 Hope not, but it's foolish to believe in miracles.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at March 04, 2015 05:24 PM (CMkNk)

What you don't like Hockey?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 04, 2015 05:25 PM (nzKvP)

70 So my question for those who now smear him for that decision is: are you a hypocrite, or just stupid?
--
Are you a dipshit or just a derpwad?

Posted by: Barack Obama at March 04, 2015 05:25 PM (ZPrif)

71 I'm pretty sure the NSA has given the JEF the goods on every member of the Court.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 04, 2015 05:25 PM (FsuaD)

72 48 My hair stylist nearly passed out today when I told him what I am paying for Obamacare.

My Daughter now has no insurance. She and Her Husband make too much for a decent subsidy.. They have 2 Children. The best She could do just for Her mind You was 600 dollars a month and a 10,000 deductible...

Posted by: hello, it's Me Donna ....again at March 04, 2015 05:25 PM (Bn6aD)

73 Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 04, 2015 05:22 PM (FsuaD)

Damn, how many times do I have to tell you it is a tax.

Posted by: Roberts they got nuttin on me at March 04, 2015 05:25 PM (WNERA)

74 Does the federal government already do this to states: withholding highway funds unless speed limits enforced, withholding education funding unless certain standards are met, etc.

EVERY fed program comes "with strings".

They inventetd "with strings".

Posted by: rickb223 at March 04, 2015 05:26 PM (X1M+Q)

75
There aren't really people here who think the SC will strike down Obamacare, are there?

After all that has already happened?

Posted by: Meremortal at March 04, 2015 05:26 PM (1Y+hH)

76 I keep hoping that our children are so spoiled
rotten and disrespectful that they will eventually revolt against the
government like they do their parents...boy wouldn't that would be
something to watch!

Posted by: spypeach at March 04, 2015 05:25 PM (/vbEv)

If the time ever comes (God forbid) I would hope my sons will be right there passing me ammo.

Posted by: GGE of the Moron Horde, NC Chapter at March 04, 2015 05:27 PM (6fyGz)

77 It is income redistribution

Posted by: -- Gruber at March 04, 2015 05:27 PM (WNERA)

78 You can't read anything into a line if questioning that a Justice has during oral arguments. It may be an indicator, but it may not. He may have been trying to get someone to answer a question or not.

Posted by: Vairish84 at March 04, 2015 05:24 PM (hjp//)

And the proof of that is Roberts' original line of questioning in the 1st Obamacare case....which got us into this mess in the first place.

FML

Drink!

Posted by: Sean Bannion at March 04, 2015 05:27 PM (V+kmg)

79 5
I still want to know who had what on John Roberts.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 04, 2015 05:14 PM (FsuaD)

Fugly in garters and nets stockings. just sayin'

Posted by: Badda Bing at March 04, 2015 05:28 PM (JgQLj)

80 There aren't really people here who think the SC will strike down Obamacare, are there?

After all that has already happened?
Posted by: Meremortal at March 04, 2015 05:26 PM (1Y+hH)

Your particularly pessimistic today. may I write you a RX: Take 2 scotch's every 4 hours and call me in the AM.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 04, 2015 05:28 PM (nzKvP)

81 That is just silly. Why would Kennedy have to re-write the law; surely Roberts is ready to tune it up again. Dirty rat bastard, thanks a lot for putting such a schmuck on the bench Dubya.

Posted by: PaleRider at March 04, 2015 05:28 PM (dkExz)

82 That is just silly. Why would Kennedy have to re-write the law; surely Roberts is ready to tune it up again. Dirty rat bastard, thanks a lot for putting such a schmuck on the bench Dubya.

Posted by: PaleRider at March 04, 2015 05:28 PM (dkExz)

83 So my question for those who now smear him for that decision is: are you a hypocrite, or just stupid?
Posted by: Adjoran at March 04, 2015 05:23 PM (QIQ6j)

I stopped beating her months ag--- oh wait, I see what you did there!

There's a difference between using the constitution as a guide and deferring to congress and not legislating from the bench and on rubber stamping clearly unconstitutional laws.

Posted by: mynewhandle at March 04, 2015 05:28 PM (AkOaV)

84 If there's no recourse through the ballot box and there's no relief via the courts, that leaves one solution.

Taxation without representation... it's not just an historical slogan anymore.

Posted by: elaine at March 04, 2015 05:28 PM (Y0Piu)

85 Off to work. On a positive note, it's my last day of the week and since it's 70 degrees and sunny I'll be topless...in the convertible you pervs.

Later roonz and roonettez, fear no evil!

Posted by: GGE of the Moron Horde, NC Chapter at March 04, 2015 05:28 PM (6fyGz)

86 Gays aren't exclusively involved, so by all accounts, Kennedy was as eager to strike obamacare down as Scalia was on much the same terms.... So why would he change positions no?

Posted by: Phil at March 04, 2015 05:29 PM (gTSL/)

87 With the usual disclaimer that oral arguments don't tell you much, I have long felt that Kennedy was going to be the deciding vote in King with Roberts siding with plaintiffs. But no one knows.

Posted by: SH at March 04, 2015 05:29 PM (gmeXX)

88
@43
Some of the Unanimous SCOTUS decisions against Obama and for the rule of law.
Hosanna Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church School v. EEOC
Arizona v. United States
United States v. Jones
Sackett v. EPA
Seckhar v. United States
Gabelli v SEC
I will grant that it takes a monumental overreach to shock the lib judges, but it does happen. (Why it didn't with the UCA (Un-Affordable Care Act), I think stems from a certain amount of political blackmail of all the judges who voted in favor of it)

Posted by: lurkingestlurker at March 04, 2015 05:29 PM (k8xvx)

89 Posted by: Adjoran at March 04, 2015 05:17 PM (QIQ6j

Troll.

Posted by: buzzion at March 04, 2015 05:29 PM (zt+N6)

90 But there is a doctrine of constitutional law which states that a law which would presume to coerce
states into action -- which would order them to act, with penalties
imposed if they don't -- are a violation of the federalist principle and
thus are facially unconstitutional.

So Texas can have its .10, open container privileges, gunracks, and sub 21 drinking ages back? Alllllrighty then.

Posted by: Count de Monet at March 04, 2015 05:29 PM (JO9+V)

91 Your particularly pessimistic today. may I write you a RX: Take 2 scotch's every 4 hours and call me in the AM.
Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 04, 2015 05:28 PM (nzKvP)

Are you a betting person?

Posted by: Meremortal at March 04, 2015 05:29 PM (1Y+hH)

92 >>In other news, anyone think Obama Kerry etc want Iran to get the Bomb so they can use it as leverage to get Israel to disarm..?

I have no idea what their motivation is at this point. I think that Iran has sensed their desire to get an agreement, any agreement, now that they're so publicly committed, that they can keep upping their demands. Iran is just toying with them like a cat w/a mouse at this point.

See the latest from *yesterday*:Iran calls Obama's 10-year nuclear demand 'unacceptable'.

http://news.yahoo.com/ iran-rejects-obamas-demand-10-nuclear-halt-fars-105319674.html

Posted by: Lizzy at March 04, 2015 05:29 PM (lHHyw)

93 That poor unemployed yute didn't kill and rape that woman by himself; society is equally guilty for building the road he used to get there.

Posted by: Lizzie Warren took an ax... at March 04, 2015 05:30 PM (ylhEn)

94 At SCOTUS, Roberts rules we were right, and goes out of his way to avoid interfering with the political process - just as he was advertised to do.

He also spent a lot of time in the hearings and in that decision whining about the credibility of the court.

"Hey, you're absolutely right, this law is blatantly unconstitutional, but I'm not going to rule that way because reasons" basically undermines the whole point of the court.

Couple that with the fact that the bill was passed at a brief moment in time with procedural tricks on midnight votes and was responsible for a party-flip in Congress, I think you would have a hard case to make that SCOTUS would be overturning the will of the people.

But these Ivy-League lawyers aren't "of the people," are they?

Posted by: AmishDude at March 04, 2015 05:30 PM (b4b5c)

95 Are you a betting person?
Posted by: Meremortal at March 04, 2015 05:29 PM (1Y+hH)

Used to be, but my record sucks and I can't afford it anymore. I have to much grapefruit in my ear

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 04, 2015 05:30 PM (nzKvP)

96 The Supreme Court is supposed to not be swayed by political winds, that's why they don't run for office and have lifetime appointments.

Maybe we should just go ahead and get it over with and declare that our real leaders are unelected judges.

FWIW though, I actually think we will win on this case.

Posted by: McAdams at March 04, 2015 05:30 PM (LXs8j)

97 Ermm...Gutfeld just showed a pic of a little weasel riding on the back of a woodpecker.

*_0

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 04, 2015 05:31 PM (FsuaD)

98 The "good" news is, I'm covering for maternity, and pediatric care for
our 25 year old son. And I'm paying for Sandra Fluke's birth control and
abortions. [i/]

and Jane, isnt that what insurance is all about ?
It's not paying for YOUR medical needs.
Its about paying for everyone else's needs !!!
/sarc

Posted by: McCool at March 04, 2015 05:31 PM (g5Luu)

99 I think Scalia will threaten to beat the shit out of Roberts if he tries that garbage again.

Posted by: jmel at March 04, 2015 05:31 PM (cfFqn)

100 Fixer upper,
Do you really believe it's Roberts two adopted kids?

Posted by: Carol at March 04, 2015 05:31 PM (sj3Ax)

101 Eh, the majority in the nation helped craft the path it is now on.

I hope as many of them that did as possible get to live long enough to fully experience what they have brought upon future generations.

Posted by: Bete resigned to just watching the world burn at March 04, 2015 05:31 PM (CXdLL)

102 Used to be, but my record sucks and I can't afford it anymore. I have to much grapefruit in my ear
Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 04, 2015 05:30 PM (nzKvP)

Heh. I salute your honesty. 50 points to the House of Nevergiveup.

Posted by: Meremortal at March 04, 2015 05:32 PM (1Y+hH)

103 Repost from last thread @107 Carol. Thank You for the picture! (Also note to Pixy: MUMR Q'daffy is wrecking...again, again)

Posted by: Vincent Vega at March 04, 2015 05:32 PM (x6d4B)

104 FWIW though, I actually think we will win on this case.
Posted by: McAdams at March 04, 2015 05:30 PM (LXs8j

And then the GOP leadership will immediately draft a bill to "fix" the problem and surrender to Obama again.

Posted by: buzzion at March 04, 2015 05:32 PM (zt+N6)

105 The Supreme Court is supposed to not be swayed by political winds, that's why they don't run for office and have lifetime appointments.

----

I think it is they are less persuasive to political winds. I doubt the founders thought that by appointing them v. electing them they were completely insulating the court from political persuasion - just that they were trying to minimize it. I like to say, everything is political.

Posted by: SH at March 04, 2015 05:33 PM (gmeXX)

106 Kennedy just loves being the damn swing vote. He doesn't give a damn about anything but pats on the back for being oh so free- thinking.

Posted by: Lauren at March 04, 2015 05:34 PM (MYCIw)

107 I got nothin

Posted by: Jukebox Hero at March 04, 2015 05:34 PM (q+zA9)

108 Gay. Sheep.

Posted by: BurtTC at March 04, 2015 05:19 PM (TOk1P)

Where can you buy them?

Posted by: Barney at March 04, 2015 05:34 PM (0FSuD)

109

The Supreme Court Jesters.

There is nothing left of our republic. Nada.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette: Tanned and Rested at March 04, 2015 05:34 PM (IXrOn)

110 The only repeal will come from the states. A state must stand up and say, "no resources of this state will be used to force compliance."

Posted by: royaloil at March 04, 2015 05:34 PM (ZvKdv)

111 And then the GOP leadership will immediately draft a bill to "fix" the problem and surrender to Obama again.

Posted by: buzzion at March 04, 2015 05:32 PM (zt+N6)

...because they cant do anything without the Presidency and...for the children.

Posted by: Badda Bing at March 04, 2015 05:35 PM (JgQLj)

112 Fucking Romney.

Posted by: toby928(C) at March 04, 2015 05:35 PM (evdj2)

113 Via Drudge, there's a hotlink in my sock about how many of you will be able to tell the GOPe to get bent over the Amnesty funding bill when they phone you to convince you to still vote for the Party.

Posted by: andycanuck at March 04, 2015 05:35 PM (JCdoo)

114 Should I start inserting random Thomas Jefferson quotes about the tyranny of the judiciary here, or is that just pouring salt in the wound?

Posted by: Lauren at March 04, 2015 05:35 PM (MYCIw)

115 Ermm...Gutfeld just showed a pic of a little weasel riding on the back of a woodpecker.

Forbidden love. You can see the bird freaking out that she's been caught on camera.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at March 04, 2015 05:35 PM (0NdlF)

116 Fixer upper,
Do you really believe it's Roberts two adopted kids?
Posted by: Carol at March 04, 2015 05:31 PM (sj3Ax)

You didn't ask me, and I don't know why it happened.

But I did read that Robert's opinion was written in a way that suggested it had been hastily changed by 180 degrees, and that Ginsburg's opinion read like a minority dissent that had been rewritten as a majority opinion.

Posted by: Meremortal at March 04, 2015 05:35 PM (1Y+hH)

117 We should all join the ILWU. Employer paid Cadillac Plan for the entire family. No copay and no deductibles. $1 prescription cost. Low-cost dental and vision coverage. The good life.

Posted by: Hank at March 04, 2015 05:35 PM (S1NkT)

118 27 I still want to know who had what on John Roberts.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 04, 2015 05:14 PM (FsuaD)

----

That aint hard.

"Those are nice, undocumented, kids you adopted there. Be a shame if they had to go back."

Bingo. Adopted Irish orphans via third party (Argentina?), at a time when Ireland prohibited foreign adoption.
http://adopt.com/ireland/index.html

Posted by: BuddyPC at March 04, 2015 05:35 PM (jfUIE)

119
Does.Not.Matter.

"Constitutionsality" doesnt matter any more..... at all. It is a meaningless term that has come to mean whichever way the political winds are blowing today.

We have SC Justices that, with a straight face, argue that gay marriage, free healthcare, social justice, abortions, and a living wage are "constitutional rights".....

.... then turn around and argue that religious expression, the right to bear arms, the right to be secure in papers and possesions and states rights are nowhere to be found in that same constitution.

WASTF by TWANLOCs.

Posted by: fixerupper at March 04, 2015 05:35 PM (JmjOe)

120 The only repeal will come from the states. A state must stand up and say, "no resources of this state will be used to force compliance."

-----

I agree that for conservative change to come over this country, it must come from the ground up (in true conservative fashion). The states need to reassert themselves. To some extent this is starting. Just not at the speed we would wish.

Posted by: SH at March 04, 2015 05:36 PM (gmeXX)

121 >>Ermm...Gutfeld just showed a pic of a little weasel riding on the back of a woodpecker.

So Reid is giving Boehner a horsey ride?

Posted by: Aviator at March 04, 2015 05:36 PM (sQzB6)

122 104.

That's a different matter, but if something like that happens, even pretty moderate conservatives are going to start bolting the party.

If I were the Republicans in Congress, I would tie a subsidy bill for all 50 states to something poisonous that Obama would have to veto.
Say anyone can be granted a waiver on ObamaCare if they want to opt out?

Posted by: McAdams at March 04, 2015 05:37 PM (LXs8j)

123 I woke up covered in semen and pig shit, so I'm thinking I'm still a Democrat today.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at March 04, 2015 05:37 PM (oFCZn)

124 Not much to do about it - the populace accepted Roberts' illegal rewrite of Obamacare the first time around, so there's really no ground to complain about the Court rewriting the law a second time.

Unless consequences are imposed quickly and ruthlessly, illegal activity by the government simply becomes a new governmental power.

Nobody is willing to do anything beyond writing nastygrams, so tyranny proceeds apace.

Enjoy the war, the peace will be terrible.

Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at March 04, 2015 05:37 PM (amQXf)

125 Hamas, the terrorist group perpetually at odds with Israel, has found a willing patron in Turkey, say critics, who allege the NATO member has rolled out the red carpet for the Jewish states longtime nemesis, whose official headquarters are now in Istanbul.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 04, 2015 05:37 PM (nzKvP)

126 El Jefe Maxima

I see what you did there.

Posted by: zombie at March 04, 2015 05:38 PM (K4YiS)

127 Isn't it the existence of subsidies that makes it coercive? Just strike the subsidies for all?

Anyway Roberts one question was interesting. You can't have taxes written so vaguely. Otherwise why can't next POTUS reverse?

Posted by: ck at March 04, 2015 05:38 PM (A9FER)

128

Oh dear, what a shame.

*wink*

Posted by: The Republicans

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at March 04, 2015 05:39 PM (kdS6q)

129 Fixer upper,
Do you really believe it's Roberts two adopted kids?
Posted by: Carol at March 04, 2015 05:31 PM (sj3Ax)

----

Yup....

Posted by: fixerupper at March 04, 2015 05:39 PM (JmjOe)

130 The Supreme Court is supposed to not be swayed by political winds, that's why they don't run for office and have lifetime appointments.

Yeah, but that was when judges were doing obscure work on individual cases. Not when a single judge can use an emenation of a penumbra all over an incorporation to declare the overwhelming will of the people unconstitutional on a regular basis.

They need to be held accountable. What we've created is worse than an Ivory Tower. These people aren't even subject to accountability as human beings. They aren't just unaccountable to politics, they're unaccountable to reason.

If anything, they should have fixed terms rather than life. They should also have to rise through the ranks.

Posted by: AmishDude at March 04, 2015 05:39 PM (b4b5c)

131 FWIW though, I actually think we will win on this case.
Posted by: McAdams at March 04, 2015 05:30 PM (LXs8j)

----------------------------------

Excuse me, but, I'd like to peruse your medicine cabinet.

Posted by: Soona at March 04, 2015 05:39 PM (/HX7u)

132 Enjoy the war, the peace will be terrible.
Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at March 04, 2015 05:37 PM (amQXf)

You can't fool me, there's a veiled Let It Burn in that comment!

50 lashes!

Posted by: GOPe at March 04, 2015 05:39 PM (1Y+hH)

133 Yaaah..... Moar Kabuki Theater.

Roberts: "Kennedy it's your turn, I did it last time."

Posted by: Misfortune & Pestilence at March 04, 2015 05:39 PM (ZAeig)

134 I agree with the logic that if Roberts was the Justice that kept ObamaCare from being struck down, I don't see Kennedy flipping on a statutory part of the law that is pretty clear, even if that interpretation makes the law messy.

ObamaCare is a shit show from start to finish, even liberals will privately admit it. This isn't going to save it from being a messy, poorly constructed law that will eventually collapse.

Posted by: McAdams at March 04, 2015 05:40 PM (LXs8j)

135
I think you meant Constantinople.

Posted by: Soothsayer at March 04, 2015 05:40 PM (+UCDf)

136 Are you sure it wasn't the GOPe Dung of the Month Club delivery, Dack?

Posted by: andycanuck at March 04, 2015 05:40 PM (JCdoo)

137 I'm not quite sure I follow the logic here with respect to coercion. It may be correct, but assuming it is found to be unconstitutionally coercive, I'm not sure you still end up at the same result.

Posted by: SH at March 04, 2015 05:40 PM (gmeXX)

138 @5: "I still want to know who had what on John Roberts."

Why assume that anyone had anything on him? The elites - and he is one - all pretty much want the same thing. More power and wealth for themselves, and an oppressed peasantry to lord over.

Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at March 04, 2015 05:40 PM (amQXf)

139 Buddy PC,
Thank you for link. I'm going to read it.

Posted by: Carol at March 04, 2015 05:40 PM (sj3Ax)

140 Last time SCOTUS had to rule on whether Congress had the authority to adopt Obamacare at all. To say No would have been a significant precedent. This time it's actually easy for SCOTUS to read Obamacare as written and kick it back to Congress. Otherwise SCOTUS is rewriting the law. Big pieces of legislation are often followed by a technical corrections bill to fix glitches. The difference here is of course that the 2009 Congress passed Obamacare on the basis of lies and machinations so that the current Congress no longer supports it, but SCOTUS can in effect force Obama to get in a room with the current Congress to sort it out.

Posted by: Ignoramus at March 04, 2015 05:40 PM (EPEqj)

141 This isn't going to save it from being a messy, poorly constructed law that will eventually collapse.

Posted by: McAdams at March 04, 2015 05:40 PM (LXs8j)

----

Thats the plan.

To be replaced by....... Single Payer. For the children.

Posted by: fixerupper at March 04, 2015 05:41 PM (JmjOe)

142 The Nine have left Minas Morghul...

Posted by: Garrett at March 04, 2015 05:41 PM (FGkrV)

143 The Nine have left Minas Morghul...
Posted by: Garrett at March 04, 2015 05:41 PM (FGkrV)

The Red Sox played today?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 04, 2015 05:42 PM (nzKvP)

144 The Supreme Court can do and say anything it wants to do or say, so can Obama. But Obama has FBI agents, Federal Marshals, and the Military.

How many guns does the Supreme Court command?

Posted by: Ralph Quickly at March 04, 2015 05:42 PM (xZ28E)

145 @24: "The Supremes are no longer in the business of reading plain text and making decisions as to the constitutionality."

When were they ever? Overall, they've been in favor of expanding government power in every sphere of life. They don't impose a lot of checks on it.

Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at March 04, 2015 05:42 PM (amQXf)

146 123
I woke up covered in semen and pig shit, so I'm thinking I'm still a Democrat today.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at March 04, 2015 05:37 PM (oFCZn)

What's that address again?

Posted by: Barney at March 04, 2015 05:42 PM (0FSuD)

147 How long is the SC's memory? Any of them still seething over Obola's dis in his 1st term?

Posted by: rickb223 at March 04, 2015 05:43 PM (X1M+Q)

148 ObamaCare is a shit show from start to finish, even liberals will privately admit it.

Deep down, they don't want it. They'd rather have the issue. But they can't say it.

Posted by: AmishDude at March 04, 2015 05:43 PM (b4b5c)

149 Woodpeckers are just weasels with wings.

Posted by: Garrett at March 04, 2015 05:43 PM (FGkrV)

150
The JudgeWraiths have flown? Do they circle the Tower?

Posted by: Meremortal at March 04, 2015 05:43 PM (1Y+hH)

151 Instead of us all bitching and complaining on this blog, why don't we actually do something about it? Why not plan a protest instead of a momeet, or maybe a momeet first then a protest? We are not accomplishing anything by waiting for others to "do something" somebody has to step up and actually do it.

Posted by: spypeach at March 04, 2015 05:43 PM (/vbEv)

152 10 Ace, you're a democrat, you should be thrilled.
Posted by: Nip Sip at March 04, 2015 05:16 PM (0FSuD)

His headline did have the word "terrific" in it.

Posted by: Iblis at March 04, 2015 05:43 PM (9221z)

153 Final stake in the heart of the rule of law.

After this the law isn't what the law says it it, but becomes whatever is convenient for the executive (or a bureaucrat) as rubber stamped by the courts (if challenged).

Posted by: The Political Hat at March 04, 2015 05:43 PM (0Ew3K)

154 If anything, they should have fixed terms rather than life. They should also have to rise through the ranks.

-----

There is no perfect solution. I don't claim to say that elected judges are better than appointed judges, each has merits. There will be times when elected judges appear to be better and times when appointed judges appear to be better. I have no problem with the constitutional structure for judges found in the Constitution.

But again, here is an area where Congress has abdicated its power over the judiciary. The only court specified in the Constitution is the Supreme Court. All other inferior courts are created by Congress. That is a lot of power given to Congress. They have the Constitutional power over the judiciary, they just lack the political will.

Posted by: SH at March 04, 2015 05:44 PM (gmeXX)

155 151 Instead of us all bitching and complaining on this blog, why don't we actually do something about it? Why not plan a protest instead of a momeet, or maybe a momeet first then a protest? We are not accomplishing anything by waiting for others to "do something" somebody has to step up and actually do it.

Looks around for hill to die on.

Posted by: Somebody at March 04, 2015 05:44 PM (WNERA)

156 Whores, one and all.

Posted by: Crude at March 04, 2015 05:44 PM (/IrCS)

157 Protests don't work. Trust me. I'm pro-life. 500K march every single year in DC, and you hear crickets from the MSM.

Posted by: Lauren at March 04, 2015 05:45 PM (MYCIw)

158 And this case is not about "four little words." The phrase at issue is "an Exchange established by the State under 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" which is a specific reference to state exchanges. Federal exchanges are under a different section, so the meaning is not ambiguous.

Posted by: Ignoramus at March 04, 2015 05:45 PM (EPEqj)

159 You would think a Constitutional Scholar would have seen the problem with the wording of this law?

Posted by: Garrett at March 04, 2015 05:45 PM (FGkrV)

160 All hail King Barack

Posted by: Thunder B is Sick of This Shit at March 04, 2015 05:45 PM (zOTsN)

161 Why not plan a protest instead of a momeet, or maybe a momeet first then a protest?
Posted by: spypeach at March 04, 2015 05:43 PM (/vbEv)

I take it you are knew to conservatism.

Posted by: Meremortal at March 04, 2015 05:45 PM (1Y+hH)

162
Instead of us all bitching and complaining on this blog, why don't we actually do something about it? Why not plan a protest instead of a momeet, or maybe a momeet first then a protest? We are not accomplishing anything by waiting for others to "do something" somebody has to step up and actually do it.

If there'll be cookies, count me in.

Posted by: Soothsayer at March 04, 2015 05:46 PM (+UCDf)

163 dammit: knew = new

Posted by: Meremortal at March 04, 2015 05:46 PM (1Y+hH)

164 Why assume that anyone had anything on him? The elites - and he is one - all pretty much want the same thing. More power and wealth for themselves, and an oppressed peasantry to lord over.
Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at March 04, 2015 05:40 PM (amQXf)

And don't forget those lovely summer evening cocktail parties in the rose garden.

Posted by: John Roberts at March 04, 2015 05:46 PM (/HX7u)

165 To be replaced by....... Single Payer. For the children.

Posted by: fixerupper

The thing is, a true single payer bill would have to be attached to a MASSIVE tax increase. It would come out in the trillions of dollars to our already unsustainable debt.

If you passed something like that without the attached tax increase, it could cause a currency crisis and a bond run.

You would really need a lopsided Democrat Congress to get true Universal Health Care, even 60 votes in the Senate and they couldn't get it passed last time.

Posted by: McAdams at March 04, 2015 05:46 PM (LXs8j)

166 >>We are not accomplishing anything by waiting for others to "do something" somebody has to step up and actually do it.

Punch Up!

Posted by: Garrett at March 04, 2015 05:47 PM (FGkrV)

167 I think the fumes might be impairing my judgement, my spelling, and anything I might post tonight.
Posted by: spypeach

You should turn on your webcam, so we can help.

Posted by: Jean at March 04, 2015 05:47 PM (ztOda)

168 protests don't work. Trust me. I'm pro-life. 500K march every single year in DC, and you hear crickets from the MSM.

Posted by: Lauren at March 04, 2015 05:45 PM (MYCIw)

I'm with you, but we should not give up, this our country, we should not give up, I believe that we out number those who seek to destroy us, we just need to do something about it.

Posted by: spypeach at March 04, 2015 05:47 PM (/vbEv)

169 Ace: There is a Supreme Court tradition or precedent that if a statute is ambiguous and has two reasonable interpretations, but one of those interpretations is unconstitutional, then interprets the statute as having the constitutional interpretation. I would be surprised if Kennedy goes that way. 1) That requires that the statute actually be ambiguous. 2) I don't think he would vote this way unless the OTHER 4 liberals also embrace this logic, which they don't want to do. THEY don't want to set up a precedent that the federal government can't force states to do things.

Posted by: Chris not rock at March 04, 2015 05:47 PM (0LVPP)

170 what can we the people do about a scotus that goes off the rails with congress and potus cheering it on? where's the check

Posted by: Feh at March 04, 2015 05:47 PM (g/zj9)

171 If you passed something like that without the attached tax increase, it could cause a currency crisis and a bond run.

----

Cloward-Piven.

That's a feature.... not a bg.

Posted by: fixerupper at March 04, 2015 05:47 PM (JmjOe)

172
We are the Silent Majority. We are like Godzilla, sleeping at the deep bottom of the Pacific.

We do not shift until two tiny giggling Japanesas sing gibberish into our ear.

Posted by: Soothsayer at March 04, 2015 05:48 PM (+UCDf)

173 Kennedy is in one hell of a position.

Put yourself for a moment, in his shoes. What if you had a job and the consequences of you doing your job meant that what was supposed to happen by you doing your job, happened.

How would you feel. Horrible.

Posted by: John Boehner at March 04, 2015 05:48 PM (BZAd3)

174 >>Protests don't work. Trust me. I'm pro-life. 500K march every single year in DC, and you hear crickets from the MSM.

Posted by: Lauren

Blowing shit up seemed to work for me.

Posted by: Bill Ayres at March 04, 2015 05:48 PM (sQzB6)

175 @48: "I have no health issues, on no meds, and I'm now paying $975/mo. with a $2,000 deductible."

So you have little need, but plenty of ability to pay. To each according to their needs, from each according to their ability. Get it now, Comrade? Yes? Congratulations. You are hereby awarded an extra beet ration.

Posted by: Prezidizzle Obizzle at March 04, 2015 05:48 PM (amQXf)

176 Chief Justice Earl Warren was appointed by a Republican and was thought to be a conservative

The Warren Court was the most radical, most progressive court. Ever

Posted by: Thunder B is Sick of This Shit at March 04, 2015 05:48 PM (zOTsN)

177 I'm with you, but we should not give up, this our country, we should not give up, I believe that we out number those who seek to destroy us, we just need to do something about it.

Posted by: spypeach at March 04, 2015 05:47 PM (/vbEv)

There's only one way to fix this.

Outbreed them.

OK...all the 'Ettes in the hot tub! NOW!!!

Posted by: Sean Bannion at March 04, 2015 05:48 PM (V+kmg)

178 I take it you are knew to conservatism.
Posted by: Meremortal at March 04, 2015 05:45 PM (1Y+hH)

Obviously you have never met me

Posted by: spypeach at March 04, 2015 05:48 PM (/vbEv)

179 What's the big deal? Roberts rewrote the law to save it last time.

Posted by: Tonic Dog at March 04, 2015 05:49 PM (X/+QT)

180 I'm with you, but we should not give up, this our
country, we should not give up, I believe that we out number those who
seek to destroy us, we just need to do something about it.

Posted by: spypeach at March 04, 2015 05:47 PM (/vbEv)

As a former member of our local Tea Party, I've worked my butt off, been called every name you can imagine, and even the local media would barely cover us.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 04, 2015 05:49 PM (FsuaD)

181 The government cannot complete Failure Theatre unless all participants are willing to perform.

Posted by: dogfish at March 04, 2015 05:49 PM (1vYi0)

182 protests don't work. Trust me. I'm pro-life. 500K march every single year in DC, and you hear crickets from the MSM.

Posted by: Lauren at March 04, 2015 05:45 PM (MYCIw)

I feel you dawg!!

Posted by: The 1 million Bikers who rode DC at March 04, 2015 05:49 PM (q+zA9)

183 "I believe that we out number those who seek to destroy us, we just need to do something about it. "

I agree. The question is what do we do? I'm starting to think more and more the answer is for everyone able to join a medical cost share. Drop out of their system. Starve the beast.

Posted by: Lauren at March 04, 2015 05:49 PM (MYCIw)

184 The thing is, a true single payer bill would have to be attached to a MASSIVE tax increase. It would come out in the trillions of dollars to our already unsustainable debt.

If you passed something like that without the attached tax increase, it could cause a currency crisis and a bond run.

You would really need a lopsided Democrat Congress to get true Universal Health Care, even 60 votes in the Senate and they couldn't get it passed last time.

Posted by: McAdams at March 04, 2015 05:46 PM (LXs8j)

They pass it without a tax hike.

Then when the bill comes due, they'll demand we have to "soak the rich" lest we deny a child a right to healthcare.

Posted by: The Political Hat at March 04, 2015 05:50 PM (0Ew3K)

185 I'm with you, but we should not give up, this our country, we should not give up, I believe that we out number those who seek to destroy us, we just need to do something about it.

Posted by: spypeach at March 04, 2015 05:47 PM (/vbEv)

Take care of the micro, it's too late for the macro. Things are great if you stick to the micro.

Posted by: Meremortal at March 04, 2015 05:50 PM (1Y+hH)

186 Off topic but delicious:
http://tinyurl.com/lzvzyuv

(annoying autoplay).

Anyway, Pennsylvanians who rejected Corbett are going to get it and get it hard.

The new D governor is, shockingly, not a lawyer and he's proposing new taxes. In particular, he's proposing expanding the sales tax. In PA, a lot of things are exempt from sales tax. The list can be kind of silly, like newspapers and textbooks and flags.

So he's proposing to expand the sales tax to cover all sorts of things. Some that will be really unpopular will be non-prescription drugs, cable TV, higher education, scientific research and...legal services.

Mwahahahahahahahahaha.

It won't even be brought up in committee. But if I were the GOP, I'd grab that legal services, make it stand-alone and propose a surtax on top of the sales tax.

However, what I expect our lawyer-legislators to do is quietly strip out the legal services provisions and pass everything else.

Posted by: AmishDude at March 04, 2015 05:50 PM (b4b5c)

187 2) I don't think he would vote this way unless the OTHER 4 liberals also embrace this logic, which they don't want to do. THEY don't want to set up a precedent that the federal government can't force states to do things.

-----

It would actually be a neat little trick by the conservative justices. Supreme court cases sometimes take a long time to really flower. See the slaughterhouse cases. If Roberts could get two 7-2 rulings in a row against state coercion that may pay dividends down the line. If the GOP is going to bail the court out anyway, might as well get something positive out of the case.

Posted by: SH at March 04, 2015 05:50 PM (gmeXX)

188 Liberal laws are constitutional by definition. Conservative constitutional amendments are not.

Posted by: SpongeBobSaget at March 04, 2015 05:51 PM (zauWW)

189 It seems everyone can see where all this is going but for one reason or another can't get up the nerve to put a stop to any of it.

(!!!!!!Premature Godwin eruption alert!!!!!!)

It's like the Germans in the '30's. Many could see where it COULD go but for one reason or another the different groups that could've put a stop to Hitler (*ting*) decided not to or didn't think it would work or didn't care at that moment.

Later in the midst of the war and ruination was pouring out of the skies onto their heads, I imagine they were regretting their hesitancy.

We're there NOW.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at March 04, 2015 05:51 PM (zRby/)

190
since when are supreme court justices allowed to write law? i thought only congress could do that

Posted by: kj at March 04, 2015 05:51 PM (lKyWE)

191 "So what then? Well, I think then Kennedy's preferred reading would be to strike down that line -- that is, read that line out of Obamacare -- and otherwise retain Obamacare as currently implemented."
--------------
You need a savings clause for that. Which the law doesn't have. A "minor" judicial change that the statute can endure, sure, but to strike a section that is fundamental to the law? Nope, you have to kill the law, with the idea that Congress could pass it again, correctly, if it so damn awesome.

But that was pre-Obama thinking. Roberts freed me once alreayd from that dillusion, and showed me all my law school education was for naught, because we make it up as we go along now.

But we don't do that stupid "logic" and "reality" shit anymore, we just white out what we don't like or what makes our elites look stupid, and push forward willy-nilly.

Posted by: Saltyron at March 04, 2015 05:51 PM (i6shs)

192 Obviously you have never met me
Posted by: spypeach

True, but I like you.

Posted by: Meremortal at March 04, 2015 05:51 PM (1Y+hH)

193 I often wonder just how we arrived at this point in history. At what point did we let the country slide into this morass? Death by a thousand cuts. Probably some old Berliner thought the same thing when Germany invaded Soviet Russia, starting a war on two fronts that every general in the staff knew that they couldn't win. How did we get here? Where did we go so horribly wrong?

Posted by: Old Blue at March 04, 2015 05:51 PM (AxABj)

194
The Warren Court was the most radical, most progressive court. Ever

Because there's no realization of true power with conservatism. We wonder why so many Republicans in Congress turn into Big Government types soon after they go to Washington.

Because when you exercise progressivism you feel empowered, whereas when you adhere to strict conservatism, you're relaying the power to The People.

Posted by: Soothsayer at March 04, 2015 05:52 PM (+UCDf)

195 "it's such black letter law that I am shocked that even brain dead box wine chugging libs like RBG would want to go down in history with that type of decision next to their names."

The Notorious RBG is already going to go down in history for her novel legal doctrine that the federal Gun-Free Schools act was constitutional because of the Commerce Clause.

You see, went her reasoning, such as it was, kids at school will one day grow up to be adults and will then presumably engage in interstate commerce. And if someone brings a gun to school and shoots them dead, they'll be denied that eventual opportunity.

Posted by: torquewrench at March 04, 2015 05:53 PM (noWW6)

196 Scotus has been writing law since the 1960s.

Posted by: Thunder B is Sick of This Shit at March 04, 2015 05:53 PM (zOTsN)

197 " "I have no health issues, on no meds, and I'm now paying $975/mo. with a $2,000 deductible."
"

You need to join a cost share. Like yesterday. At CHM, an individual pays $150 for the highest level of coverage. To bump it up to unlimited sharing, you throw in $15/quarter to join their "brother's keeper" program.

Posted by: Lauren at March 04, 2015 05:53 PM (MYCIw)

198 Kennedy won't side with the conservatives this time after Roberts stabbed everyone in the back.

Posted by: Not Loved Time to be Feared at March 04, 2015 05:53 PM (nRvEn)

199 It won't even be brought up in committee. But if I were the GOP, I'd grab that legal services, make it stand-alone and propose a surtax on top of the sales tax.

----

May be a good political stunt - and I'm all for that. But won't do anything. Lawyers will just rightly pass that cost on to the clients.

Posted by: SH at March 04, 2015 05:53 PM (gmeXX)

200 By listening to the arguments first time around I was sure this POS was gonna be thrown out... We all know what happened...

Posted by: hello, it's Me Donna ....again at March 04, 2015 05:53 PM (Bn6aD)

201
Imagine the life of a conservative member of Congress. He has no juice, no pull, no power, no pork, no favors to collect, and no people under his thumb.

Posted by: Soothsayer at March 04, 2015 05:53 PM (+UCDf)

202 "since when are supreme court justices allowed to write law?"

Since us.

Posted by: Emanations and Penumbras at March 04, 2015 05:53 PM (noWW6)

203 Posted by: Adjoran at March 04, 2015 05:17 PM (QIQ6j

Troll.
----
Worse

DC collaborator.

Posted by: Methos at March 04, 2015 05:54 PM (A6vWB)

204 As a former member of our local Tea Party, I've worked my butt off, been called every name you can imagine, and even the local media would barely cover us.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 04, 2015 05:49 PM (FsuaD)

Me too, and you are right, but dammit we cannot let them beat us, there has to be a way. They have sought out to destroy us and are winning, they shouldn't be, we are right, we are on the side of good, I feel like we just got tired of fighting. But we shouldn't give in, I just feel like they are counting on us giving in and giving up. We have to figure out a way to overcome all of this.

Posted by: spypeach at March 04, 2015 05:55 PM (/vbEv)

205 "since when are supreme court justices allowed to write law?"

----

Honest answer???

Since "stare decisis" became more important than "constitutionality".

Posted by: fixerupper at March 04, 2015 05:55 PM (JmjOe)

206 So my question for those who now smear him for that decision is: are you a hypocrite, or just stupid?

Posted by: Adjoran at March 04, 2015 05:23 PM (QIQ6j)
As a stupid hypocrite I am still able to differentiate between criticism and a smear.
If I were a judge, I think I have some duty to deter mendacity. So if some horse's ass claimed something was a "penalty" or a "fee" before a lawsuit and did so to obtain some advantage, political or otherwise, I would make them eat it when later claiming it is a tax. "You said it was X. Now you say it is the opposite of X. I get to choose. Sorry, I'm holding you to X. Good day." The Supreme Court should not encourage or suborn lying.

Posted by: Stupid Hypocrite at March 04, 2015 05:55 PM (4KoRb)

207 @120: "The states need to reassert themselves."

Uh, no. I pretty much put the kibosh on that one.

Posted by: Abraham Lincoln at March 04, 2015 05:55 PM (amQXf)

208 Me too, and you are right, but dammit we cannot let them beat us, there has to be a way. They have sought out to destroy us and are winning, they shouldn't be, we are right, we are on the side of good, I feel like we just got tired of fighting. But we shouldn't give in, I just feel like they are counting on us giving in and giving up. We have to figure out a way to overcome all of this.
Posted by: spypeach at March 04, 2015 05:55 PM (/vbEv)

When all else fails ... Pray...

Posted by: hello, it's Me Donna ....again at March 04, 2015 05:55 PM (Bn6aD)

209 Then when the bill comes due, they'll demand we have to "soak the rich" lest we deny a child a right to healthcare.

Posted by: The Political Hat

I'm sure they will try that angle but even the CBO will tell them it will probably cover the program for a week or two. There's just not enough money in the top 1% to pay for any new entitlement.

It will have to be a massive middle class tax increase (as in raising a middle class person's taxes by 50%) I jut don't see that going through unless Democrats had something like 70 Senators.

I don't buy the "ObamaCare was meant to destroy healthcare" plan, I think these Ivy League idiots really thought this was a great plan and it blew up in their faces. They thought this was as close as they could get to socialized medicine.

Democrats would love to be free of ObamaCare.

Posted by: McAdams at March 04, 2015 05:56 PM (LXs8j)

210 Because there's no realization of true power with conservatism. We wonder why so many Republicans in Congress turn into Big Government types soon after they go to Washington.

Because when you exercise progressivism you feel empowered, whereas when you adhere to strict conservatism, you're relaying the power to The People.

-----

While I think that is true for many, I also think going against an entrenched beauracracy and wanting media love are just as important. Life is just easier that way. So its not that they necessarily want to control that power - though I do think they want to be in control - its just easier to go along to get along.

Its just all a bad, toxic mix.

Posted by: SH at March 04, 2015 05:56 PM (gmeXX)

211 When I was a very young boy laying in bed at night I used to wonder what would happen if I ripped off the tag on my pillow that read Do Not Tear Off This Tag Under Penalty of Federal Law. It was right then I realized how powerful I could be if I was President .

Posted by: Presnit Oprezzy Mcslowjammer at March 04, 2015 05:56 PM (XYKz+)

212 There will be times when elected judges appear to be better and times when appointed judges appear to be better.

I prefer elected judges because this is a republic.

But even appointed judges should have a sell-by date. Fixed terms still allows for appointments.

However, I don't think you need a law degree to declare a law unconstitutional. The Constitution ain't long, it ain't complicated and it's in English. The SCOTUS should be a panel that overturns courts who declare a law unconstitutional.

The courts have too much to do and determining the Constitutionality of laws used to be a tiny part of it. Now they do it all the time.

Posted by: AmishDude at March 04, 2015 05:56 PM (b4b5c)

213 Not good when you have to rely on vacillating useless assholes.

Posted by: steevy at March 04, 2015 05:56 PM (KETbL)

214 Now I know what Lil Nell felt like tied to the Railroad tracks by Snidely Whiplash.

The trains coming, she knows she's going to die but she can't do anything about it.

And there really isn't any hero on the set.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at March 04, 2015 05:56 PM (zRby/)

215 Going GALT.

Posted by: NJRob at March 04, 2015 05:56 PM (yiJOB)

216 WSJ: McDonald's to reduce antibiotics in chicken. What difference does it make when you order a McChicken and get a McCow burger?

Posted by: SpongeBobSaget at March 04, 2015 05:57 PM (zauWW)

217 Where did we go so horribly wrong?
Posted by: Old Blue at March 04, 2015 05:51 PM (AxABj)

If you look at the history of rulers and governments, the question might be better put as:

"How did our forefathers and early citizens get things so right, albeit temporarily?"

Posted by: Meremortal at March 04, 2015 05:57 PM (1Y+hH)

218 "But there is a doctrine of constitutional law which states that a law which would presume to coerce states into action -- which would order them to act, with penalties imposed if they don't -- are a violation of the federalist principle and thus are facially unconstitutional."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that exactly what the fed gov did to get all of the states to enact a 21 yr old drinking age? Threatened to take away their highway funds? Is it not the same because it wasn't a "law" per se, but more of a "Nice highway fund you got there. Be a shame if something happened to it..."?

Posted by: Dino Vercotti at March 04, 2015 05:58 PM (Wo9OY)

219 Posted by: Thunder B is Sick of This Shit at March 04, 2015 05:53 PM (zOTsN)

Since Marbury V Madison.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at March 04, 2015 05:58 PM (zRby/)

220 @149: "Woodpeckers are just weasels with wings."

Woodphalluses, please. Think of our tender ears/eyes.

Posted by: Internet Advertisers at March 04, 2015 05:58 PM (amQXf)

221 May be a good political stunt - and I'm all for that. But won't do anything. Lawyers will just rightly pass that cost on to the clients.

And so they will have fewer clients.

Supply and demand, baby.

Think about it, you are more adversely effected indirectly by the effects of civil lawsuit than you can ever expect to be benefited by the direct effects of being a party to a lawsuit.

Posted by: AmishDude at March 04, 2015 05:59 PM (b4b5c)

222 We're there NOW.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That

I don't disagree.

However, what do you suggest as a solution?

Posted by: Moderate Salami at March 04, 2015 05:59 PM (/Ho8c)

223 So 2 + 2 no longer = 4. Good to know.

Posted by: John Oh at March 04, 2015 05:59 PM (7TZSk)

224 Posted by: Thunder B is Sick of This Shit at March 04, 2015 05:53 PM (zOTsN)

Since Marbury V Madison.

---

Correctly decided of course.

Posted by: SH at March 04, 2015 05:59 PM (gmeXX)

225 How much wood would a woodcock cock if a woodcock could cock wood?

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at March 04, 2015 05:59 PM (0NdlF)

226 "How did our forefathers and early citizens get things so right, albeit temporarily?"
Posted by: Meremortal at March 04, 2015 05:57 PM (1Y+hH)

That's how I look at it. They were like a freak of nature. Or, more kindly and religiously, a miracle from god.

Never before and probably never again will such liberty - minded people form a government.

I mean, all the pieces just seemed to come together in that period from 1770-1789. I don't know man, it really is incredible to think about.

Posted by: mynewhandle at March 04, 2015 06:00 PM (AkOaV)

227
You need to join a cost share. Like yesterday.
At CHM, an individual pays $150 for the highest level of coverage. To
bump it up to unlimited sharing, you throw in $15/quarter to join their
"brother's keeper" program.

Posted by: Lauren at March 04, 2015 05:53 PM (MYCIw)

My husband has looked into it and hasn't had any luck finding anything that makes sense for us. Also, a close friend is an insurance broker, and the plan I ended up with was the lowest cost under the ACA. It's just unbelievable. I can't even stand to think about my Obamabot sister, who was all for Obamacare. I haven't had the heart to ask the idiot what it's costing her.

Husband cancelled his company's health insurance (with the exception of vision and dental care), due to the costs going up 52% year before last and another 52% last year. His younger employees are doing okay in the exchanges, and some of his employees are on their spouses plans.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 04, 2015 06:00 PM (FsuaD)

228 Posted by: SH at March 04, 2015 05:59 PM (gmeXX)

I'm not a huge fan of judicial review.

Posted by: mynewhandle at March 04, 2015 06:00 PM (AkOaV)

229 The long slide began with Marbury vs Madison

The decision where the court made itself superior to the other branches

Posted by: Thunder B is Sick of This Shit at March 04, 2015 06:00 PM (zOTsN)

230 Where did we go so horribly wrong?

Posted by: Old Blue at March 04, 2015 05:51 PM (AxABj)

People thought they could mind their own business and live their own lives. They were wrong - you will not be allowed to. There is an endless supply of lords and bureaucrats and neighbors who *ache* to Tell You What To Do, and Make You Pay For It.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at March 04, 2015 06:01 PM (bLnSU)

231 And so they will have fewer clients.

-----

How so? Because it costs more for an attorney?

That's probably true at the margins.

Posted by: SH at March 04, 2015 06:01 PM (gmeXX)

232
Never before and probably never again will such liberty - minded people form a government.

And they were forward thinking enough to include Abortion and Gay marriage in it...

Posted by: hello, it's Me Donna ....again at March 04, 2015 06:01 PM (Bn6aD)

233 However, what do you suggest as a solution?

let's kill all the lawyers

Posted by: English Playwright at March 04, 2015 06:01 PM (0NdlF)

234 Going GALT.
Posted by: NJRob a

Did that to a large extent starting in 2009, but it's a harsh sacrifice for most to try.

H. Ross Perot is my hero in Galtism. 25 years ago his income was around $360 million a year. He paid a tax rate of 8% on that income.

That's some good Galting.

Posted by: Meremortal at March 04, 2015 06:01 PM (1Y+hH)

235 I'm not a huge fan of judicial review.

-----

Why not?

Posted by: SH at March 04, 2015 06:01 PM (gmeXX)

236 How did we get here? Where did we go so horribly wrong?

November 22, 1963
We went from "Don't ask what your country can do for you" to "Free shit! Git yer free shit here!" with one bullet.

Posted by: rickb223 at March 04, 2015 06:01 PM (X1M+Q)

237 Where did we go so horribly wrong?

Posted by: Old Blue

1913 - 16th Amendment

The Federal income tax passed after being previously ruled unconstitutional.

Leaving aside the military draft and the census, it was one of the first Federal laws that created an individual relationship with each citizen.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at March 04, 2015 06:02 PM (TtXjG)

238 We'd get better judges if we just paid them eleventy frillion dollars a year plus hookers.

/JWest

Posted by: Zap Rowsdower at March 04, 2015 06:02 PM (MMC8r)

239 HAHAHAHHAHAHA

HARF. AS. OLIVE. OR

Posted by: Thunder B is Sick of This Shit at March 04, 2015 06:02 PM (zOTsN)

240 One thing that is interesting about this subsidies case is the application (or not) of the so-called "Chevron rule," which says that the court can defer to the interpretation of the federal agency which will administer the law in question when there is a dispute about how the law should be applied.

In this case, there is a dispute about whether the IRS can pay subsidies in every state, or just in those states that have state-established exchanges. So the SCOTUS should just defer to the IRS' interpretation of the ACA. Easy-peasy, right?

Problem is that the IRS lawyers initially interpreted the ACA as NOT allowing the payment of subsidies to customers in states without state-established exchanges. That's what the law says, and that's the way the IRS lawyers interpreted it. The IRS had drafted its regulation based on that interpretation, but then the White House heard what the IRS reg was going to say, and the political hacks went ballistic. The original proposed IRS reg (by limiting subsidies to states with state-created exchanges), would have essentially killed Obamacare, or at least make it a political nightmare for Obama and the Dims.

So before the IRS published its original subsidies regulation, the White House hacks leaned heavily on the IRS to change the reg so that subsidies would be paid in ALL states. The IRS, being run by a bunch of corrupt Dim operatives, went along with the WH and did as requested. The IRS changed their original interpretation of the ACA -- not because the text of the law had changed, but because Obama needed (for partisan political purposes) for the law to be interpreted differently from the way it was written.

So now the question is: does the Chevron rule require the courts to give deference to a federal agency's interpretation of a law when that federal agency is infested with partisan political hacks who change their interpretation of the law to suit the political needs of their boss, the president?

Posted by: TrivialPursuer at March 04, 2015 06:03 PM (lmdHn)

241 Posted by: Dino Vercotti at March 04, 2015 05:58 PM (Wo9OY)

Yup. And the courts upheld it.

Posted by: mynewhandle at March 04, 2015 06:03 PM (AkOaV)

242 OYL

Posted by: Thunder B is Sick of This Shit at March 04, 2015 06:03 PM (zOTsN)

243 I mean, all the pieces just seemed to come together in that period from 1770-1789. I don't know man, it really is incredible to think about.
Posted by: mynewhandle at March 04, 2015 06:00 PM (AkOaV)

The colonists were a brave group of major risk-takers.

We are the product of easy times, and complacent.

Posted by: Meremortal at March 04, 2015 06:03 PM (1Y+hH)

244 >>Protests don't work. Trust me. I'm pro-life. 500K march every single year in DC, and you hear crickets from the MSM.

Posted by: Lauren

Blowing shit up seemed to work for me.

Posted by: Bill Ayres at March 04, 2015 05:48 PM (sQzB6)

Us, too, but by all means keep on with that 'vote republican' strategy for taking back your country and let us know how it works out for you.

Posted by: ISIS at March 04, 2015 06:03 PM (A6vWB)

245 I guess the Constitution turned out to be a suicide pact after all didn't it?

Posted by: Sharkman at March 04, 2015 06:03 PM (w/f1D)

246 "Why not?"

The Constitution... meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

Posted by: Lauren at March 04, 2015 06:03 PM (MYCIw)

247 @226 Or, more kindly and religiously, a miracle from god.
---------------------

This is, in fact, the LDS position - i.e. that God arranged to have the right men in the right place at the right time in order to hash out the Constitution of this nation.

Posted by: junior at March 04, 2015 06:03 PM (UWFpX)

248 Yup. And the courts upheld it.

----

So wouldn't have judicial review been helpful there?

Posted by: SH at March 04, 2015 06:03 PM (gmeXX)

249 "How did our forefathers and early citizens get things so right, albeit temporarily?"

Posted by: Meremortal at March 04, 2015 05:57 PM (1Y+hH)
-------Meremortal, if I could answer that question, I would be the smartest man in the world. I think, maybe, that they had an unquestioning faith in God and a morality that is sadly lacking in our current generations.

Posted by: Old Blue at March 04, 2015 06:04 PM (AxABj)

250 @151: "Instead of us all bitching and complaining on this blog, why don't we
actually do something about it? Why not plan a protest instead of a
momeet, or maybe a momeet first then a protest? We are not accomplishing
anything by waiting for others to "do something" somebody has to step
up and actually do it."

Because "doing something" ultimately entails this:

Malone: You said you wanted to get Capone. Do you really wanna get him? You see, what I'm saying is: what are you prepared to do?

Ness: Anything within the law.

Malone: And *then* what are you prepared to do? If you open the can of these
worms, you must be prepared to go all the way. Because they're not gonna
give up the fight until one of you is dead.

So....when the protest fails, what then?

Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at March 04, 2015 06:04 PM (amQXf)

251 I'm I the only one who hears crows cawing when the Hildebeast speaks?

Imagine that voice when she's angry at Bill. I'll bet the wallpaper peels.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 04, 2015 06:05 PM (FsuaD)

252 "Am" not "I'm"

*sigh*

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 04, 2015 06:05 PM (FsuaD)

253 Posted by: TrivialPursuer at March 04, 2015 06:03 PM (lmdHn)

The court can Chevron Rule my ass.

This is what drives me crazy. I love legal theories, love reading legal decisions... but at the end of the day, when it comes to constitutional issues, we don't have to rely on common law and stare decisis and years of penumbras and emanations.

We have a fucking piece of paper with the rules written out. It's like Hammurabi's Code -- its written in the vernacular, it's short, we can all understand it. That should really be what they're focused on. "Does congress have the enumerated power to do this?" "lets check... looks like no. unconstitutional" shit would be over in 20 minutes flat.

Posted by: mynewhandle at March 04, 2015 06:05 PM (AkOaV)

254 The only way I could see this skating through is you'd have to have a conservative justice say that despite the fact the law was clearly written to differentiate between State and Federal (and that it was amended during drafting to make this distinction AND you have the architect saying this was done on purpose) that the IRS has such wide latitude that it can make this call despite it clearly violating the statute.

Not saying it's impossible, but its unlikely and the fall back of "we're enforcing how the law was written, not striking it down" is a strong and truthful defense for a nervous conservative justice.

Maybe there's some sort of "splitting the baby" scenario?

Posted by: McAdams at March 04, 2015 06:05 PM (LXs8j)

255 "Why not?"

The Constitution... meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

-----

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If a case or controversy is properly before the Court and there is a law that is not Constitutional, how can the judiciary decide otherwise?

Posted by: SH at March 04, 2015 06:06 PM (gmeXX)

256 251 I'm I the only one who hears crows cawing when the Hildebeast speaks?

I ain't no ways tarrred..

Posted by: hello, it's Me Donna ....again at March 04, 2015 06:06 PM (Bn6aD)

257 Meremortal,
I was reading the Irish adoption rules that Buddy PC posted link to.

I downloaded decision & read Roberts switch.

Read link about adopting Irish children. There are few & I read that Roberts paid pregnant Irish women to go to South America & give up babies there. How true is it? I don't know.
Thanks.

Posted by: Carol at March 04, 2015 06:06 PM (sj3Ax)

258 76
I keep hoping that our children are so spoiled

rotten and disrespectful that they will eventually revolt against the

government like they do their parents...boy wouldn't that would be

something to watch!

Their mostly living in mom and dads basement,while the border hoppers do the jobs they won't do, roof the house next door, mow their lawns and pour their driveways. These pampered pussies won't get off their asses and protest, they will ask their mommies to hire it done.

Posted by: concealedkerry or submitt at March 04, 2015 06:06 PM (kHv/o)

259 I am the swing vote. You will bow down before me.

Both you and your heirs.

Posted by: Justice Zod of Krypton at March 04, 2015 06:07 PM (1mtKP)

260 F ! U !

I'm wearing 8 pairs of full body Spanx

Posted by: Hillary Clinton 2016 at March 04, 2015 06:07 PM (q+zA9)

261 235 I'm not a huge fan of judicial review.

-----

Why not?
Posted by: SH at March 04, 2015 06:01 PM (gmeXX)

Second Estate.

Posted by: AmishDude at March 04, 2015 06:07 PM (b4b5c)

262 This is, in fact, the LDS position - i.e. that God arranged to have the right men in the right place at the right time in order to hash out the Constitution of this nation.

Then why did he send a dancing salamander to translate some tablets?

Posted by: Jean at March 04, 2015 06:07 PM (ztOda)

263 Second Estate.

----

???

Posted by: SH at March 04, 2015 06:08 PM (gmeXX)

264 So wouldn't have judicial review been helpful there?
Posted by: SH at March 04, 2015 06:03 PM (gmeXX)

Judicial review means the Supremes get final say on constitutionality. That's not really mentioned in the constitution. It was assumed that Congress would police itself, or the people would police congress by sending new guys out to repeal the old guys laws.

Now congress passes whatever they want and say "well, lets let these idiots in the robes sort it out" and the judicial says "we dont want to get involved, looks good enough to us" then congress says "see wingnuts? We told it you was constitutional!"

Marbury v Madison was when the Supremes said, "hey we'll decide whats constitutional and what isn't"

Posted by: mynewhandle at March 04, 2015 06:08 PM (AkOaV)

265 @262 Then why did he send a dancing salamander to translate some tablets?
--------------------

You'd have to ask notorious forger and bomber Mark Hoffman about the salamander. That was his creation, after all.

Posted by: junior at March 04, 2015 06:08 PM (UWFpX)

266 This is no time to be waiting for facts or having patience or any of that other fruity bullshit. If I've learned one thing from ace over the years it's that it's never too soon to fly into a frenzy of PanicOutrage.

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at March 04, 2015 06:09 PM (+lsX1)

267 Maybe there's some sort of "splitting the baby" scenario?

Posted by: McAdams at March 04, 2015 06:05 PM (LXs8j)

Sure!

P.S. You're the baby.

It's like the whole "you're not the customer, you're the product" thing with TV.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at March 04, 2015 06:09 PM (bLnSU)

268 262 This is, in fact, the LDS position - i.e. that God arranged to have the right men in the right place at the right time in order to hash out the Constitution of this nation.

So why did God get mad at us and give us obama?

Posted by: hello, it's Me Donna ....again at March 04, 2015 06:09 PM (Bn6aD)

269 Posted by: Old Blue at March 04, 2015 06:04 PM (AxABj)

People who leave their country of birth to go to an unknown land where life is a daily struggle have a bit more balls than today's Americans and that's not surprising.

There was no government capable of doing anything for the colonists, and that turned out to be the best thing possible.

Posted by: Meremortal at March 04, 2015 06:09 PM (1Y+hH)

270 Then why did he send a dancing salamander to translate some tablets

He was trying to save on car insurance by switching to Geico.

Posted by: Zap Rowsdower at March 04, 2015 06:10 PM (MMC8r)

271 nood

Posted by: mynewhandle at March 04, 2015 06:10 PM (AkOaV)

272 The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If a case or controversy is properly before the Court and there is a law that is not Constitutional, how can the judiciary decide otherwise?

Obama is showing the way. You can do anything you want to do. If people don't like what you are doing then someone has to stop you.

Posted by: Ralph Quickly at March 04, 2015 06:10 PM (xZ28E)

273 So why did God get mad at us and give us obama?
Posted by: hello, it's Me Donna ....again at March 04, 2015 06:09 PM (Bn6aD)

Got mad about the white privilege?

Posted by: Meremortal at March 04, 2015 06:11 PM (1Y+hH)

274 @268 So why did God get mad at us and give us obama?
------------------

Surprisingly, that, too, fits with LDS doctrine. Specifically, the Book of Mormon mentions that if a people who can select their own leaders elect poor leaders, then it's their own fault.

Posted by: junior at March 04, 2015 06:11 PM (UWFpX)

275 People who leave their country of birth to go to an unknown land where
life is a daily struggle have a bit more balls than today's Americans
and that's not surprising.

There was no government capable of doing anything for the colonists, and that turned out to be the best thing possible.

Well, there was that whole Salem witch trials thingy.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 04, 2015 06:11 PM (FsuaD)

276 So my question for those who now smear him for that decision is: are you a hypocrite, or just stupid?
Posted by: Adjoran at March 04, 2015 05:23 PM (QIQ6j)

Um, it is a tax and it is an un-Constitutional one as well. Go back and try again. The Dems didn't want it to be a tax because it would (should) be illegal.

Posted by: Not Loved Time to be Feared at March 04, 2015 06:11 PM (nRvEn)

277 Judicial review means the Supremes get final say on constitutionality. That's not really mentioned in the constitution. It was assumed that Congress would police itself, or the people would police congress by sending new guys out to repeal the old guys laws.

Now congress passes whatever they want and say "well, lets let these idiots in the robes sort it out" and the judicial says "we dont want to get involved, looks good enough to us" then congress says "see wingnuts? We told it you was constitutional!"

Marbury v Madison was when the Supremes said, "hey we'll decide whats constitutional and what isn't"

-----

You're confusing judicial review with judicial supremacy. I don't see how Marbury v. Madison could have been decided otherwise. The Court must uphold the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. The Court has an equal say in matters properly before it.

It wasn't until 100 years later when the court started developing judicial supremacy through its application of substative due process which came into full bloom in the mid-20th c.

Marshall never said, nor believed that the Court has the final say. All that M v M says that in matters properly before the court, if there is a law in conflict with the Constitution, the court can declare such law unconstitutional - rightly so because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

That doesn't end the matter. It ends the matter with respect to that particular case/controversy.

Posted by: SH at March 04, 2015 06:12 PM (gmeXX)

278 Well, there was that whole Salem witch trials thingy.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 04, 2015 06:11 PM (FsuaD)

Hah! "If they don't float, they gonna bloat."

Posted by: Meremortal at March 04, 2015 06:12 PM (1Y+hH)

279
I did not follow. Which line would he strike? The subsidy line? which is what the case is about. I am missing something obviously.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at March 04, 2015 06:12 PM (ODxAs)

280 " a case or controversy is properly before the Court and there is a law that is not Constitutional, how can the judiciary decide otherwise?"

"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:451

Posted by: Lauren at March 04, 2015 06:14 PM (MYCIw)

281 The SC must know what a complete disaster this is..... How could they continue to let it stand?

Posted by: hello, it's Me Donna ....again at March 04, 2015 06:14 PM (Bn6aD)

282 SH -- I've never heard the term "judicial supremacy" but this is what wiki gives me for judicial review:

Judicial review is the doctrine under which legislative and executive actions are subject to review by the judiciary. A court with judicial review power may invalidate laws and decisions that are incompatible with a higher authority, such as the terms of a written constitution.

Marbury v Madison was when a last minute apointment to the court for Mr Marbury didn't go through in time, and new president TJ said "fuck you Marbury, Adams appointed you, not me, and the paperwork didnt go through" so Marbury sued to get the courts to overturn the executive.

Which was very controversial at the time, and pissed Jefferson off.

Also, new thread. With art.

Posted by: mynewhandle at March 04, 2015 06:14 PM (AkOaV)

283 This is why I've already resigned myself to taking out a couple of the true believing idiots when I get sick. As in, permanently. I go down, they're going down with me. The people who forced a vindictive government into the role of being the gatekeeper of my life will die as I do.

Posted by: Black&White at March 04, 2015 06:15 PM (PTSsY)

284 I think judicial review and Marbury v. Madison are misunderstood by most people, because it is taught that that M v. M gave the Court the final say in declaring whether something is or isn't constitutional (i.e., judicial supremacy). Marshall said no such thing.

Posted by: SH at March 04, 2015 06:15 PM (gmeXX)

285 Vincent Vega,
I'm glad you liked picture!
You're welcome.

Posted by: Carol at March 04, 2015 06:15 PM (sj3Ax)

286 Posted by: Lauren at March 04, 2015 06:14 PM (MYCIw)

I like Thomas Jefferson too, and his words deserve much respect. But TJ supported the French Revolution. He was not infallible. And he is wrong on M v. M.

Posted by: SH at March 04, 2015 06:16 PM (gmeXX)

287 Also: constitutional talk, nice, but that time has long ago passed.

We're living under tyranny. There is only one solution to that.

Posted by: Black&White at March 04, 2015 06:17 PM (PTSsY)

288 Posted by: mynewhandle at March 04, 2015 06:14 PM (AkOaV)

----

Google search Matthew Franck and judicial review and judicial supremacy. I think you'll like his writings on it.

Posted by: SH at March 04, 2015 06:17 PM (gmeXX)

289 Couple things: an express severability clause is not a requirement - in the absence of one a court considers whether Congress would have passed the same law without the offending portion; Adjoran is just trolling, if he understands what Roberts' opinion in NFIB actually says, or else bluffing, if he doesn't; calm down and read the briefs & trancript, not Scotusblog's spin.

Posted by: Knemon at March 04, 2015 06:18 PM (By/nm)

290 Note to self: Will the nerd still talking about judicial review look at the picture on the next thread.

Posted by: SH at March 04, 2015 06:18 PM (gmeXX)

291 junior: the salamander story first appears in mormon literature in 1834 ED Howe's Mormanism Unveiled, well before Hoffman.

Posted by: Jean at March 04, 2015 06:21 PM (ztOda)

292 Marbury v Madison was when a last minute apointment to the court for Mr Marbury didn't go through in time, and new president TJ said "fuck you Marbury, Adams appointed you, not me, and the paperwork didnt go through" so Marbury sued to get the courts to overturn the executive.

-----

But if the court did not have the power to declare something by the other branches unconstitutional, then that means a law or executive action may potentially trump the Constitution itself - meaning it was not the supreme law of the land. Such an outcome is absurd.

Judicial review does not mean that the Court is right. That is judicial supremacy. But as a co-equal branch, it can properly adjudicate this decision in a case/controversy brought before it.

The legislature and executive have their own equal say. The legislature can pass the law again, or a similar law. The executive can take the position of Jackson - "let him enforce it with his army."

Posted by: SH at March 04, 2015 06:22 PM (gmeXX)

293
How come arabs are not more up in arms about SiSi getting rid of all those mosques?

Posted by: Bruce J. at March 04, 2015 06:24 PM (iQIUe)

294 and you wonder why Obola and friends are so hot on gun and ammo restrictions...

Posted by: redc1c4 at March 04, 2015 06:27 PM (jMMCO)

295 Posted by: mynewhandle at March 04, 2015 06:05 PM (AkOaV)
____________________

I hear you. But the Chevron rule assumes that federal agency lawyers are going to interpret laws and write regulations in good faith -- i.e., that they're going to see and apply the plain meaning of the words in the text of the law in a manner that is fair and objective and not overtly partisan.

And ironically, that is what happened at the IRS in this case -- at least at first. The IRS lawyers read the ACA and saw that subsidies were not supposed to be paid in states unless the states had state-created exchanges. So the IRS lawyers drafted the regulation that said subsidies would only be paid to customers in states where there were state-created exchanges.

But then the IRS was leaned on by the White House and the IRS lawyers re-wrote the regulation. Not because the text of the law had changed, not because the IRS' lawyers' interpretation of the text of the law had changed, but because Obama needed the regulation to be different, for purely political reasons.

All these rules, like the Chevron rule, which say courts can defer to the federal agencies -- all these rules presume that the federal agencies have some sort of objectivity when it comes to applying the law, and that they're not just unofficial arms of the Democratic party. But that is what the federal government executive-branch bureaucracy has become. We saw it in the IRS when they were targeting conservative groups for audits, and refusing to give them 501(c) status for years, because Obama wanted to have an advantage in the upcoming election.

Obama has politicized and weaponized the federal bureaucracy to a degree we've never experienced before, and the federal courts can't keep ignoring this fact and pretending that these agencies are somehow non-political.

Posted by: TrivialPursuer at March 04, 2015 06:27 PM (lmdHn)

296
Brits have a new Sherlock series called Arthur and George. It's not bad. High quality production with Martin Clunes.

Posted by: Bruce J. at March 04, 2015 06:28 PM (iQIUe)

297 In my mind this is the best explanation of Judicial Review v. Judicial Supremacy and the meaning of M v. M.

http://tinyurl.com/q3tlveq

Best yet, it was written to discredit G. Malor.

Posted by: SH at March 04, 2015 06:29 PM (gmeXX)

298 Obama has politicized and weaponized the federal bureaucracy to a degree we've never experienced before, and the federal courts can't keep ignoring this fact and pretending that these agencies are somehow non-political.

-----

No one should pretend these agencies are non-political. And we conservatives do ourselves a disservice insisting they should be. What we should be saying is that by their constitutional nature, they cannot be. The IRS, the EPA, and all other agencies are part of the executive branch which is the President. They are mere agents of the President. By their very nature they are political because the presidency is political.

Posted by: SH at March 04, 2015 06:31 PM (gmeXX)

299 "Because If He Doesn't, He'll Be Forced to Strike the Whole Law Down"

That's what he wanted to do the first time, and was pissed when Roberts flipped.

I think he still wants to.

Posted by: Dales at March 04, 2015 06:36 PM (EG1ig)

300 Or, what Junior said.
http://acecomments.mu.nu/?blog=86&post=355318#c23346390

Damned thread. tl;dr

Until I did.

Posted by: Dales at March 04, 2015 06:38 PM (EG1ig)

301 You need to join a cost share. Like yesterday. At CHM, an individual pays $150 for the highest level of coverage. To bump it up to unlimited sharing, you throw in $15/quarter to join their "brother's keeper" program.
Posted by: Lauren at March 04, 2015 05:53 PM (MYCIw)

How does the church attendance verification work?

I'm trying to join Liberty HS, which has no such requirement, but they are now on week 2 of what was supposed to be a couple business days of reviewing my application (wife and I).

Posted by: Hawkins1701 at March 04, 2015 06:44 PM (THkA0)

302 obamacare is here to stay. it's a done deal. the repubes like it just as much as the dems. it's too late, and someday i hope those that did this suffer the consequences of the very mess they imposed on the rest of the country against its will. and yes, this rammed through against the will of the majority of the people.

Posted by: Miss Overdone at March 04, 2015 06:46 PM (2/oBD)

303 While the justices are rewriting the ACA, can they install the part where my cost goes down $2500 and I can keep my doctor?

Posted by: Illiniwek at March 04, 2015 06:46 PM (p4hYf)

304 oh yeah, i forgot, f u john robot, i mean roberts

Posted by: Miss Overdone at March 04, 2015 06:48 PM (2/oBD)

305 The SC has ruled that the government can force us to buy anything as long as they call it a tax.

The brilliant mind of BUSH appointee Turd Roberts.

Posted by: Dan at March 04, 2015 06:52 PM (COpZ4)

306 So now Kennedy takes one for Roberts legacy. There's still three left.

Posted by: East Bay Jay at March 04, 2015 06:52 PM (7v8o1)

307 "Mr. Coffin said that after the Robertses married nine years ago when they were both in their 40's, they tried to have children. After a several failed adoption efforts, he said, they 'got lucky' with two children, Josephine and John, now 5 and 4."

NYTimes, July 21, 2005, page 6: The Nominee: Court Nominee's Life Is Rooted in Faith and Respect for Law

http://tinyurl.com/p255fou

Posted by: BuddyPC at March 04, 2015 06:53 PM (jfUIE)

308 I still want to know who had what on John Roberts.

I think they threatened his kids. Their adoption though a South American country seems to have been designed to circumvent Irish law, which forbids out-of-country adoptions.

Posted by: ChicagoRefugee at March 04, 2015 07:05 PM (faQdQ)

309 The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose.

Posted by: redbanzai at March 04, 2015 07:08 PM (afouc)

310 Lawless nation.

Well, lawless for titled. For the every day citizen/taxpayer, there's law upon law and all the consequences.

But we knew that already.

Some day, I guess, we can aspire to be a Banana Republic.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 04, 2015 07:32 PM (1CroS)

311 Everyone knows what is right, but no one will do it.

Posted by: petunia at March 04, 2015 07:50 PM (cu2hv)

312 #151 I have protested, I have marched, I have worked for candidates the state and federal party screwed over so I stopped donating to party and I have worked for candidates who screwed me over all on their own. What's left?

Posted by: richard mcenroe at March 04, 2015 08:10 PM (XO6WW)

313 @311: "Everyone knows what is right, but no one will do it."

No one wants to be the first to leave the trench - that guy always get dropped right away (real consequences with actual loss - maybe life, maybe property, maybe freedom, maybe job), and there's a very good chance that he will do so for naught, since no one else will follow him (again - anyone who does faces real consequences), or, if they do, not enough do it to matter.

On an individual level, it's best to stay in the trench (stay alive, keep property, job, freedom) and hope that, if you get overrun, your captors will be benevolent (so you can keep most of life, property, job, freedom). As a society, better if we all charge - some will be lost, but we as a whole may just win. It's hard to sell people on the "maybe," though; especially when they can easily calculate what they will lose if they try and fail.

Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at March 04, 2015 08:15 PM (amQXf)

314 Kennedy was all too willing to strike this abomination down last time around, i don't know why he wouldn't still. its Roberts that is the worry

Posted by: tintex at March 04, 2015 08:17 PM (OQy+b)

315 Posted by: Dan at March 04, 2015 06:52 PM (COpZ4)

What turd put Kennedy on the Bench?

Posted by: But that's different at March 04, 2015 08:21 PM (glJL/)

316 @302: "rammed through against the will of the majority of the people."

Don't confuse people not liking something with it being done against their will. People may bitch about Obamacare, but most are going along with it. They don't like it, but they sure as hell don't reject it and resist it as they would if it was truly "against their will"

Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at March 04, 2015 08:25 PM (amQXf)

317 @312: "I have protested, I have marched, I have worked for candidates the state
and federal party screwed over so I stopped donating to party and I
have worked for candidates who screwed me over all on their own. What's
left?"

That's the $64 question: when everything you can do within the framework of the law fails, what is your next step? You can either choose to acquiesce and stay within the law, or you can choose to resist further with the understanding that, in doing so, you step outside of the law. Each choice comes with pretty dire consequences, but those of going outlaw tend to be more immediate; thus, most people will choose to acquiesce.

Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at March 04, 2015 08:28 PM (amQXf)

318 Me too, and you are right, but dammit we cannot let them beat us, there
has to be a way. They have sought out to destroy us and are winning,
they shouldn't be, we are right, we are on the side of good, I feel like
we just got tired of fighting. But we shouldn't give in, I just feel
like they are counting on us giving in and giving up. We have to figure
out a way to overcome all of this.

Never forget God is watching all of this, and He has a Plan.

Posted by: An Observation at March 04, 2015 08:41 PM (ylhEn)

319 ' So, the idea is that Obamacare was drafted so egregiously that it's
unconstitutional, but none will dare call it unconstitutional, so
instead Kennedy will rewrite the law to achieve conformity with the
Constitution, thus delivering President El Jefe Maxima everything he
wants from his Enabling Act. "
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

I see that you understand how things work, now, here in the Progressives' Glorious New OBamaBananaRepublic.

Roberts tied himself (and the Constitution) in knots to be able to call the ACA "constitutional". It's obvious that "Rule of Law be damned" is *already* the watchword at the top levels of government. What makes you think this go-around, or the next, or the next after that, will be any different?

Fer cryin' out load, even 98% of the Gutless Opposition Party is on board with our New Overlords...

It. Is. A. Done. Deal.

Posted by: A_Nonny_Mouse at March 04, 2015 08:48 PM (kVuUk)

320 "No one wants to be the first to leave the trench - that guy always get dropped right away (real consequences with actual loss - maybe life, maybe property, maybe freedom, maybe job), and there's a very good chance that he will do so for naught, since no one else will follow him (again - anyone who does faces real consequences), or, if they do, not enough do it to matter.

On an individual level, it's best to stay in the trench (stay alive, keep property, job, freedom) and hope that, if you get overrun, your captors will be benevolent (so you can keep most of life, property, job, freedom). As a society, better if we all charge - some will be lost, but we as a whole may just win. It's hard to sell people on the "maybe," though; especially when they can easily calculate what they will lose if they try and fail.

Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at March 04, 2015 08:15 PM"

Up until the point where staying in the trench is just as bad as getting out of it.

Posted by: AshevilleRobert at March 04, 2015 08:53 PM (Wo9OY)

321 @318: "Never forget God is watching all of this, and He has a Plan."

No offense, but his plan often seems to suck balls. I can't imagine that the folks in the upper floors of the WTC on September 11, 2001, or Tutsis in Rwanda circa 1994, or any pediatric burn ward were overly thrilled with how the "plan" played out for them, for example.

Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at March 04, 2015 09:00 PM (amQXf)

322 Kennedy had the nuts to strike down the whole act once before, so why wouldn't he again? He could be playing possum so to keep the orcs away until he drops the hammer on them.

Posted by: crrr6 at March 04, 2015 09:03 PM (89GIe)

323 @320: "Up until the point where staying in the trench is just as bad as getting out of it."

Agreed, but the only way to figure out that point is to get overrun and find out that the guys who overran you aren't interested in taking prisoners.

Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at March 04, 2015 09:05 PM (amQXf)

324 This thing still on?

Posted by: HH at March 04, 2015 09:23 PM (Ce4DF)

325 324 This thing still on?
---
Sure.

Fa Cube Itches informs on the cold hard realities of where we find ourselves for which I find it hard to disagree. The choice is quickly becoming clear either run and hide for a period longer prior to ultimate submission or take the grave risk and refresh that tree of liberty, for which it is in such sore need, apparent too all with sober sight.

It is that ultimate check, and the absolute lack of any fear of that check that, among other things, has come to place us in the position we now survey.

I question not at this time whom shall charge first out of the trench, nor the precise timing of such, but more plainly, if enough brave souls among the citizenry remain to even occupy it's bounds.

Posted by: ThisBeingMilt at March 05, 2015 05:44 AM (MbrzC)

326 I'll say what everybody else is too chickenshit to:

"Nothing changes till we start killing some motherfuckers."

Anything else besides violence is a wasted gesture at this point in our doomed country. There is only one political party, a fully captured media spouts what it's told to, they just took over the Goddamned internet, and our corrupt courts are nothing more than a rubber stamp for whatever bullshit our kings want to make-the-fuck-up on the spot.

THIS IS TYRANNY.

Some people belatedly say "Article 5 will save us all!!1111" Bullshit. Bullshit. Such well meaning folks are failing to notice the fact that our worthless government is flat out ignoring the constitution NOW. What the hell good will come of adding some MORE lines for them to disregard whole-cloth? None - it will just provide another 10+ year justification for those of us who should have been slitting throats already to sit on our asses and pretend this ends in anything but cattle-cars.

It's time to chose. Chains or graves - and not just ours, but our fucking Kids and Grand-kids - our cowardice is dooming them too - or in this case ESPECIALLY.

I don't plan on living, but I don't plan on going out alone either. We are at the point everybody should be looking around and taking notes on who and what is... gettable.

I don't know about the rest of you folks, but I plan on being "ungovernable." Everybody sitting on their ass is how Nazi Germany happened.

Time's wasting patriots.

Posted by: HempRopeAndStreetlight at March 06, 2015 12:05 AM (Q1BEs)

Processing 0.04, elapsed 0.0504 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0184 seconds, 335 records returned.
Page size 184 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.