Fundamental Concepts - Game Over [Weirddave]

Ever since SCOTUS decided King V Burwell, I've been in a bit of a daze. Yesterday morning I realized I was just sitting on the edge of my bed, one sock on, my toes tucked into the other, just...staring out the window. My wife was behind me calling my name."Dave?....Dave?....Dave?..". I shook it off, but in truth I feel quite a bit like Private Hudson.

NSFW language

Strangely enough for someone who is an insurance agent, it has nothing to do with Obamacare. If it had gone the other way, God knows Congress would have fallen all over itself to to reinstate the subsidy. No, what was so gobsmackingly amazing about the decision was that it was justified on the basis of "intent". 6 out of 9 justices ignored the black letter written word of law in favor of "intent"

So why is this important? Well, let's start by asking a simple question: Why has the USA been so prosperous? Expand the scope of the question: Historically, why has the Anglosphere been so successful? If one views all of the countries in the Anglosphere as branches growing off of a British trunk, underneath all of them, providing sustenance and support is one common root:

Rule of Law

Rule of Law is a concept that goes back to Greco-Roman times and earlier. The Bible introduces some Deuteronomic provisions to constrain the king that are perhaps the earliest iterations of the concept. Plato advocated a benevolent monarchy, placing his hopes on the willingness of the king to obey the law, Aristotle firmly rebuked him for such a Utopian concept. Things really got rolling in 1215 with the Magna Carta which limited the power of King John to act unilaterally. Samuel Rutherford turned traditional wisdom on its head with Lex,Rex ("The law is king" as opposed to the traditional Rex,Lex, "The king is law") Locke discussed the concept in great detail, and the Founding Fathers of the US kept the concept as their guiding star as they wrote the Constitution. In every case, as the concept evolved, society became more prosperous, more just and more stable.

And then along came John Roberts.

So what is Rule of Law? Simply put, Rule of Law means that the laws apply to everyone equally. A law is written. It says what it says, and everyone must obey it. No exceptions. The law applies to everyone, regardless of social status, political position, wealth, situation. The law says that one may not drive drunk. If someone is pulled over and they blow 1.5, it doesn't matter if they were really sad because their grandfather just died, or if their mother ruled Bartertown. They broke the law, they are arrested and tried. (I do realize that real life isn't quite as straightforward and often times position, power or wealth DO determine how laws are applied in individual cases, but we're talking theory here). Rule of Law creates a level playing field for everyone.

Real life example: You want to set up a toilet paper factory. You can set it up in America, where a codified set of laws protects your property rights and sets legal limits on what the government can do to you, or you can set up shop in Venezuela where what you build belongs to a corrupt government and can be taken from you at anytime. Where do you build your factory?

Exactly, and that's why Wal-Mart carries dozens of different types of toilet paper and they are wiping their asses with pine cones in Caracas.

Which brings us back to the Affordable Care Act. Because the ACA made health insurance so expensive, the law contains provisions to ~~financially enslave lower income people to the State~~ provide subsidies to help working class people pay for the insurance. According to the text of the law, these subsidies are only available to people who purchase their insurance through an exchange set up by their state. The law states this two dozen times. Clearly. In plain English. Over and over again. Unfortunately for the architects of the law, most states did not set up an exchange, so the Obama administration instructed the IRS to offer the subsidies to people who purchased insurance on the Federal exchange, in clear violation of the law. This was the issue at stake in the case, which should have been the most open and shut decision in the history of the court.

It wasn't. The court found that subsidies on the Federal exchange were legal. From Robert's opinion:

The combination of no tax credits and an ineffective coverage requirement could well push a State’s individual insurance market into a death spiral. It is implausible that Congress meant the Act to operate in this manner. Congress made the guaranteed issue and community rating requirements applicable in every State in the Nation, but those requirements only work when combined with the coverage requirement and tax credits. It thus stands to reason that Congress meant for those provisions to apply in every State as well.Pp. 15–19.

So the law doesn't mean what it says it means. Hmmm, Interesting concept, but I could see how it's barely plausible (Barely plausible means that one instance could be a mistake. Two dozen? Never). If a law was passed to require all of you peons to venerate “The Weirddave”, and by mistake it contained a typo and said “A Weirddave” so that you poor simple folks were worshiping inferior Weirddaves instead of me, OK, I could buy the intent argument. However, if the law says "a Weirddave" over and over and over again, well, what else can we conclude except that my insisting "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me!" is nothing but hubris? In this case we have multiple videos of the law's principal author, Jonathan Gruber, saying that not offering subsidies to people off their state exchange was intentional:

What’s important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this.

Video here, go to 32:00 exactly for the quote.

So we have proven that Roberts' stated rationale for his decision is bullshit. It doesn't matter, his decision stands. There is not a Goddamn thing you or I or anyone can do about it. Roberts' decision arbitrarily precludes the Rule of Law. The ACA doesn't mean what it says it means. Why? Because six SCOTUS justices say that it doesn’t.

So where does this leave us? It leaves us as subjects to an oligarchy. No longer are we citizens giving our consent to be governed in a codified, orderly process. The USA as constituted is dead. Instead of ruling on the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress and signed by the President, the SCOTUS is now writing laws. All on its own, with no oversight or debate. Nobody elected them, they are not subject to election or review. Nobody can veto their laws really do anything at all. The new law exists because the SCOTUS says that it does, and you must obey or suffer the consequences. Rule of Law had a good run. June 15 1215 to June 25, 2015. Ten days from being an even eight centuries. Hell of a run. Wish I'd lived in the middle of it rather than at the end.

What's the effect on your life? Nothing. Seriously, nothing.

Today.

Or tomorrow.

Or even the next day.

Buy some day soon, someone is going to bring a case before the SCOTUS citing King V Burwell as a precedent because whatever the lawsuit is about concerns the “intent” of whatever law is in question.

And the court will agree with their precedent because that's how it's designed to work.

A year later another case will do the same.

And then another.

And another.

And by the time your son or daughter or grandchild feels within themselves a burning desire to build THE BEST DAMN TOILET PAPER FACTORY IN THE WORLD!, the State will have the unquestioned ability to take that factory from them in the name of whatever. Rule of Law will be a quaint anachronism.

And we'll all be wiping our asses with pine cones.

Heck of a job Roberts, heck of a job.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 10:45 AM

Comments

(Jump to bottom of comments)

1 Dave! Barrell...NOW!!

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at June 27, 2015 10:47 AM (iQIUe)

2 Those dozens of toilet paper brands are why children are going hungry!

Posted by: President Bernie Sanders at June 27, 2015 10:47 AM (obzFS)

3 And yet there's a reason why so many rulings and elections have not gone our way.

What are they? Who's responsible? Is it a combined effort or happenstance?

Is it possible the majority is correct in their view and we have the wrong side?

After all the set backs and lost elections of the last 8 years, I'm having lots of doubts about the rightness of my opinions. (and thus of those who agree so far with me)

It's not a very enjoyable time as this concerns over 35+ years of opinion, votes, discussion and effort.

In other words; I'm exhausted and see no reasons encouraging me to continue to fight.

People are wrong every day. Those that are right eventually will win and if they don't, then even if they're still right, they must bow to the weight of the majority and adjust their attitude or at least become quiescent.

And it comes at a time when I'm reevaluating my life in general.

Have I and others been wrong all this time?

Posted by: Jakee308 at June 27, 2015 10:55 AM (x3GpS)

4 At what point does one stop pledging allegiance to something that no longer exists?

Posted by: zek at June 27, 2015 10:55 AM (LGXGf)

5 So where does this leave us? It leaves us as subjects to an oligarchy.

Dave we have been ruled by an oligarchy since the end of the civil war.

Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at June 27, 2015 10:58 AM (GpgJl)

6
List of billionaires:

http://goo.gl/DKk30c

Find one, stalk 'em, marry 'em. Even with a pre-nup you'll still be a multimillionaire.

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at June 27, 2015 10:59 AM (iQIUe)

7 I am not a religious person and it was with great trepidation that I noticed that one of the movie my daughter could choose to view and do a report on was The Ten Commandments. Somehow she ended up picking that one (maybe the other choices were even worse).

BUT - in viewing the movie again, I could see that there was something more profound about it than the mysticism and magic tricks. For a start, there was the theme of people escaping tyranny to be free.

The MAIN theme of the whole movie, however, was RULE OF LAW. Not just the tyranny of the law being whatever the Pharoh decided that minute, but also the law among the new civilization that had just been born. The idea that no man was above the law.

And yes, to have prosperity you have to have a stable understandable legal system. If nobody even knows what the rules are, or will be tomorrow, they can't plan ahead or make long-term investments. It's Civilization 101, and we're flunking that now. The Fabian Socialists are winning, and they must be called out for what they are.

Posted by: Optimizer at June 27, 2015 10:59 AM (/q6+P)

8 Honestly, the best solution might be to just start clogging the courts with lawsuits, demanding alternate interpretations of every federal law under the sun.

I doubt it'll make a difference, but it'd be amusing to watch.

Posted by: Toastrider at June 27, 2015 10:59 AM (nklyc)

9 SCOTUScare decision says the INTENT of the law is what matters.

Disparate Impact housing decision says the intent of the people DOES NOT matter.

The irony - it burns!

Posted by: @votermom at June 27, 2015 11:00 AM (cbfNE)

10 The amazing thing is that everyone blames Roberts and Kennedy for ScotusCare. I've yet to hear anyone even mention the four liberal justices. That's because it's simply assumed that they'll vote to increase arbitrary government power. They're not seen as justices, they're merely cheerleaders for the left.

And this is accepted.

Posted by: pep at June 27, 2015 11:01 AM (LAe3v)

11 Why use pinecones when we have the Constitution?

Posted by: John Roberts at June 27, 2015 11:02 AM (CdIQH)

12 Actually, it wasn't even intent. The justices didn't make their decision on what the law was *intended* to say, but rather on what its supposed goals were. They decided that the law "really" meant something other than what the people who wrote it intended it to mean, on the grounds that it would probably work better if they had intended what Roberts thinks they should have intended.

Posted by: The Deuce at June 27, 2015 11:02 AM (oMDFQ)

13 Wrong about what Jake?

Posted by: Matt at June 27, 2015 11:03 AM (PpfqW)

14 @6
"List of billionaires: ... Find one, stalk 'em, marry 'em. Even with a pre-nup you'll still be a multimillionaire."

In keeping with the current mania in pop culture, perhaps I should simply announce that I feel in my heart that I am married to one of those billionaires (even though I'm already married - but now we all know that we can't discriminate against the married, because of the 14th Amendment

), and so anybody who says I'm not is a hater and must be driven out of ever having a livelihood of any kind.

Posted by: Optimizer at June 27, 2015 11:03 AM (/q6+P)

15 When something no longer works, it's time to remove it and replace it.

The SC no longer works. Our founding fathers gave us a way to remedy an out of order SC. We need to use it.

And for all those who keep saying that it won't work because they don't pay attention to the law, then there won't be a change between then and now, will there? And the collapse will come sooner.

Posted by: Jen the original at June 27, 2015 11:04 AM (OB/ib)

16 Howdy....

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at June 27, 2015 11:04 AM (pCePB)

17 The amazing thing is that everyone blames Roberts and Kennedy for ScotusCare. I've yet to hear anyone even mention the four liberal justices. That's because it's simply assumed that they'll vote to increase arbitrary government power. They're not seen as justices, they're merely cheerleaders for the left.

And this is accepted.
Posted by: pep at June 27, 2015 11:01 AM (LAe3v)

Agree. Everyone is furious with Roberts and Kennedy, and the other four are excused because this was expected. The other four are simply communist enablers, who have a pen and a board seat.

Posted by: Jen the original at June 27, 2015 11:06 AM (OB/ib)

18 Yes Jackee308 you are wrong. You were wrong then, you are wrong now, you have always been wrong and you should just go ahead and jump off a cliff, tall bridge, tall building because you are a failure and we don't need you any more.

Posted by: Adelade Kramski at June 27, 2015 11:06 AM (TBfVE)

19 I have seen many signs of white Men pooping in bush of poison ivy,,

Posted by: Dan George at June 27, 2015 11:06 AM (/WmRg)

20 They decided that the law "really" meant something
other than what the people who wrote it intended it to mean, on the
grounds that it would probably work better if they had intended what
Roberts thinks they should have intended.

Posted by: The Deuce at June 27, 2015 11:02 AM (oMDFQ)

"Pass the law to find out what's in it". The "law" intended to take over as much of the economy as it could and make more people dependent on the state. And the SC just slam dunked it for them.

Posted by: TheQuietMan at June 27, 2015 11:06 AM (DiZBp)

21 Wrong about what Jake?

He showed up here yesterday posting inflammatory/discouraging comments. Draw your own conclusions as to why.

Posted by: Grey Fox at June 27, 2015 11:07 AM (a42f0)

22 As a continuation for my comment in 9 :
SCOTUS implies that the GOVERNMENT can do whatever it wants because of "good intentions" but the PEOPLE always have bad intentions.

Posted by: @votermom at June 27, 2015 11:08 AM (cbfNE)

23 ...and if those deacons be without vestments, it shall be the streakin' deacon beacon.

Bacon?

Posted by: Billy Barty, Mayor of Smallville at June 27, 2015 11:08 AM (mTo/m)

24 Didn't Roberts reverse himself with his reasoning in the same sex marriage opinion? Could a lawyer argue that Roberts opinion in obamacare contradicts his own reasoning in the same sex marriage and thus invalidate his opinions on both issues?

Posted by: Adelade Kramski at June 27, 2015 11:09 AM (TBfVE)

25
We have a method to deal with an out of control Supreme Court.

It's called impeachment.

Posted by: irongrampa at June 27, 2015 11:09 AM (jeCnD)

26
Soon there will be NO cases.

What's happening here is the systematic deconstruction of a republic.

I do not joke when I say obama's FBI or obama's CIA, or when I say obama's House Of Representatives, and now I can say obama's Court.

We now have a King and a King's court. Our king is term-limited...for now.

Posted by: Soothsayer's Lovin Spoonful at June 27, 2015 11:10 AM (rrKIh)

27 Have I and others been wrong all this time?

No.

Posted by: rickb223 at June 27, 2015 11:10 AM (G+3hN)

28 "The amazing thing is that everyone blames Roberts and Kennedy for ScotusCare."

Yeah, there's that whole Congress thing.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at June 27, 2015 11:10 AM (pCePB)

29 South Park predicted all this 13 years ago...

South Park; The Death Camp of Tolerance

http://www.hulu.com/watch/250013

Posted by: kbdabear at June 27, 2015 11:12 AM (GrXXa)

30 h/t fb friend

2 Timothy 4: 3-4

3. For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine, but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth 4. and will be diverted to myths.

Posted by: phoenixgirl, i was born a rebel at June 27, 2015 11:12 AM (0O7c5)

31 Frequent lurker here. Is it possible that with the SCOTUS decisions of the past week (the past century for that matter)that we are on a journey, the end of which is the next civil war for this country?

Posted by: 144 at June 27, 2015 11:12 AM (U27bU)

32 "Wrong about what Jake? "

He's from State Farm. Just trying to sell insurance.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at June 27, 2015 11:12 AM (pCePB)

33 Obama's SCOTUS appointees are his hand puppets.

Posted by: @votermom at June 27, 2015 11:13 AM (cbfNE)

34 State led convention to amend the constitution.

Posted by: Edmund Burke's Shade, languishing in Krazyfornia at June 27, 2015 11:13 AM (cmBvC)

35 @12 "Actually, it wasn't even intent. The justices didn't make their decision on what the law was *intended* to say, but rather on what its supposed goals were. They decided that the law "really" meant something other than what the people who wrote it intended it to mean, on the grounds that it would probably work better if they had intended what Roberts thinks they should have intended."

Actually, it's SO much WORSE than that, as I understand it.

They declared themselves experts on what would "improve" or "destroy" the insurance markets, and explicitly RE-WROTE (not re-interpreted) the law to achieve the former.

Imagine if you were doing your job, and somebody came up, said you're doing it wrong, trashed your work, and replaced it with their own. They have then usurped your job, and done it for you.

That's what SCOTUS did, plain and simple. It a startling violation of the separation of powers. So what do you do, when the designated arbiter of what is Constitutional, flagrantly violates it?

Posted by: Optimizer at June 27, 2015 11:13 AM (/q6+P)

36 Kelo was the first sign that SCOTUS was going to just start making shit up as it went along.

Posted by: HUCK / AKIN 2016 at June 27, 2015 11:14 AM (0LHZx)

37 The amazing thing is that everyone blames Roberts and Kennedy for ScotusCare. I've yet to hear anyone even mention the four liberal justices.

That's because it's simply assumed that they'll vote to increase arbitrary government power. They're not seen as justices, they're merely cheerleaders for the left.

And this is accepted.

Yes. I expect my enemy to try to kill me. That's a given.
What I DON'T expect, is MY side to.

Posted by: rickb223 at June 27, 2015 11:14 AM (G+3hN)

38 The King v Burwell case was NOT decided on the basis of legislative intent. It was decided on the basis of Congress's supposed PURPOSE. They are not the same.

Intent refers to what someone attempts to accomplish as a direct and immediate result of his actions. It concerns what you are trying to achieve as the literal, manifest result of your behavior. All results lead to further results. All means have ends, and those ends lead to further ends, and so on. "Intent" is about how A leads to B, not how A leads to R.

"Motive," "purpose" and "goal" refer to effects and consequences that are far removed from one's own actions. They are the results of other causes that occur further down the chain of events.

SCOTUS decided this POS case on the basis of what the claimed purpose of Congress was -- to "improve" insurance markets.

That's nonsense. First, "improvement" takes many forms, and the disagreement about what constitutes "improvement" is pretty much the definition of politics. Second, the Court is supposed to interpret what Congress intended to do, not what remote long-term goal they may have had.

Finally, pretending to decipher ordinary legislative "intent," even when done by the traditional legal methods, is a lot of voodoo and tea leaf-reading, at best. Interpreting legislative PURPOSE is pure fantasy.

I dissent.

Posted by: Phinn at June 27, 2015 11:15 AM (DLUnW)

39
Indeed, what's worst of all in all this mess is that THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AT THIS SORRY POINT IN OUR NATION'S HISTORY WANT A KING.

And they got one. A corrupt one.

Posted by: Soothsayer's Lovin Spoonful at June 27, 2015 11:15 AM (rrKIh)

40 DOJ to give $29 million to the families of the Charleston victims. Why?

Posted by: The Great White Snark at June 27, 2015 11:15 AM (LImiJ)

41 Trump just tweeted this
When somebody challenges you unfairly, fight back - be brutal, be tough - don't take it. It is always important to WIN!

Posted by: @votermom at June 27, 2015 11:15 AM (cbfNE)

42 @15
"The SC no longer works. Our founding fathers gave us a way to remedy an out of order SC. We need to use it."

I'm actually not up on that. Is there an impeachment process, or are you talking about Amendments? Adding new justices wouldn't help too much right now.

Posted by: Optimizer at June 27, 2015 11:16 AM (/q6+P)

43 40
DOJ to give $29 million to the families of the Charleston victims. Why?

Posted by: The Great White Snark at June 27, 2015 11:15 AM (LImiJ)

so they can sue to get it back when their church doesn't marry ss couples.....?/

Posted by: phoenixgirl, i was born a rebel at June 27, 2015 11:16 AM (0O7c5)

44 State led convention to amend the constitution.
Posted by: Edmund Burke's Shade

They are not following the one we have that is the law of the land.

What magic bean will force them to follow an amended one?

Posted by: rickb223 at June 27, 2015 11:16 AM (G+3hN)

45 So the law doesn't mean what it says it means.

How very postmodern.

Another great post, WeirdDave. Although this current deconstruction of objective reality is seen as coming from people, make no mistake that there's a spirit behind it.

One that seeks to make us suffer and denies us the potential good that we could all have.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this sh1t at June 27, 2015 11:16 AM (eEb+d)

46 After this week, I have decided America is over as far as I am concerned. I have taken down the American flag which has hung in my yard since 1980 (replaced every other year with a new Old Glory).

My America is gone and I can do nothing except remember it.

The liberals have won through indoctrination and now we must just wait for collapse and begin the payback so richly deserved the liberals.

Posted by: Gary at June 27, 2015 11:16 AM (cRVHd)

47 Are you happy the Supreme Court saved Obamacare? http://bit.ly/1dnA0sN

Posted by: Cate at June 27, 2015 11:17 AM (146vj)

48 For this ruling to be consistent, then the most liberal of all rights must be extended across the country. The most liberal 2A rights should now be accorded to all as also the most liberal drug rights, the most liberal tax rights, the most liberal voting rights, the most liberal....I see an interesting can of worms that just got opened. Should hasten the SMOD's arrival.

Posted by: Rob in Katy at June 27, 2015 11:17 AM (eYTQP)

49 Damn, The Deuce and Optimizer said what I was trying to say, only slower.

What they said.

Posted by: Phinn at June 27, 2015 11:17 AM (DLUnW)

50 In previous thread, Turd Ferguson suggested having "A Day without a Conservative." To quote him, "Half the country calls in sick. Sure, the government agencies will hardly notice, but surely that would be a wake-up call?"
I suggest August 4, Obama's birthday.

Posted by: Emily at June 27, 2015 11:17 AM (7Rn+/)

51 Hypothetical:

If it were discovered many years layer that a SCOTUS judge had been bribed or coerced on a decision, what would be the impact on that decision?

Posted by: @votermom at June 27, 2015 11:17 AM (cbfNE)

52
If a leader, a true leader, would emerge today and make a stand, The American People will turn on obama. I really believe that.

I also really believe that that leader will never appear. There's no one out there...except us. And we can't be leaders, right??

Posted by: Soothsayer's Lovin Spoonful at June 27, 2015 11:17 AM (rrKIh)

53 40 DOJ to give $29 million to the families of the Charleston victims. Why?
Posted by: The Great White Snark at June 27, 2015 11:15 AM (LImiJ)
============

I thought that was a hoax but unfortunately not, By declaring it terrorism are they allowed to tap into special funds?

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at June 27, 2015 11:17 AM (iQIUe)

54 Captain, the idea of Mr. Sulu stroking his penis and mating with Engineer Scott in the engine room and then proceeding to become married and this being considered normal and helpful within Starfleet Command is quite simply illogical.

Posted by: Zomie Spock at June 27, 2015 11:17 AM (JG47A)

55 " "Actually, it wasn't even intent. The justices didn't make their decision on what the law was *intended* to say,"

Roberts et. al. rewrote the law from what the law said as written and redefined the meaning of the words as written into what the law needed to say to protect Obama's political policy.

The Supreme Court justices sold out the law, sold out the country, and sold their souls to a political expedient because they were afraid to face the chaos that otherwise would have resulted.

Posted by: Adelade Kramski at June 27, 2015 11:18 AM (TBfVE)

56 40
DOJ to give $29 million to the families of the Charleston victims. Why?

Posted by: The Great White Snark at June 27, 2015 11:15 AM (LImiJ)

Because Obama said and he knows congress will do nothing. And impeachment is on the floor until a Republican is President.

Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at June 27, 2015 11:18 AM (GpgJl)

57 What ever happened to the "No Severability" clause?

Posted by: rickb223 at June 27, 2015 11:18 AM (G+3hN)

58 I had an idea about how a state could fight this. Create a new tax on all people who receive a federal subsidy. You get $1000 from Obamacare to pay for health insurance, OK, you now owe the state an extra $1000 in state income tax.

Yeah it would be almost impossible to pass such a law, but in theory it would work and it would have the effect of nullifying the decision.

Posted by: HUCK / AKIN 2016 at June 27, 2015 11:19 AM (0LHZx)

59 44. There are no magic beans, but it seems a shame to quit without trying. It would be vastly entertaining to watch the oligarchy squirm, in any event.

Posted by: Edmund Burke's Shade, languishing in Krazyfornia at June 27, 2015 11:19 AM (cmBvC)

60 For the first time in a long time I'm glad I have no children.

Posted by: Cloyd Freud, Unemployed at June 27, 2015 11:19 AM (YFw5T)

61 "And it comes at a time when I'm reevaluating my life in general.

Have I and others been wrong all this time?"

Never more sure and steeled in my life. What's your problem.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at June 27, 2015 11:19 AM (pCePB)

62 Anyone too morally and physically lazy to guide their own ship would gladly appoint a captain to take the tiller, especially in an age of instant gratification.

We're watching a whole nation of the morally and physically lazy do just this.

Posted by: Billy Barty, Mayor of Smallville at June 27, 2015 11:20 AM (mTo/m)

63 How effed up are we? There are "conservatives" writing how the SCOTUScare ruling is GOOD for Republicans. See: Now they don't have to come up with a remedy to the lost subsidies. So, yeah. WIN!

Posted by: Brave Sir Robin at June 27, 2015 11:20 AM (5buP8)

64 I'm actually not up on that. Is there an impeachment
process, or are you talking about Amendments? Adding new justices
wouldn't help too much right now.

Posted by: Optimizer at June 27, 2015 11:16 AM (/q6+P)

As I said in the previous thread rewrite the section dealing with the courts to define what is and is not within their authority. Remove appointment power from DC and give each State appointment power for one justice from their State. If blue states want to appoint commies fine, states like SC will appoint hardcore conservatives. Also give each State the power to remove their justice by a popular vote.

Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at June 27, 2015 11:22 AM (GpgJl)

65 Honestly, the best solution might be to just start clogging the courts with lawsuits, demanding alternate interpretations of every federal law under the sun.

I doubt it'll make a difference, but it'd be amusing to watch.

Posted by: Toastrider at June 27, 2015 10:59 AM (nklyc)

You forget that, as NON-members of the Loyal Order of the Perpetually Aggrieved, we have no fucking standing in federal court. At best, our lawsuits would be tossed. At worst, the Lawgivers-In-Black will take the opportunity to criminalize us.

Posted by: steveegg at June 27, 2015 11:23 AM (cL79m)

66 In the immortal words of Al Shark-ton:

RESIST WE MUCH!

Posted by: @votermom at June 27, 2015 11:23 AM (cbfNE)

67 "Is it possible that with the SCOTUS decisions of the past week (the past
century for that matter)that we are on a journey, the end of which is
the next civil war for this country?"

No, there will be no civil war. People are probably tired of me saying it, our fiscal collapse will breakup the union. It's kinda funny when you think of it, by the time the left get's their social utopia of equality through speech laws and conformity laws, the country they wanted will be collapsing due to their socialist fiscal policies.

Posted by: lowandslow at June 27, 2015 11:23 AM (dItuC)

68 Smart ass reporter: Mr. Snark, would you go to a gay wedding?

Mr. Snark: Not yours.

Posted by: The Great White Snark at June 27, 2015 11:24 AM (LImiJ)

69 "DOJ to give $29 million to the families of the Charleston victims. Why? "

Obama wasn't well received at the funeral? and he feels the need to buy him some love? Or just buy some silence.

Posted by: Adelade Kramski at June 27, 2015 11:24 AM (TBfVE)

70 53 I thought that was a hoax but unfortunately not, By declaring it terrorism are they allowed to tap into special funds?

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at June 27, 2015 11:17 AM (iQIUe)

Obama can do anything he wants because congress does not give a shit.

Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at June 27, 2015 11:24 AM (GpgJl)

71
More awful things will happen next week.
That's our future.

It's time to make a stand. Nothing will change until People stand up.

Posted by: Soothsayer's Lovin Spoonful at June 27, 2015 11:24 AM (rrKIh)

72 America, everything everybody said in the Anglo portion of Western Civilization is bullshit.

Posted by: My Cousin John Roberts at June 27, 2015 11:24 AM (HKyCl)

73 Never more sure and steeled in my life. What's your problem.

Same here.

As the coffee kicks in this morning, I'm feeling more and more philosophical and shit. As a result, I'm more confident than ever in my own beliefs and convictions, the rest of the world be damned.

And it can kiss my ass.

Did I mention defiant, too?

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this sh1t at June 27, 2015 11:24 AM (eEb+d)

74 How effed up are we? There are "conservatives" writing how the SCOTUScare ruling is GOOD for Republicans. See: Now they don't have to come up with a remedy to the lost subsidies. So, yeah. WIN!

Posted by: Brave Sir Robin at June 27, 2015 11:20 AM (5buP

If they're still in any sort of power in 2017, they'll make the health insurance companies full-time employees of the federal government by doing for the larger health insurance scheme what they did for prescription drugs for seniors.

On paper, it may look better than the Rats' plan to make doctors full-time employees of the federal government by creating "true" single-payer, but in reality, it won't be any fucking different.

Posted by: steveegg at June 27, 2015 11:25 AM (cL79m)

75 Grey Fox, I hadn't seen his post yesterday but that makes sense. There were a lot of tells in his comments that he's not a conservative.

Posted by: Matt at June 27, 2015 11:26 AM (PpfqW)

76 @49
"Damn, The Deuce and Optimizer said what I was trying to say, only slower. ... What they said."

You put it pretty well too, fellow patriot!

Posted by: Optimizer at June 27, 2015 11:26 AM (/q6+P)

77 June 15 1215 to June 25, 2015

Was that the Julian date? Be funny if it was June 25, 1215, Gregorian.

Posted by: t-bird at June 27, 2015 11:26 AM (FcR7P)

78 @15
"The SC no longer works. Our founding fathers gave us a way to remedy an out of order SC. We need to use it."

I'm actually not up on that. Is there an impeachment process, or are you talking about Amendments? Adding new justices wouldn't help too much right now.
Posted by: Optimizer at June 27, 2015 11:16 AM (/q6+P)

Amendments and Article V convention, where these amendments can also be proposed. Term limits on SC justices is being looked at as a solution. No one should have life long tenure and immunity in any position.

Posted by: Jen the original at June 27, 2015 11:27 AM (OB/ib)

79 "36 Kelo was the first sign that SCOTUS was going to just start making shit up as it went along."

----

Really? Ever hear of the Warren court?

Posted by: Idiocracy is a documentary at June 27, 2015 11:28 AM (Cz/08)

80 No, there will be no civil war. People are probably tired of me saying it, our fiscal collapse will breakup the union. It's kinda funny when you think of it, by the time the left get's their social utopia of equality through speech laws and conformity laws, the country they wanted will be collapsing due to their socialist fiscal policies.

Posted by: lowandslow at June 27, 2015 11:23 AM (dItuC)

Ahem - the Left will never let the more-prosperous portions of the country go peacefully. Their forced seizure of that to fund their nightmares is the most-likely catalyst of the second Revolution.

Posted by: steveegg at June 27, 2015 11:29 AM (cL79m)

81 Red Dawn is coming on Spike TV at 10:30 Central.

Fitting.

Posted by: rickb223 at June 27, 2015 11:29 AM (G+3hN)

82
btw, Dukes Of Hazzard was so popular and so beloved by children everywhere that it had its own spinoff Saturday morning cartoon show called The Dukes in which the Bo and Luke (or cousins Coy and Vance who filled in during the contract dispute) travel the world in their car The General Lee.

The very first frames of the intro that cartoon? A giant Confederate flag that the boys drive the General Lee through!

Banned.

Posted by: Soothsayer's Lovin Spoonful at June 27, 2015 11:30 AM (rrKIh)

83 As the coffee kicks in this morning, I'm feeling more and more philosophical and shit.

*****

I agree. A certain clarity of thought and purpose can be a liberating thing.

Endeavor to persevere.

Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at June 27, 2015 11:30 AM (mvenn)

84 The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our constitution but in our courts that we are underlings.

- The Bard of Snarkford on Avon

Posted by: The Great White Snark at June 27, 2015 11:30 AM (LImiJ)

85 This nation has not been so close to revolution since April 18, 1775, nor so deserving.

As far as I am concerned, the Constitution is sacrosanct, and those inhabiting office, by virtue of their infidelity to the Constitution, do so illegitimately; they are the domestic enemies referred to in their very oaths of office.

And we still have over a year to go with this awful man in the White House.

Purge them all, I say, to a man from office. Repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments which grant the Federals more power than they are legitimately entitled to.

Posted by: Pete Moss, The Agrostologist of the Apocolypse at June 27, 2015 11:30 AM (GgGgG)

86 I thought that was a hoax but unfortunately not, By declaring it terrorism are they allowed to tap into special funds?
Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at June 27, 2015 11:17 AM (iQIUe)

Reparations. $29 M goes a little ways toward easing the sting of slavery of these folks ancestors who were slaves almost 175 years ago.

Posted by: Jen the original at June 27, 2015 11:30 AM (OB/ib)

87 Pixy won't let me copy and paste long blocks of text, so try this:

http://tinyurl.com/o4zepsd

There is a way for churches to sidestep yesterday's ruling. Might just take some air out of the Gay Mafia's sails.....

Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at June 27, 2015 11:31 AM (KpAcJ)

88 Heritage Foundation

http://preview.tinyurl.com/o8ojsqt

Article II, Section 4, says that the President, Vice President, and 'all civil Officers of the United States' - which includes judges - can be impeached.

Posted by: Adelade Kramski at June 27, 2015 11:31 AM (TBfVE)

89 "People are probably tired of me saying it, our fiscal collapse will breakup the union. "

I'm not sure the two are so separate. One will likely trigger the other.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at June 27, 2015 11:31 AM (pCePB)

90 I agree. A certain clarity of thought and purpose can be a liberating thing.

Endeavor to persevere.

Aim to misbehave.

Posted by: rickb223 at June 27, 2015 11:31 AM (G+3hN)

91

NOW is the time to revitalize the Tea Party movement, if possible. But no one has the time nor the balls.

Posted by: Soothsayer's Lovin Spoonful at June 27, 2015 11:32 AM (rrKIh)

92 Each branch and every level of the government has the right and duty to interpret the Constitution. As do the citizens.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at June 27, 2015 11:32 AM (rwI+c)

93 No one should have life long tenure and immunity in any position.

-
Except for Elvis. He was king.

Posted by: The Great White Snark at June 27, 2015 11:32 AM (LImiJ)

94 Heritage Foundation

http://preview.tinyurl.com/o8ojsqt

Article II, Section 4, says that the President, Vice President, and 'all civil Officers of the United States' - which includes judges - can be impeached.

Posted by: Adelade Kramski at June 27, 2015 11:31 AM (TBfVE)

Good luck with that. More likely, Scalia and Thomas will suffer that fate (Alito would too, but he's a gun-grabber at heart).

Posted by: steveegg at June 27, 2015 11:32 AM (cL79m)

95 To those who think that now their carry permits will HAVE to be honored in all 57 states, you have missed the point of this weeks SCROTUS decisions.
The point is that the constitution says what any 5 justices say it says. It is a living, organic document - that is, not a constitution at all, but the personal whims of 5 justices. Scalia has been saying this for years.

Posted by: Idiocracy is a documentary at June 27, 2015 11:32 AM (Cz/08)

96 My prediction worst case scenario:

Fragmentation leading us vulnerable to an attack by The Global Caliphate.
It's every city / state for itself.

Posted by: @votermom at June 27, 2015 11:33 AM (cbfNE)

97 Then in the Gay marriage case...

They created a RIGHT of Dignity.

Saying that your choices of identity are protected, as it would be undignified not to do so.

I have searched a bit... and cannot find the term Dignity anywhere in any law, nor the constitution...

Posted by: BB Wolf at June 27, 2015 11:33 AM (qh617)

98 My prediction worst case scenario:

Fragmentation leading us vulnerable to an attack by The Global Caliphate.
It's every city / state for itself.

Posted by: @votermom at June 27, 2015 11:33 AM (cbfNE)

Our goal.

Posted by: The Left at June 27, 2015 11:33 AM (cL79m)

99
funny how those 3 "black churches" in the South that were burned this week never really made the "news," eh?

More bullshit??

Posted by: Soothsayer's Lovin Spoonful at June 27, 2015 11:33 AM (rrKIh)

100 "And it can kiss my ass.

Did I mention defiant, too?"

Heh. Making further preps. It's a coming.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at June 27, 2015 11:34 AM (pCePB)

101 That Spike TV "Red Dawn" is the shitty new one.

Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at June 27, 2015 11:35 AM (GpgJl)

102 @64 ... As I said in the previous thread rewrite the section dealing with the courts to define what is and is not within their authority. Remove appointment power from DC and give each State appointment power for one justice from their State. If blue states want to appoint commies fine, states like SC will appoint hardcore conservatives. Also give each State the power to remove their justice by a popular vote."

Interesting, thanks!

As to the re-write on their authority, they're already exceeding their authority, and even THAT authority is not explicitly given to them by the Constitution.

As to the rest? I guess you're talking about 50 of 51 Justices? Interesting, but it seems unwieldy, and I can't see that ever passing.

How about - for a start - eliminating the lifetime term of Justices? As it is, if you get some nutcase in there - and we have many - then you have to wait for them to die to be rid of them. These are unelected dictators, chosen by happenstance of who's in the WH when their predecessor dies or retires. Maybe something like a 12-year term, with a ONE term limit.

Posted by: Optimizer at June 27, 2015 11:35 AM (/q6+P)

103 If we were playing by Alinsky rules we would be digging into Roberts personal life right now. Just saying.

Posted by: @votermom at June 27, 2015 11:35 AM (cbfNE)

104
Dear Mr 223.
That is Purity Of Essence
or
POE

Posted by: Dan George at June 27, 2015 11:35 AM (/WmRg)

105 That Spike TV "Red Dawn" is the shitty new one.

Then they switched it. Because it has the 1984 info.

Posted by: rickb223 at June 27, 2015 11:36 AM (G+3hN)

106 That Spike TV "Red Dawn" is the shitty new one.
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at June 27, 2015 11:35 AM (GpgJl)

Jean has a long soul patch.

Posted by: steveegg at June 27, 2015 11:36 AM (cL79m)

107 Yes, Rule of Law is dead. Replaced with Rule BY Law.

The difference being, every arbitrary decision that gets made will be given the stamp of approval by somebody, somewhere along the chain.

People will accept this because, the chiefs of our society say it.

Who are the chiefs? Lawyers, of course.

Not philosophers, ethicists, psychologists, theologians, scientists. Lawyers.

And what kept lawyers in check for centuries is that their way of thinking was NOT elevated above all others. It is now. Has been for some time. This battle has been lost for some time, and even though many have noticed, they've been expecting something different to occur when we keep going back to the black robed Supreme Beings.

Posted by: BurtTC at June 27, 2015 11:36 AM (Dj0WE)

108 DOJ to give $29 million to the families of the Charleston victims.

-
Over $3 million per victim. You know, my mom's had a pretty good run . . .

Posted by: The Great White Snark at June 27, 2015 11:36 AM (LImiJ)

109 "There is a way for churches to sidestep yesterday's ruling. Might just take some air out of the Gay Mafia's sails....."

Not worry about the exempt thing or just not incorporate.

Am I smoking crack?

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at June 27, 2015 11:36 AM (pCePB)

110 Need to add - the Left always punishes apostates and traitors. The Right never does.
Maybe it's time.

During the Nazi occupations, the resistance would always try to make examples of collaborators.

Posted by: @votermom at June 27, 2015 11:37 AM (cbfNE)

111 Went Galt a few years ago and friends still approach me about starting a business. My answer always is that I am interested in a startup, but only in one of the top 10 countries, and this ain't one of them.

http://www.heritage.org/index/

Posted by: SpongeBobSaget at June 27, 2015 11:37 AM (zauWW)

112 Amendments and Article V convention, where these amendments can also be proposed. Term limits on SC justices is being looked at as a solution. No one should have life long tenure and immunity in any position.

It's also time to impose some rules on the way Congress conducts it's business. They've pretty much proven that they can't or won't live up to their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution and to preserve our freedoms.

First off, they shouldn't be permitted to exempt themselves from their own laws. Next, they should all take some sort of civics test as candidates, to make certain that they understand not only the words of the Constitution, but the meaning of the principles that undergird it. Fail it and they're disqualified from running. That would clear out a bunch of the prog/coms right there. After that, term limits, then a ban on lobbyists. Finally, no legislation shall be proposed unless actually authored by a representative: no more laws written by someone who was not duly elected. Then the SCOTUS should receive a copy for their perusal according to the actual written Constitution, not precedent. If it doesn't pass muster, then it's dead in the water. No Constitutionality? No law. Nip it in the bud.

Also, an automatic sunset provision of five years would work. If any law is that good, then it could be renewed. If not, then it's gone.

In our form of government, we're free unless there is a law prohibiting an action. This needs to be the first thing taught in skools. Any Congress that's busy writing laws is busy removing our freedoms and should be discouraged.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this sh1t at June 27, 2015 11:37 AM (eEb+d)

113 One of the problems with these new rules is that they are unruly. You can think you know what the law is today, maybe. But you have no idea what the law will be tomorrow. As has been noted before, Tyranny is not marked out by it's severity, but by it's capriciousness.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at June 27, 2015 11:38 AM (rwI+c)

114 Fragmentation leading us vulnerable to an attack by The Global Caliphate.

It's every city / state for itself.

Posted by: @votermom at June 27, 2015 11:33 AM (cbfNE)

And when the SJWs are the first ones to get their 35 different gendered heads cut off they'll be screaming at us to save them

Posted by: TheQuietMan at June 27, 2015 11:38 AM (DiZBp)

115 Yeah, it's the "new" one. Switched back to "Safari Drums" on TCM.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at June 27, 2015 11:38 AM (pCePB)

116 No, there will be no civil war. People are probably tired of me saying
it, our fiscal collapse will breakup the union. It's kinda funny when
you think of it, by the time the left get's their social utopia of
equality through speech laws and conformity laws, the country they
wanted will be collapsing due to their socialist fiscal policies.

Fine. Bring it. Give me some portion of the former US that believes in the founding documents and I'll go there. Fuck the proggys, let them reap what they've sewn.

Posted by: Weirddave at June 27, 2015 11:38 AM (WvS3w)

117 It has been pointed out this crap about presidents is just that a load of crap. I am not a lawyer but it was explained they upset some law of only 27 years ago. Lets face it these idiots are making it up as they go along. That means to me anyone else in a robe can do the same. We are now ruled by 9 supreme people.

Posted by: Skip at June 27, 2015 11:39 AM (kTWpM)

118
Question: Can you smoke a cigarette inside a church?

Posted by: Soothsayer's Lovin Spoonful at June 27, 2015 11:39 AM (rrKIh)

119
I mean can you do it legally.

Posted by: Soothsayer's Lovin Spoonful at June 27, 2015 11:39 AM (rrKIh)

120 I didn't think the new Red Dawn was that bad. Plenty shoot'emup.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at June 27, 2015 11:40 AM (rwI+c)

121 "We'd better get back, 'cause it'll be dark soon, and they mostly come at night... mostly."

Posted by: baldilocks at June 27, 2015 11:40 AM (t2Kll)

122 And read McCarthy's article today.

Posted by: Skip at June 27, 2015 11:40 AM (kTWpM)

123 It's not a question of "wiping" with a pine cone. More like the Supremes have decided to put that pine cone where the sun don't shine with their gay marriage ruling.

You're correct to mourn the demise of the rule of law.

Posted by: Comanche Voter at June 27, 2015 11:40 AM (Sda6L)

124 And when the SJWs are the first ones to get their 35 different gendered heads cut off they'll be screaming at us to save them

Posted by: TheQuietMan at June 27, 2015 11:38 AM (DiZBp)

Guess you picked the wrong allies-of-convenience, Warriors.

Posted by: Gen. Curtis E. LeEgg at June 27, 2015 11:40 AM (cL79m)

125 Private Hudson was an Optimist....

Posted by: BB Wolf at June 27, 2015 11:40 AM (qh617)

126 "Went Galt a few years ago and friends still approach me about starting a business."

What kind?

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at June 27, 2015 11:40 AM (pCePB)

127 105 Then they switched it. Because it has the 1984 info.

Posted by: rickb223 at June 27, 2015 11:36 AM (G+3hN)

I just went to the Spike TV website and looked it up.

After foreign troops seize control of an American town, a group of young
people takes refuge in the surrounding woods and launches guerrilla
attacks against the enemy. Chris Hemsworth, Josh Hutcherson and Isabel
Lucas star.

Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at June 27, 2015 11:41 AM (GpgJl)

128 And when the SJWs are the first ones to get their 35 different gendered heads cut off they'll be screaming at us to save them

Sorry. #TooLate
And FYNQ.

Posted by: rickb223 at June 27, 2015 11:41 AM (G+3hN)

129 @87

I like it. Check it out, people!

@88

"Heritage Foundation

http://preview.tinyurl.com/o8ojsqt

Article II, Section 4, says that the President, Vice President, and 'all civil Officers of the United States' - which includes judges - can be impeached."

Interesting, thanks!

Sounds like that could be done with just a few more Republican senators, assuming no dissenters (which you can't count on). The problem is, Ann Coulter was right - Most of the upcoming Senate races are for Republicans trying to hang onto their seats. It might be difficult to even hold ground, much less gain any.

Posted by: Optimizer at June 27, 2015 11:41 AM (/q6+P)

130 In a way, its a relief to not bother with constitutional arguments any longer. Its meaningless. This country has abandoned the constitution, so it doesn't even matter when the president violates it. Its like violating the Magna Carta. Nice idea, way back then. No meaning for us now. Its irrelevant to modern politics.

Justice Roberts made it very clear that's what the Supreme Court believes now. Sure, they'll give some sort of token gesture like Romans would sacrifice to Jupiter once in a while out of tradition and appearances sake. That's all it means, they don't even care whether the constitution is followed or not. At this point I'm not even sure why the Supreme Court exists. All they do is rubber stamp culture and legislation anyway. They have no objective basis for decisionmaking any longer. What's their purpose?

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 27, 2015 11:42 AM (39g3+)

131 I just went to the Spike TV website and looked it up.

Go to the channel on the tv. Hit the info button.
1984 Patrick Swayze.

Posted by: rickb223 at June 27, 2015 11:43 AM (G+3hN)

132 Sounds like that could be done with just a few more Republican senators, assuming no dissenters (which you can't count on). The problem is, Ann Coulter was right - Most of the upcoming Senate races are for Republicans trying to hang onto their seats. It might be difficult to even hold ground, much less gain any.

Posted by: Optimizer at June 27, 2015 11:41 AM (/q6+P)

Even if you had Sotomayor on video taking bribe money, and even if you had 100 "Republican" Senators, you wouldn't find 67 to vote to convict.

What makes you think they'd toss Roberts and Kennedy?

Posted by: steveegg at June 27, 2015 11:43 AM (cL79m)

133 Who here thinks the Federal Government will let us use the Federal Government to shrink and dismantle the Federal Government?

Where are the GOPbots that squeal about how we need more Rs?

"Just one more R and we win!"

Posted by: eman at June 27, 2015 11:44 AM (MQEz6)

134 "Question: Can you smoke a cigarette inside a church? "

I'm a smoker and I wouldn't smoke in a church. Not fitting. Nothing to do with "law."

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at June 27, 2015 11:44 AM (pCePB)

135 WHO GIVES A FUCK ABOUT WHICH VERSION OF RED DAWN IS ON?

Posted by: CozMark at June 27, 2015 11:44 AM (52QgN)

136 Morning Ricardo. Some guys out here inspired by the drought (now flood) want to bring a water saving gadget to market.

Posted by: SpongeBobSaget at June 27, 2015 11:45 AM (zauWW)

137 120
I didn't think the new Red Dawn was that bad. Plenty shoot'emup.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at June 27, 2015 11:40 AM (rwI+c)

I bought it from Amazon watched about half an hour fast forwarded thought the rest of it and turned it off. I gave it to my grandson.

Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at June 27, 2015 11:45 AM (GpgJl)

138 The GOP will never impeach a Justice.

Jeebus, they approve them without even a fart in protest.

Posted by: eman at June 27, 2015 11:45 AM (MQEz6)

139
That's not the point. Has the govt outlawed smoking in all buildings including churches?

Posted by: Soothsayer's Lovin Spoonful at June 27, 2015 11:45 AM (rrKIh)

140 Lordie lawd lawd ... Dave, I had some issues with last week's offering, but you knocked this one outta the park! It's not only one of your best, it's maybe the scariest post in the annals of the blog because it's impossible not to see the inevitability of your foreboding prescience.

But I'm trying to figure out where to go in my few short years til retirement. Singapore, New Zealand ... all the highest-rated Freedom Index nations have impossible-to-meet entry requirements (you must complete eight symphonies and map a lower-primate genome).

We used to be the last great Rule of Law hope. Now what's left?

Posted by: Kate58 at June 27, 2015 11:46 AM (oLZsm)

141 I mean can you do it legally.
Posted by: Soothsayer's Lovin Spoonful at June 27, 2015 11:39 AM (rrKIh)

Sure, you can do it "legally," but go ahead and try. See what happens.

Posted by: God at June 27, 2015 11:46 AM (Dj0WE)

142
Heck of a job Roberts

It's not one man.

To silently acquiesce -- or worse actively assist -- in the destruction of this nation's laws, institutions and traditions. To warp the very notion of "right", in all senses of that word, beyond meaning....

That the GOP and the Beltway Conservatives(tm) are the Left's JV squad is clear. And that is what disheartens or enrages.

We got no back.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at June 27, 2015 11:46 AM (kdS6q)

143 Don't use pine cones. Bad outcomes. Grab one of those toilets from Nippon that has 47 functions before they are declared illegal by rule of intent.

Posted by: Man from Wazzustan at June 27, 2015 11:46 AM (uPxUo)

144 Even if you had Sotomayor on video taking bribe money, and even if you had 100 "Republican" Senators, you wouldn't find 67 to vote to convict.

Correct, the key power of checks and balances the legislature holds have been utterly abandoned. They'll never, ever impeach anyone. Ever. They believe its too damaging to their political careers. Never mind that within 4 years the GOP controlled both houses of congress after voting to impeach the president.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 27, 2015 11:47 AM (39g3+)

145 The GOP will never impeach a Justice.

Jeebus, they approve them without even a fart in protest.

Posted by: eman at June 27, 2015 11:45 AM (MQEz6)

A few of them probably would join in on a Rat expedition against Scalia and Thomas.

Posted by: steveegg at June 27, 2015 11:47 AM (cL79m)

146 Burning Times?

Someone paged me?

Posted by: The Cascadia Fault at June 27, 2015 11:47 AM (Mb6qh)

147 You can light candles and incense in a church.

Posted by: @votermom at June 27, 2015 11:47 AM (cbfNE)

148 Red Dawn on Spike TV "Info" pic.
Goes to my PhotoBucket.

http://bit.ly/1SSEYxL

Posted by: rickb223 at June 27, 2015 11:47 AM (G+3hN)

149 It's difficult to accept defeat, thus all the ideas presented here for correcting our government problem.

Nothing short of civil war will have any effect.

Posted by: Cloyd Freud, Unemployed at June 27, 2015 11:48 AM (YFw5T)

150 all the highest-rated Freedom Index nations have impossible-to-meet entry requirements (you must complete eight symphonies and map a lower-primate genome).

Its almost as if there's a connection there...

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 27, 2015 11:48 AM (39g3+)

151 "Some guys out here inspired by the drought (now flood) want to bring a water saving gadget to market."

Ah. I see. Hucksters.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at June 27, 2015 11:49 AM (pCePB)

152 148
Red Dawn on Spike TV "Info" pic.

Goes to my PhotoBucket.

http://bit.ly/1SSEYxL

Posted by: rickb223 at June 27, 2015 11:47 AM (G+3hN)

That disagrees with their web site. See above.

Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at June 27, 2015 11:49 AM (GpgJl)

153 Somewhat related: SMOD now has a campaign bumper sticker

https://twitter.com/Beer__Wolf/status/606815738452692992

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this sh1t at June 27, 2015 11:49 AM (eEb+d)

154 At this point I'm not even sure why the Supreme Court exists. All they do is rubber stamp culture and legislation anyway. They have no objective basis for decisionmaking any longer. What's their purpose?
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 27, 2015 11:42 AM (39g3+)

Same as the monarchy in England. It's part of the show.

Posted by: BurtTC at June 27, 2015 11:50 AM (Dj0WE)

155 My plan is to stay cool and keep it on the centerline until it's time to start breaking things. I'll keep coming here for the snark and to see how the letter-writing campaign is going.

Posted by: Weasel at June 27, 2015 11:50 AM (e3bId)

156 You can light candles and incense in a church.
Posted by: @votermom at June 27, 2015 11:47 AM (cbfNE)

Except if the fire marshall and the church's insurance company says you can't.

My church from my hometown used to have a wonderful candlelight Christmas Eve service. Candles lit everywhere, including the altar and individual candles for each congregrant.

Fire marshall put a stop to it, lest we catch ourselves and our church on fire.....Now only two candles are lit on the alter and a few in the aisle and the church thought about buying small flashlights.

Posted by: Jen the original at June 27, 2015 11:50 AM (OB/ib)

157 "We used to be the last great Rule of Law hope. Now what's left? "

Vodka, apparently. Cheap vodka. Doesn't even have to be good vodka.

It seemed to work for some back in the bad old days of the USSR.

The Russians still don't have the idea of good government worked out even now, but apparently with cheap vodka no one cares.

Posted by: Adelade Kramski at June 27, 2015 11:50 AM (TBfVE)

158 all the highest-rated Freedom Index nations have impossible-to-meet entry requirements

True, but there are banana republics out there with lower taxes than this one.

Posted by: SpongeBobSaget at June 27, 2015 11:50 AM (zauWW)

159 Even if you had Sotomayor on video taking bribe money, and even if you had 100 "Republican" Senators, you wouldn't find 67 to vote to convict.

--

I agree. But it would be a victory to get that video and make it go viral.

The court of public opinion is one the Right has neglected for too long.

Posted by: @votermom at June 27, 2015 11:51 AM (cbfNE)

160 Vodka, apparently. Cheap vodka. Doesn't even have to be good vodka.

It seemed to work for some back in the bad old days of the USSR.

The Russians still don't have the idea of good government worked out even now, but apparently with cheap vodka no one cares.

Posted by: Adelade Kramski at June 27, 2015 11:50 AM (TBfVE)

Thanks for the plug. Now drink!

Posted by: Val-U-Rite at June 27, 2015 11:51 AM (cL79m)

161 That disagrees with their web site. See above.

I know. That's the point. When I said it, it was because I thought it was the original based off of the info given.

Posted by: rickb223 at June 27, 2015 11:51 AM (G+3hN)

162 You can light candles and incense in a church.

Until the fire marshal shuts you down.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at June 27, 2015 11:51 AM (W5DcG)

163 "That's not the point. Has the govt outlawed smoking in all buildings including churches?"

Just trying to figure out the jist. Laws involving churches?

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at June 27, 2015 11:52 AM (pCePB)

164 Vodka, apparently. Cheap vodka. Doesn't even have to be good vodka.

*cough*Valu-Rite*cough*

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this sh1t at June 27, 2015 11:52 AM (eEb+d)

165 well put.

Posted by: steinmetz at June 27, 2015 11:52 AM (CrYC8)

166
155 My plan is to stay cool and keep it on the centerline until it's time to start breaking things. I'll keep coming here for the snark and to see how the letter-writing campaign is going.
Posted by: Weasel at June 27, 2015 11:50 AM (e3bId)

Yes.

Posted by: eman at June 27, 2015 11:53 AM (MQEz6)

167 It was 6-3 did anyone miss that? Roberts could have been the most conservative leader of the free world and "What difference would it make?"

Posted by: just saying at June 27, 2015 11:53 AM (wkuqO)

168 During the Nazi occupations, the resistance would always try to make examples of collaborators.

So, we can shave John Roberts head and parade him down K-Street in a gunny-sack dress? (Asking for a friend)

Posted by: Brave Sir Robin at June 27, 2015 11:54 AM (5buP8)

169 151 I know. That's the point. When I said it, it was because I thought it was the original based off of the info given.

Posted by: rickb223 at June 27, 2015 11:51 AM (G+3hN)

It should be on now, so which one is playing? I no longer get TV.

Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at June 27, 2015 11:54 AM (GpgJl)

170 The law states this two dozen times.

That's 24 times too many.

Posted by: Justice John Roberts, New Age Action Hero at June 27, 2015 11:55 AM (Dwehj)

171 "That's not the point. Has the govt outlawed smoking in all buildings including churches?"

Just trying to figure out the jist. Laws involving churches?
Posted by: Ricardo Kill at June 27, 2015 11:52 AM (pCePB)

Your local government ordinances will handle this. Since churches are public places, even though they might be privately owned, they are subject to the public accomodation rules of a locale. Smoking bans would apply, as would wheelchair access, handicap rules, etc.

Posted by: Jen the original at June 27, 2015 11:55 AM (OB/ib)

172 It was 6-3 did anyone miss that? Roberts could have been the most conservative leader of the free world and "What difference would it make?"

Posted by: just saying at June 27, 2015 11:53 AM (wkuqO)

But would Kennedy have jumped had Roberts not jumped first?

Posted by: steveegg at June 27, 2015 11:55 AM (cL79m)

173 It's difficult to accept defeat, thus all the ideas presented here for correcting our government problem.

Well, here's the thing. In politics, you're never defeated, just temporarily on the low end. Everything always comes around, and sometimes faster than you think.

The story of JP Morgan is a great one to illustrate how great men faced failure and defeat. He dumped his entire fortune into backing Thomas Edison's power scheme using DC power because he saw electricity was going to transform the world. But when the Niagra power plant opened up that could power the entire NE of USA, he lost the contract to Westinghouse (Tesla, AC power) and was destroyed.

His response was not to throw a fit and cry in a corner. He found a way to win anyway. All of those guys did, its why Morgan was so rich he was able to bail out the US federal government during a depression.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 27, 2015 11:55 AM (39g3+)

174 W E A S E L R I N E S ! ! !

Posted by: Weasel at June 27, 2015 11:55 AM (e3bId)

175 Spike Thursday

Cops
Morons on Parade #2217

Posted by: RWC - Team BOHICA at June 27, 2015 11:55 AM (XAFOu)

176 In CA turn on the faucets and leave them on.

Posted by: eman at June 27, 2015 11:55 AM (MQEz6)

177 The court of public opinion is one the Right has neglected for too long.

The court of public opinion is the hooting and hollering audience of the Jerry Springer show.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at June 27, 2015 11:56 AM (W5DcG)

178 So, we can shave John Roberts head and parade him down K-Street in a gunny-sack dress? (Asking for a friend)

--

Soon

Posted by: The Pendulum at June 27, 2015 11:56 AM (cbfNE)

179 But would Kennedy have jumped had Roberts not jumped first?
Posted by: steveegg at June 27, 2015 11:55 AM (cL79m)

Kennedy has a history of being the swing vote, some have called it the Kennedy court.

Posted by: just saying at June 27, 2015 11:56 AM (wkuqO)

180 It should be on now, so which one is playing? I no longer get TV.

The second one. With the first's info.

Posted by: rickb223 at June 27, 2015 11:57 AM (G+3hN)

181 Except if the fire marshall and the church's insurance company says you can't.

My church from my hometown used to have a wonderful candlelight Christmas Eve service. Candles lit everywhere, including the altar and individual candles for each congregrant.

Fire marshall put a stop to it, lest we catch ourselves and our church on fire.....Now only two candles are lit on the alter and a few in the aisle and the church thought about buying small flashlights.
Posted by: Jen the original at June 27, 2015 11:50 AM (OB/ib)

Exactly. As I said above, we replaced Rule of Law, with Rule BY Law. The lawyers tell EVERYBODY what they can do, and what they cannot.

And how do they decide? Shut up, that's how. Lawyers are the sole repositories of all that is known and unknown in society, and the rest of you people will bow down to their authority. Or else.

Posted by: BurtTC at June 27, 2015 11:57 AM (Dj0WE)

182 We deserve representation too.

Posted by: Hooting Ape at June 27, 2015 11:57 AM (rwI+c)

183 It was 6-3 did anyone miss that? Roberts could have been the most conservative leader of the free world and "What difference would it make?"

Using Roberts as a statement of disgust is a synechdoche: its using the part to describe the whole. Roberts represents the SCOTUS at large and the betrayal. He's also the guy who wrote the idiotic and law-demolishing majority decision.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 27, 2015 11:57 AM (39g3+)

184 Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at June 27, 2015 11:54 AM (GpgJl)

The crappy remake.

Posted by: RWC - Team BOHICA at June 27, 2015 11:57 AM (XAFOu)

185 At this point I'm not even sure why the Supreme Court exists. All they do is rubber stamp culture and legislation anyway. They have no objective basis for decisionmaking any longer. What's their purpose?

-
I think it is the other way around. Why do we need congress? The enlightened council of nine makes the laws.

Posted by: The Great White Snark at June 27, 2015 11:58 AM (t82Ht)

186 "Smoking bans would apply, as would wheelchair access, handicap rules, etc."

Okay. Fed laws already apply to church physical things. Okay.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at June 27, 2015 11:59 AM (pCePB)

187 Smoking bans would apply, as would wheelchair access, handicap rules, etc.
Posted by: Jen the original at June 27, 2015 11:55 AM (OB/ib)

As will gay marriages...

Posted by: BurtTC at June 27, 2015 11:59 AM (Dj0WE)

188 I wonder how deeply the truth has penetrated into the dull minds out there who put the GOP into power demanding they repeal EbolaCare.

They surely see now that the GOP punked them.

Some of them at least.

Posted by: eman at June 27, 2015 11:59 AM (MQEz6)

189 it's not only precedence for the judiciary. it gives the executive great sway in interpretation and enforcement of laws, something obama does a lot.

i guess you said that. okay.

Posted by: steinmetz at June 27, 2015 11:59 AM (CrYC8)

190 The crappy remake.

Jeez, it's not that bad, or at least not as bad as some movies. *cough*Aliens4*cough* Just don't compare it to the first in your mind. I think it actually has better Life-under-occupation scenes than the original.

Posted by: Hooting Ape at June 27, 2015 11:59 AM (rwI+c)

191 Kennedy has a history of being the swing vote, some have called it the Kennedy court.

Posted by: just saying at June 27, 2015 11:56 AM (wkuqO)

Noted. Besides, Kennedy got his revenge yesterday - Roberts wanted in on that majority too, but he couldn't get assurances that in a couple years, polyandry "marriage" wouldn't also be declared a super-Constitutional right.

Posted by: steveegg at June 27, 2015 11:59 AM (cL79m)

192 dammit

Posted by: Grump928(C) at June 27, 2015 11:59 AM (rwI+c)

193 Abortion is still very political because its final solution was handed down by the courts. The people ended up with no say. Now these two. The people in large majorities disagree but the final solution is handed down to us plebes.

I predict the same long term protesting by the people here as in abortion.

Posted by: just saying at June 27, 2015 11:59 AM (wkuqO)

194 I shall go down in history as one of the Great Capitulators.

Posted by: Justice John Roberts, New Age Action Hero at June 27, 2015 11:59 AM (Dwehj)

195 W E A S E L R I N E S ! ! !
Posted by: Weasel at June 27, 2015 11:55 AM

I have this fantasy, reinforced by the icanhas cheezeburger vids of a mostly domesticated African Lion for a house pet. A lion trained as an attack dog to attack on command.

Gives me goosebumps.

Posted by: Adelade Kramski at June 27, 2015 12:00 PM (TBfVE)

196 " We deserve representation too.
Posted by: Hooting Ape"

The Hooting Ape is right.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at June 27, 2015 12:00 PM (pCePB)

197 As will gay marriages...

Posted by: BurtTC at June 27, 2015 11:59 AM (Dj0WE)

After all, unlike the rest of the 1st Amendment, the protection of religion only applies to actions that might be taken against it by Congress, not the states, localities, the executive branch, or especially SCOTUS.

Posted by: steveegg at June 27, 2015 12:00 PM (cL79m)

198 >The court of public opinion is one the Right has neglected for too long.

>The court of public opinion is the hooting and hollering audience of the Jerry Springer show.

Exactly. its not so much we've ignored it. Its that the very nature of what we know to be true and believe in does not sell well in small bites and sophistry. The truth rarely does.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 27, 2015 12:01 PM (39g3+)

199 W E A S E L R I N E S ! ! !
Posted by: Weasel at June 27, 2015 11:55 AM (e3bId)

I won't ask where I sign up, because signing up is for the enemy. What's our hand sign though.

Posted by: BurtTC at June 27, 2015 12:01 PM (Dj0WE)

200 So, we can shave John Roberts head and parade him down K-Street in a gunny-sack dress?

-
I'm an old fashion guy and nothing says public humiliation to me like tar and feathers.

Posted by: The Great White Snark at June 27, 2015 12:02 PM (t82Ht)

201
So the Long Arm Of The Law has already reached through the church doors. That's what I'm asking.

Posted by: Soothsayer's Lovin Spoonful at June 27, 2015 12:02 PM (rrKIh)

202 The Federal Empire has been growing and expanding for over 100 years.

Soon it will remove the Republic mask and show itself.

Posted by: eman at June 27, 2015 12:02 PM (MQEz6)

203 You forgot the final one:

1 "All we want is to be out of the shadows."
2 "All we want is acceptance"
3 "All we want is equality"
4 "Your view belongs in the shadows."
5. "Ready! Aim! Fire!"

Posted by: Rick Perry's Parakeet at June 27, 2015 12:02 PM (AeVNR)

204 After all, unlike the rest of the 1st Amendment, the protection of religion only applies to actions that might be taken against it by Congress, not the states, localities, the executive branch, or especially SCOTUS.
Posted by: steveegg at June 27, 2015 12:00 PM (cL79m)

Exactly. Says so right there in our Holy Book. And if it doesn't, we'll either ignore that part, or we'll scratch it out and replace it will smiley stickers.

Posted by: BurtTC at June 27, 2015 12:03 PM (Dj0WE)

205
In politics, you're never defeated, just temporarily on the low end.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor

So saith the Whigs, the Liberal party, the.......

Political institutions go extinct. And if the very rules of the political playing field have changed, so do certain political options.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at June 27, 2015 12:03 PM (kdS6q)

206 199 I dunno - probably should be something moronic...

Maybe right index finger in ear? Easily distinguishable.

Posted by: Weasel at June 27, 2015 12:03 PM (e3bId)

207 "So, we can shave John Roberts head and parade him down K-Street in a gunny-sack dress? "

That's a bit much.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at June 27, 2015 12:03 PM (pCePB)

208 All I ever wanted was to be viewed as one of the "cool kids". Sigh.

Posted by: Justice John Roberts, New Age Action Hero at June 27, 2015 12:03 PM (Dwehj)

209 It's not just King v Burwell. It's also the same-sex marriage case. It's the disparate income case. It's the OPM hack and nobody really seems to care. It's finding out, once again, then the IRS is a lawless agency. It's so very many things that all seem to have hit, or been reemphasized, this week. We truly are no longer have the rule of law. Where do we go when America fails?

Posted by: biancaneve at June 27, 2015 12:03 PM (HaVMa)

210 Telling 'a church' that they can not burn candles as part of their religious practice is an infringement of their religious practice is it not?

Which was the point being made, I conclude.

Posted by: Adelade Kramski at June 27, 2015 12:03 PM (TBfVE)

211 What Moron was it that said Chappie sucked? I watched the first 15 minutes last night and it starts out pretty good. And it's got Hugh Jackman and Sigourney Weaver, not to mention at least a cameo by Die Antwoord as bad guys. I decided I'd save it for when I could pay attention.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at June 27, 2015 12:04 PM (rwI+c)

212 My wife was behind me calling my name."Dave?....Dave?....Dave?..". I shook it off, but in truth I feel quite a bit like Private Hudson.

Dave's not here, man

I think it is the other way around. Why do we need congress? The enlightened council of nine makes the laws.

They do at times, but the Obamacare and Campaign Finance Reform rulings proved that whatever congress decides, the SCOTUS will just agree with, no matter how tortured and radical their argument must be. They'll shut down lesser bodies, such as the Washington DC council. But when its federal, they just nod like bobbleheads.

They serve no purpose as a federal body. Zero. They are not a check or a balance, they do not guard against unconstitutionality. They have no value.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 27, 2015 12:04 PM (39g3+)

213 The only "intent" in the decision was Roberts.

"How you get there matters, still"

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=57127

Posted by: geoffb5 at June 27, 2015 12:04 PM (d3wbb)

214 I won't ask where I sign up, because signing up is for the enemy.

What's our hand sign though.

Middle finger.

Posted by: rickb223 at June 27, 2015 12:04 PM (G+3hN)

215
I'm gonna start calling obama and obama's government Longshanks, because that's what he and it is.

A long shank with great reach piercing its will into everything everywhere.

Posted by: Soothsayer's Lovin Spoonful at June 27, 2015 12:04 PM (rrKIh)

216 So the Long Arm Of The Law has already reached through the church doors. That's what I'm asking.

Posted by: Soothsayer's Lovin Spoonful at June 27, 2015 12:02 PM (rrKIh)

Carrying a pink piece of paper, signed by the Grand Poobah himself. Or herself. Depending on what he/she wishes to be considered today.

Posted by: BurtTC at June 27, 2015 12:05 PM (Dj0WE)

217 To be fair the 1st amendment has been applied to the several states. Took a long time for them to do that with the 2nd and its court evolution is not over yet. I expect "Shall not be infringed" is too difficult for the court to understand.

Posted by: just saying at June 27, 2015 12:05 PM (wkuqO)

218 The subsidy decision really was beyond the pale.

I was one of the few conservatives that sort of gave the benefit of the doubt to Roberts on the first obamacare decision, but this time around it was the stuff of banana republics.

I'm starting to think things aren't going to get better until we as citizens just surround DC and say "enough"

Dc is a ten mile square, it would fall within a few hours

Posted by: Cadillac at June 27, 2015 12:05 PM (oy83l)

219 I got a person to admit that they want to strip churches of their tax exempt status.

Posted by: Lauren at June 27, 2015 12:05 PM (MYCIw)

220 214 - better!

Posted by: Weasel at June 27, 2015 12:06 PM (e3bId)

221 nood

Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at June 27, 2015 12:06 PM (GpgJl)

222 "So, we can shave John Roberts head and parade him down K-Street in a gunny-sack dress? "

That's a bit much.
Posted by: Ricardo Kill at June 27, 2015 12:03 PM (pCePB)

I agree.

Posted by: Cercei Lannister at June 27, 2015 12:06 PM (Dj0WE)

223 Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 27, 2015 12:04 PM (39g3+)

^^^THIS

Posted by: just saying at June 27, 2015 12:06 PM (wkuqO)

224 "ll I ever wanted was to be viewed as one of the "cool kids". Sigh.
Posted by: Justice John Roberts"

Fuck you.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at June 27, 2015 12:06 PM (pCePB)

225 Sorry if I worked a little blue there.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at June 27, 2015 12:07 PM (pCePB)

226
Abortion is still very political
Posted by: just saying

How's this for depressing? The other side is actively killing off hundreds of thousands of their next generation every year -- and they're STILL winning the long war.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at June 27, 2015 12:07 PM (kdS6q)

227 Nood despair, Rubio edition.

Posted by: steveegg at June 27, 2015 12:08 PM (cL79m)

228 the other decisions were equally bad, enforcing not limiting federal powers.

Posted by: just saying at June 27, 2015 12:08 PM (wkuqO)

229 Every highly successful society in Earth's history - from ancient Greece and Rome, up to modern Europe, North America, and the Pacific Rim - has at its core the rule of law, with fair and equal enforcement of its laws and the honoring of its contracts and agreements.

The actual form of government actually doesn't matter much. Why do you think Russia is such an economic basket case while Singapore is so successful? Both are essentially authoritarian dictatorships. The difference is that one is a kleptocracy that uses selective enforcement of punitive laws to attack political enemies, that tears up business contracts, while the other is a society that upholds the law and honors its contracts and agreements. For example, Russia forced Gazprom to stop delivering natural gas and oil to Europe as a political weapon, so now Europe is scrambling to find other sources.

When a country starts to selectively enforce laws for political ends, when it cannot be trusted to honor agreements, it poisons everything. This is why the United States was so successful during its first two centuries and why it is now starting to flounder. The average US citizen now unwittingly violates at least three federal laws a day. A US federal prosecutor can indict you for anything if he wants. There are too many laws, selectively enforced, if they are enforced at all. The law becomes a weapon against political opponents. And when contracts get torn up or rewritten by the government? Then everything begins to fail. People start hoarding wealth instead of trying to create it. If everything boils down to favoritism and which politicians you can bribe or buy, when the politicians buy votes by forcibly redistributing wealth from the makers to the takers, then the makers simply stop making. Or they give up and become takers themselves. Then you have just another banana republic.

Posted by: HuuskerDu at June 27, 2015 12:09 PM (in4xn)

230 Sorry, Dave, but if'n you'd, "lived in the middle of it," back in 1615, you'd have already died of plague. Even though the act of the 'Premes sucks, it's better to be alive now with air conditioning and the internet.

Posted by: Marooned Maroon at June 27, 2015 12:09 PM (hTHAs)

231 Gross. ISIS posted a photo of a guy shot in the head at close range and his head turned into pink mist.

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at June 27, 2015 12:09 PM (iQIUe)

232 Secession

Before it's too late...

Posted by: Rick Perry's Parakeet at June 27, 2015 12:10 PM (AeVNR)

233 Political institutions go extinct. And if the very rules of the political playing field have changed, so do certain political options.

Surely. But the movements don't. Whigs stood for certain things, and those things never went away, they just changed representation. Parties die. Slogans go away. The basic structure of left vs right never has, its a long, very ancient fight. Each wins supremacy for short times or long. Overall, the evil tends to win more than the good; that is, periods when the good is dominant are shorter than those when evil is, historically speaking.

So the Long Arm Of The Law has already reached through the church doors. That's what I'm asking.

Definitely; for example recent changes in Oregon law regarding children in the name of protecting them from sick f**ks required windows put in doors and policy changes in how our church did things. They're some common sense and some "lets make sure that its harder to sue us."

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 27, 2015 12:11 PM (39g3+)

234 219

Oh, it's definitely out there. And there will be all sorts of people even on our side ready to surrender and just say "pay the tax and you can say whatever you want!"

Posted by: Cadillac at June 27, 2015 12:11 PM (oy83l)

235 231 energy transfer - all very scientific.

Posted by: Weasel at June 27, 2015 12:13 PM (e3bId)

236 Precedent is a double edged sword. Its good for keeping courts consistent and preventing madness from creeping in with radical freak judges, but it also can establish madness if a high enough court goes crazy.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 27, 2015 12:13 PM (39g3+)

237 Yes, the SCOTUS rulings this week were extremely bad and troubling. They will invite all sorts of injustices in the future.

What really unnerves me is how many fellow citizens would never understand how serious this is. They truly believe that reality, meaning, and truth are infinitely elastic.

If there are no absolutes, there is nothing.

Posted by: Mindy at June 27, 2015 12:14 PM (BkhqT)

238 231 aka "cloud of dude"

Posted by: Weasel at June 27, 2015 12:14 PM (e3bId)

239 As has been noted before, Tyranny is not marked out by it's severity, but by it's capriciousness.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at June 27, 2015 11:38 AM (rwI+c)

I'm feeling like Thomas More and others when Henry VIII went off the rails. It wasn't enough for More to resign his office and asked to be left in peace. He had to accept Henry's new marriage and head of the Church in England. And when he didn't he was hounded into court and eventually the chopping block because that's the way it is with tyrants. Submit or die. Unfortunately we have too many Richard Rich's willing to do and say whatever it takes for political gain in the court of King Barry. And Barry like Henry will keep going through wives/political causes and you better be okay with it because the axeman waits for those who don't.

Posted by: TheQuietMan at June 27, 2015 12:14 PM (DiZBp)

240 Gross. ISIS posted a photo of a guy shot in the head at close range and his head turned into pink mist.

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at June 27, 2015 12:09 PM (iQIUe)

Let's not jump to conclusions or get on our Crusading/Jim Crowing high horses.

Posted by: TheQuietMan at June 27, 2015 12:16 PM (DiZBp)

241
Long time ago, I--and a host of others, many of whom post here--took an oath. It has no expiration date.

It should be noted that said oath does not always mean picking up a weapon to fulfill.

I have for years tried to accomplish the resolution by working at the most basic level, in my community.

HERE is where you can make a difference--all flows from this. Cannot succeed unless it is fixed here first.

I will continue to fight at this seemingly insignificant level as long as I breathe.

NO ONE can defeat my resolve under ANY circumstance.

I believe in the blueprints--the bedrock--that allowed us to become the most exceptional country and people on the planet. They are still extant, and will never disappear.

It'll be a tough job to cleanse the layer of filth the left has deposited on them, but it CAN be done.

My only regret is that my life span may not permit seeing the ultimate victory.

So if you wish to quit your country, the please step aside, I got work to do.

Posted by: irongrampa at June 27, 2015 12:16 PM (jeCnD)

242 I'm feeling a little stressed out. Any of you wish to give me a message?

TIA!

Posted by: The Cascadia Fault at June 27, 2015 12:16 PM (Mb6qh)

243 236 Precedent is a double edged sword. Its good for keeping courts consistent and preventing madness from creeping in with radical freak judges, but it also can establish madness if a high enough court goes crazy.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 27, 2015 12:13 PM (39g3+)

If they never look back at the original words, it 'evolves' not unlike a room of first graders in a line and told to repeat something simple to the next and the next. Before long it no longer resembles the original.

Posted by: just saying at June 27, 2015 12:17 PM (wkuqO)

244 ISIS posted a photo of a guy shot in the head at close range and his head turned into pink mist.

I don't get what IS is doing with this stuff. I mean other than the "frat boys stoned on Khat" aspect. They're using weirder and stupider ways to kill people and filming it all. Why? What do they expect to accomplish? Is it all just about high fives when they get lots of hits?

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 27, 2015 12:17 PM (39g3+)

245 "207 "So, we can shave John Roberts head and parade him down K-Street in a gunny-sack dress? " "

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

Ouch! That might cause a few volcanoes in my region to belch...

Posted by: The Cascadia Fault at June 27, 2015 12:18 PM (Mb6qh)

246 "So, we can shave John Roberts head and parade him down K-Street in a gunny-sack dress? " "

Why limit it to Roberts?

Posted by: just saying at June 27, 2015 12:19 PM (wkuqO)

247 What really unnerves me is how many fellow citizens would never understand how serious this is. They truly believe that reality, meaning, and truth are infinitely elastic.

That's ultimately where this comes from. The rejection of absolute objective truth, goodness, and beauty.

If you think truth is relative or what you make it, then you're not only echoing the "will to power" Nazi philosophy, but now anything can be permissible and good.

And if your basis for what is right is "well it doesn't cause me any direct, immediate, tangible harm" then there's no end to the evil that can be done. After all, killing all those Jews and looting them helped pull Germany out of the depression and it didn't hurt the non-Jewish Germans any. Or if it did, they didn't count because they were on the "losing end of history."

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 27, 2015 12:20 PM (39g3+)

248 Heh. On facebook, I linked to the Andrew McCarthy article in NRO this morning and had five SJWs drop me as a friend.

Oh, well. I only know them from two games I play on FB anyway. Good to know that their morning was ruined by exposure to sound reasoning.

Posted by: The Cascadia Fault at June 27, 2015 12:21 PM (Mb6qh)

249 It's not just King v Burwell. It's also the same-sex marriage case.
It's the disparate income case. It's the OPM hack and nobody really
seems to care. It's finding out, once again, then the IRS is a lawless
agency. It's so very many things that all seem to have hit, or been
reemphasized, this week. We truly are no longer have the rule of law.
Where do we go when America fails?

Yea, I had a plethora of potential subjects this week. I had to limit myself or the OP would have been longer than 3 Ace movie reviews put together.

Posted by: Weirddave at June 27, 2015 12:21 PM (WvS3w)

250 The weirdest ISIS post was a guy all sad when Robin Williams died. He really liked his movies, especially Jumani. When people laughed and questioned him, he said, Why? We're human too!!!

Anyway, someone told him a few muslim jokes Williams had made so it was back to saw off his head.

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at June 27, 2015 12:21 PM (iQIUe)

251 Count me in with you, irongrandpa. I'm in it to the end as well, and if it has to go beyond my lifetime as well, so be it.

I will not back down from where I stand.

Posted by: The Cascadia Fault at June 27, 2015 12:23 PM (Mb6qh)

252 I took an oath, something about following the orders of the officers. I'm done with that part.

Posted by: just saying at June 27, 2015 12:25 PM (wkuqO)

253 Sorry, Dave, but if'n you'd, "lived in the middle of it," back in 1615,
you'd have already died of plague. Even though the act of the 'Premes
sucks, it's better to be alive now with air conditioning and the
internet.

"Middle" is an inexact term. I'll take 1946.

Posted by: Weirddave at June 27, 2015 12:26 PM (WvS3w)

254 When a military coup starts lookin' pretty good, it really says something about the quality of government.

Posted by: cthulhu at June 27, 2015 12:32 PM (EzgxV)

255 Drudge has moved on, court decisions moving slowly to the right and off the page. Nothing really new tho except Christie announcing. Wierddave all of us should annouce our run, just not enough choices yet.

Posted by: just saying at June 27, 2015 12:34 PM (wkuqO)

256 We don't need a Supreme Court. A ouija board or magic 8 ball will serve the same purpose.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 27, 2015 12:37 PM (oKE6c)

257 Wow. They do forced sex change operations in Iran:

http://goo.gl/1xPwp9

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at June 27, 2015 12:39 PM (iQIUe)

258 Demand Conservative Representatives and Senators return home.

Let Orange and Turtle deal with that.

Posted by: eman at June 27, 2015 12:39 PM (MQEz6)

259 When a military coup starts lookin' pretty good, it really says something about the quality of government.

Posted by: cthulhu at June 27, 2015 12:32 PM (EzgxV)

Second look at Augusto Pinochet?

Posted by: TheQuietMan at June 27, 2015 12:53 PM (DiZBp)

260 REWRITE!

Several have pointed out, this was not a case of intentionalism, which I do not have a problem with as a method of interpreting law, especially if textualism fails (it certainly does at times), i.e. if the wording is archaic or unclear or ambiguous.

Mind you it has to be honest, and this wasn't.

As a side note, intentionalism (see Protein Wisdom's blog history for kind of the last attempt for intent to matter) is not well-loved by lawyers and judges, because, I think, they would rather put their own interpretations down, see the horrific (but small scale compared to today) abuse of the Bill of Rights in the half-century after the Revolution.

This (back to the present) wasn't an attempt to divine intent when a phrase is unclear, it was a rewrite of a perfectly clear phrase that made perfect sense in context and we have (at least) one author on videotape explaining why the decision was made, and why it didn't make sense the other way.

The court rewrote the legislation because states didn't react to the incentives the way the legislators had anticipated.

They might as well rewrite any other incentives, like for example the tax code. They probably will at this rate.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at June 27, 2015 01:30 PM (bLnSU)

261 259
When a military coup starts lookin' pretty good, it really says something about the quality of government.

Posted by: cthulhu at June 27, 2015 12:32 PM (EzgxV)

Second look at Augusto Pinochet?

Posted by: TheQuietMan at June 27, 2015 12:53 PM (DiZBp)

Did he make the trains run on time?

Posted by: cthulhu at June 27, 2015 02:25 PM (EzgxV)

262 Weirddave,
Check your DM on Twitter when you get a chance, please.
Thx.

Posted by: Y-not at June 27, 2015 02:41 PM (RWGcK)

263 Did he make the trains run on time?

Posted by: cthulhu at June 27, 2015 02:25 PM (EzgxV)

He also turn Chile from a tin pot socialist shithole into a a much less shitty more or less free economy and instituted a Constitution which gave him an 8 year term as President after which there was an orderly transition to a not-Pinochet president. He did hate him some leftists and he gets much group hatred for dealing with them roughly to the point that he is reported to have disappeared about 2,000 people (though it is worth noting that he was far less murder-y than the much more anonymous group military junta in neighboring Argentina which is reported to have disappeared about 30,000 people).

Posted by: redbanzai at June 27, 2015 03:18 PM (NPofj)

264 * In the above post, turn should read turned

Posted by: redbanzai at June 27, 2015 03:19 PM (NPofj)

265 In early Roman history, the plebs got very tired of the patricians making up the law as they went along. [Sound familiar?] The plebs finally insisted that the laws be written down, as in the Law of the Twelve Tables.

Posted by: Elmer Stoup at June 27, 2015 06:36 PM (RBL6t)

266 Weird Dave, you are one wickedly clear thinker AND eloquently succinct writer. My most sincere hat tip to you sir.

Posted by: dogfish at June 28, 2015 12:42 AM (jWtyG)

267 Oh, the storm winds outside are frightful.
But Fire is so delightful.
And since we have no place to turn
Let It Burn
Let It Burn
Let It Burn.

Posted by: BuddyPC at June 28, 2015 01:58 PM (jfUIE)

268 In 2004 it so happens I wrote a piece on the law entitled "Game Over, Man. Game Over." I concluded it thus:

"Mike Spenis said 'the future of our freedom ultimately rests with the court's willingness to periodically reexamine the law,' but the evidence is plain that the courts will not do that. They will use obviously flawed precedent so long as it 'comports especially well with our notions of good social policy.'
And even if it doesn't, the courts will often bow, as Kozinski does
here, to precedent they abhor. We depend upon the honor and
intellectual honesty of the judges who make up the Justice system, yet
it seems that those who are truly honest and honorable are outnumbered
by those who are 'willing to bury language that is incontrovertibly
there.' The honest and honorable ones abide, under the rule of law, by
precedent that is otherwise insupportable. The middling honest ones,
the ones Justice Brandeis labled as 'men of zeal, well-meaning but
without understanding' 'build magnificent legal edifices on elliptical
constitutional phrases - or even the white spaces between lines of
constitutional text.' And those decisions stand, without review,
periodic or otherwise, to serve as the next step down the road to Hell."

King v. Burwell will be cited as precedent from this date forward, and our descent into Hell continues apace.

Posted by: Kevin Baker at June 28, 2015 04:54 PM (X7owx)

269 Womens Birkenstock Sandals mkzwpsldx Cheap Birkenstock Sandals ebelynua Buy Birkenstock Sandals mggtpeo Birkenstock Sandals Canada zyddmgu Birkenstock Sandals Shop
Womens Birkenstock Sandals http://www.birkenstocksandals.ca

Posted by: Womens Birkenstock Sandals at July 11, 2015 03:07 AM (4xHCi)

270 Birkenstock Online brmnahbm Discount Birkenstock upzoarciczs Birkenstock Sandals Online jrunzilv Outlet Birkenstock Sandals uzpvxfupi Birkenstock Sandals Store ubiduaomtgx Birkenstock Outlet Canada nbuelbkdbnr Cheap Birkenstock Shoes yzjzyi Birkenstock Gizeh Sandals nsqpavkoc Birkenstock Canada Online cawhvkx Specials Birkenstock Sandals
Birkenstock Sandals Online http://www.birkenstocksandalsonline.ca

Posted by: Birkenstock Sandals Online at July 11, 2015 10:59 AM (1mB7v)

Processing 0.04, elapsed 0.0446 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0148 seconds, 279 records returned.
Page size 162 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.