Support
Contact
Ace:
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
CBD:
cbd.aoshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
CBD:
cbd.aoshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
Lawless, Politically-Rotten Supreme Court Randomly Rules that Obama's EPA Rule is "Unconstitutional"
Oh, I'm happy about the ruling.
But I'm not going to pretend the Supreme Court is ruling on the law or Constitution any longer. This particular EPA rule bothered a majority of the Supreme Court, as it would bother any person voting in a political election. So they had their own nine-man political election, and said "Nah." I'm with Andy C. McCarthy -- and with Drew M Tips. I'm done with the ruse. The Supreme Court is just a political organ -- but one we don't get to vote on. We should. We need retention votes. If these motherf***ers want to be political, we get to vote on them, and run campaigns against them. So here's how the third House of Congress voted, the House of Congress that gets to make All the Laws in this country.The Supreme Court dealt a blow to the Obama administration’s landmark air quality rule on Monday, ruling the Environmental Protection Agency did not properly consider the costs of the regulation. In a 5-4 ruling, the justices ruled that the EPA should have taken into account the costs to utilities and others in the power sector before even deciding whether to set limits for the toxic air pollutants it regulated in 2011.Oh but by the way this is the same Third House of Congress that just sagely informed us that an executive agency could reasonably read "established by the state" as "established by the federal government," and also, that the right to gay-marry was established 150 years ago by the 14th Amendment, but no one realized that until last Thursday.
...
In the majority ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia concluded that the EPA "unreasonably" interpreted the Clean Air Act when it decided not to consider industry compliance costs and whether regulating the pollutants is "appropriate and necessary.” While the agency is afforded a certain level of power to interpret the law, the court wrote, "EPA strayed well beyond the bounds of reasonable interpretation in concluding that cost is not a factor relevant to the appropriateness of regulating power plants."
Comments
(Jump to bottom of comments)1
Guess a win is a win.
Posted by: NCKate at June 29, 2015 02:43 PM (bP6xm)
Posted by: Rev Dr E Buzz Esq at June 29, 2015 02:43 PM (APXIm)
3
Probably good for Obama.
He gets to complain about "pollution", pretend to do something, and not destroy the economy.
He gets to complain about "pollution", pretend to do something, and not destroy the economy.
Posted by: 18-1 at June 29, 2015 02:44 PM (78TbK)
4
What they recognize economic damages now? Not with Ocare at all though...
___
Its a tax. When has that ever hurt the economy.
___
Its a tax. When has that ever hurt the economy.
Posted by: Justice John Souter Roberts at June 29, 2015 02:45 PM (78TbK)
Posted by: Beverly at June 29, 2015 02:45 PM (TK5OE)
6
And not further destroy the economy.
Posted by: Chupacabras at June 29, 2015 02:45 PM (XiVKO)
7
I dunno, Third House of Congress still smacks of a constitutional republic, which we aren't anymore. We're an oligarchy. Ruled by wise old genderless Ivy Leaguers for our own good.
Posted by: Zoomie at June 29, 2015 02:46 PM (LzJsJ)
8
One step forward, two steps back.
Posted by: Bosk at June 29, 2015 02:47 PM (n2K+4)
9
One man plus the Truth equals a majority.
___
Do you still see four fingers Winston, or is it five ?
___
Do you still see four fingers Winston, or is it five ?
Posted by: Coming soon at June 29, 2015 02:47 PM (78TbK)
10
When I think of Breyer, Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, I just picture 4 large rubber stamps saying "Ruling In Favor Of Democrats" sticking out of judicial robes.
Kennedy, just a big Magic 8 Ball instead of a head. "Answer Hazy, Check Back Later."
Kennedy, just a big Magic 8 Ball instead of a head. "Answer Hazy, Check Back Later."
Posted by: Sort-of-Mad Max at June 29, 2015 02:47 PM (DLu2s)
Posted by: EPA at June 29, 2015 02:49 PM (oFCZn)
12
They didn't properly consider the costs of ObamaCare, either.
Posted by: Pappy O'Daniel at June 29, 2015 02:49 PM (oVJmc)
13
Here's a bone for the peeps. Enjoy it, wingnuts.
Posted by: Justice John Roberts at June 29, 2015 02:49 PM (8ZskC)
14
So... it was not that the EPA did anything really illegal... let alone Unconstitutional....
Its that they were not 'reasonable' in how they came up with their decision.
When the Constitutionality of a Law, or Power, rests on such words as Dignity (gay marriage), or how 'reasonable' a decision is...
It is not longer a Court... it is a Political or Idealogical Board.
Its that they were not 'reasonable' in how they came up with their decision.
When the Constitutionality of a Law, or Power, rests on such words as Dignity (gay marriage), or how 'reasonable' a decision is...
It is not longer a Court... it is a Political or Idealogical Board.
Posted by: BB Wolf at June 29, 2015 02:49 PM (qh617)
15
We must assert our Supremacy after all.
Posted by: Supreme Court at June 29, 2015 02:49 PM (oX9pn)
16
I'd like to that the mealy-mouthed scumbags in the Senate for approving the Wise Lez-tinas.
Posted by: Pappy O'Daniel at June 29, 2015 02:50 PM (oVJmc)
17
I can't wait to hear what the EPA's Chief Gina McCarthy has to say about this. She who says that pollution is racist and talks of environmental justice.
In a perfect world she would be in stocks in the town square with Lerner, and Clinton.
In a perfect world she would be in stocks in the town square with Lerner, and Clinton.
Posted by: Cheri at June 29, 2015 02:50 PM (oiNtH)
18
Do we add 'rewrite the Clean Air Act' to that long list of things we have to do to get America back, under President Walker?
Posted by: George Tirebiter at June 29, 2015 02:50 PM (/zyrl)
19
If SCOTUS is a political unit, we've got 3 actual conservative voters on it. That's 1/3 of the court.
How many actually conservative congressmen do we have?
How many actually conservative congressmen do we have?
Posted by: joe dirt at June 29, 2015 02:51 PM (34w2E)
20
Isn't it interesting how nobody ever has to wonder how Souter, Kagan, Vader-Ginsburg and the Wise Latina will vote? They understand their roles as political agents.
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at June 29, 2015 02:51 PM (8ZskC)
21
Yeah not a super-legislature. The imperators of the United States. Giving their royal decrees on various matters.
Posted by: Buzzion at June 29, 2015 02:52 PM (z/Ubi)
22
1 Guess a win is a win.
Posted by: NCKate at June 29, 2015 02:43 PM (bP6xm)
They have already killed the US Coal industry....
Its like telling an Executioner "hey, wait... you really should not have killed that guy"...
Posted by: NCKate at June 29, 2015 02:43 PM (bP6xm)
They have already killed the US Coal industry....
Its like telling an Executioner "hey, wait... you really should not have killed that guy"...
Posted by: BB Wolf at June 29, 2015 02:52 PM (qh617)
23
So... it was not that the EPA did anything really illegal... let alone Unconstitutional....
***
Hmm...what if we made acting in an unconstitutional manner a criminal offense for any federal official AND allowed the states jurisdiction over it.
Of course we'd have to move the capital out of the Maryland/VA area to somewhere saner.
***
Hmm...what if we made acting in an unconstitutional manner a criminal offense for any federal official AND allowed the states jurisdiction over it.
Of course we'd have to move the capital out of the Maryland/VA area to somewhere saner.
Posted by: 18-1 at June 29, 2015 02:52 PM (78TbK)
Posted by: Fox2! at June 29, 2015 02:53 PM (brIR5)
Posted by: Fox2! at June 29, 2015 02:53 PM (brIR5)
26
Another 5-4 opinion.
Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at June 29, 2015 02:53 PM (iQIUe)
27
I laughed when Roberts had the temerity to comment that on "gay marriage" that his fellow jurists were inventing "constitutional rights", meanwhile the previous day he rewrote the actual statutory language, obviously the constitutional job of Congress.
The entire court is out of control...and delusional.
The entire court is out of control...and delusional.
Posted by: Marcus T at June 29, 2015 02:53 PM (GGCsk)
28
If the nature of the Supreme Court determined by the Constituion? Or is it a political regulation that can be changed by Congress?
Seriously I don't know.
Can we simply have a Congressional vote to make Supes elected or time-out-able? Or must we change the Constitution to do that?
I now that FDR was gonna pack the court with 6 new justices of his own, so the NUMBER of justices is not set. But what about the length of their terms and the way they ascend to the court? How is that determined?
Seriously I don't know.
Can we simply have a Congressional vote to make Supes elected or time-out-able? Or must we change the Constitution to do that?
I now that FDR was gonna pack the court with 6 new justices of his own, so the NUMBER of justices is not set. But what about the length of their terms and the way they ascend to the court? How is that determined?
Posted by: zombie at June 29, 2015 02:53 PM (jBuUi)
29
I guess words have meanings sometimes.
Posted by: MacGruber at June 29, 2015 02:53 PM (sWgE+)
30
Fighting a war 240 years ago to put an end to the rule of a king only so 9 tyrants in black robes could usurp the power for themselves.
Posted by: Buzzion at June 29, 2015 02:54 PM (z/Ubi)
31
I think we need an Article V convention to repeal the 17th amendment to the Constitution.
Direct election of Senators has been a disaster. They no longer represent the states, but should serve at the will of the state legislatures. They could hold a Court in line.
Direct election of Senators has been a disaster. They no longer represent the states, but should serve at the will of the state legislatures. They could hold a Court in line.
Posted by: SARDiver at June 29, 2015 02:54 PM (DzJBg)
32
If the nature of the Supreme Court determined by the Constituion?
=
Is the nature of the Supreme Court determined by the Constitution?
=
Is the nature of the Supreme Court determined by the Constitution?
Posted by: zombie at June 29, 2015 02:54 PM (jBuUi)
33
Bring SMOD already. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBWbpFz3wac
Posted by: Crashpanic at June 29, 2015 02:54 PM (UXbPz)
34
So a cost to a corporation (EPA ruling) is more important then the cost to the individual citizen (Obamacare ruling).
Good to know, thanks third chamber of congress!
Good to know, thanks third chamber of congress!
Posted by: SGTYork at June 29, 2015 02:54 PM (/yNLK)
Posted by: Wendy at June 29, 2015 02:55 PM (KydDZ)
36
In one way, I see the need for another Constitutional Convention. But for the most part, it would probably be an unmitigated disaster. I can't imagine how the average LIV would vote to improve our governance.
Posted by: MacGruber at June 29, 2015 02:55 PM (sWgE+)
37
It is very disappointing to see the Supreme Court side with the extremists and rule against clean air.
A safe, healthy environment for all people should not be a partisan issue.
A safe, healthy environment for all people should not be a partisan issue.
Posted by: Susan Olivia Cuthbertson-Klein at June 29, 2015 02:56 PM (Ui7Rt)
38
Too little, too late. Coal power is gone. Eventually only the wealthy and the poor will have electricity. The rich will afford it, and the poor will have their votes bought through more subsidies. The middle class will take it up the ass with no lube, a la Obamacare.
Know your place peons.
Know your place peons.
Posted by: nnptcgrad at June 29, 2015 02:56 PM (axJLI)
39
Every single executive appointment Obama has made has been politics first, and competence has only been a test insofar as it relates to ability to push a political agenda through a compliant bureaucracy.
The next republican president - and for Christ's sake lets hope that comes in 2017 - will have a Herculean task of cleaning out the stables at EPA, IRS, DOL, DOJ, and on and on.
The next republican president - and for Christ's sake lets hope that comes in 2017 - will have a Herculean task of cleaning out the stables at EPA, IRS, DOL, DOJ, and on and on.
Posted by: George Tirebiter at June 29, 2015 02:56 PM (/zyrl)
40
While it would appear to be O/T on the surface, it may not be.
Most of you know that I track online ammo sales and availabilities using "Bot" type search engines, keyed to caliber, and maximum price per rd that I am interested in.
In the last two and a half hours, it has exploded.
Ammo alerts coming in almost as fast as I can read them.
Even after adjusting the price per rd down by over three cents per round, to only get the really good offers.
Mostly 9MM, but lots of 5.56/.223 offers as well.
In over two years of tracking ammo online, I have never seen this level of activity across every major Ammo reseller.
Except for Sportsman's Guide, and Cabellas.
No alerts from them.
Most of you know that I track online ammo sales and availabilities using "Bot" type search engines, keyed to caliber, and maximum price per rd that I am interested in.
In the last two and a half hours, it has exploded.
Ammo alerts coming in almost as fast as I can read them.
Even after adjusting the price per rd down by over three cents per round, to only get the really good offers.
Mostly 9MM, but lots of 5.56/.223 offers as well.
In over two years of tracking ammo online, I have never seen this level of activity across every major Ammo reseller.
Except for Sportsman's Guide, and Cabellas.
No alerts from them.
Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at June 29, 2015 02:56 PM (VPLuQ)
41
36
In one way, I see the need for another Constitutional Convention. But
for the most part, it would probably be an unmitigated disaster. I can't
imagine how the average LIV would vote to improve our governance.
Posted by: MacGruber at June 29, 2015 02:55 PM (sWgE+)
Agreed, but at this point, we're running out of alternatives.
In one way, I see the need for another Constitutional Convention. But
for the most part, it would probably be an unmitigated disaster. I can't
imagine how the average LIV would vote to improve our governance.
Posted by: MacGruber at June 29, 2015 02:55 PM (sWgE+)
Agreed, but at this point, we're running out of alternatives.
Posted by: SARDiver at June 29, 2015 02:57 PM (DzJBg)
Posted by: Hillary Clinton at June 29, 2015 02:57 PM (HSmrB)
43
The EPA has certainly took a beating from the courts. They deserved it because their regulations far exceed their authority and have no basis in science. And they have openly defied the law, congress , and the courts with their ludicrous cost estimates when they bothered to do them at all.
And I suspect the reason the tyrants in black shit on them is because they have routinely thumbed their noses at judges and they do NOT like that.
Does anyone know what the count was? Did all four of the liberal commie judges go with the EPA. And Sot-e-myar I say "judge" with an asterisk. Before being nominated I don't think she ever sat on an appellate court.
And I suspect the reason the tyrants in black shit on them is because they have routinely thumbed their noses at judges and they do NOT like that.
Does anyone know what the count was? Did all four of the liberal commie judges go with the EPA. And Sot-e-myar I say "judge" with an asterisk. Before being nominated I don't think she ever sat on an appellate court.
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at June 29, 2015 02:57 PM (GpgJl)
44
I bet if you asked people whether they want to fund the EPA or their Social Security checks, the EPA would be gone.
It will come to that.
It will come to that.
Posted by: Marcus T at June 29, 2015 02:58 PM (GGCsk)
45
7
I dunno, Third House of Congress still smacks of a constitutional
republic, which we aren't anymore. We're an oligarchy. Ruled by wise old
genderless Ivy Leaguers for our own good.
========
Yup.
We have the House.
We have the Senate.
And now we have the House of Lords.
I dunno, Third House of Congress still smacks of a constitutional
republic, which we aren't anymore. We're an oligarchy. Ruled by wise old
genderless Ivy Leaguers for our own good.
========
Yup.
We have the House.
We have the Senate.
And now we have the House of Lords.
Posted by: RoyalOil at June 29, 2015 02:58 PM (ZvKdv)
46
I'm sure the ship will totally be righted, just like after the NLRB ruling.
Posted by: Chupacabras at June 29, 2015 02:59 PM (kZVsz)
47
So the EPA can regulate plant emissions as long as they slap together some phoney-baloney cost analysis that reaches the conclusions they desire. CJ Roberts must be relieved. The rule of intent is still intact.
Posted by: Man from Wazzustan at June 29, 2015 03:00 PM (uPxUo)
48
Most of you know that I track online ammo sales and availabilities using "Bot" type search engines, keyed to caliber, and maximum price per rd that I am interested in.
In the last two and a half hours, it has exploded.
Ammo alerts coming in almost as fast as I can read them.
Even after adjusting the price per rd down by over three cents per round, to only get the really good offers.
Mostly 9MM, but lots of 5.56/.223 offers as well.
In over two years of tracking ammo online, I have never seen this level of activity across every major Ammo reseller.
Except for Sportsman's Guide, and Cabellas.
No alerts from them.
Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice
This doesn't surprise me.
I know a lot of pretty level headed people that are thinking along the same lines. it's not just guys in trailers with Ham radios.
How do you find this info regarding ammo sales?
I'm curious
In the last two and a half hours, it has exploded.
Ammo alerts coming in almost as fast as I can read them.
Even after adjusting the price per rd down by over three cents per round, to only get the really good offers.
Mostly 9MM, but lots of 5.56/.223 offers as well.
In over two years of tracking ammo online, I have never seen this level of activity across every major Ammo reseller.
Except for Sportsman's Guide, and Cabellas.
No alerts from them.
Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice
This doesn't surprise me.
I know a lot of pretty level headed people that are thinking along the same lines. it's not just guys in trailers with Ham radios.
How do you find this info regarding ammo sales?
I'm curious
Posted by: McAdams at June 29, 2015 03:00 PM (4b2BH)
49
34 So a cost to a corporation (EPA ruling) is more important then the cost to the individual citizen (Obamacare ruling).
Good to know, thanks third chamber of congress!
Posted by: SGTYork at June 29, 2015 02:54 PM (/yNLK)
Like fascism. Supreme fascism.
Good to know, thanks third chamber of congress!
Posted by: SGTYork at June 29, 2015 02:54 PM (/yNLK)
Like fascism. Supreme fascism.
Posted by: Gruber Mench at June 29, 2015 03:00 PM (1isJI)
50
Some more of Gina McCarthy's insanity:
"Pollution is holding back millions of African-Americans fighting for middle class security," McCarthy Said. "Environmental justice is social justice."
"We have a moral obligation to act now,
she added.
Some more racism brought to you by the Marxist concern tribe.
"Pollution is holding back millions of African-Americans fighting for middle class security," McCarthy Said. "Environmental justice is social justice."
"We have a moral obligation to act now,
she added.
Some more racism brought to you by the Marxist concern tribe.
Posted by: Cheri at June 29, 2015 03:00 PM (oiNtH)
51
Plunging the country into cold and darkness, at this time, doesn't serve the interests of The Party.
Posted by: Grump928(c) is an AllenG wannabe at June 29, 2015 03:01 PM (evdj2)
52
"that the right to gay-marry was established 150 years ago by the 14th Amendment, but no one realized that until last Thursday."
I think the ruling is actually worse than that. They are saying that standards or society, or some other immeasurable have changed and therefore, even though it wasn't a constitutional right in 1865, it is now. Such "reasoning" gives any five legislators (there are actually 6 on the court right now) a blank check to declare anything a constitutional right.
I think the ruling is actually worse than that. They are saying that standards or society, or some other immeasurable have changed and therefore, even though it wasn't a constitutional right in 1865, it is now. Such "reasoning" gives any five legislators (there are actually 6 on the court right now) a blank check to declare anything a constitutional right.
Posted by: duke at June 29, 2015 03:02 PM (EOUVM)
53
15,000 bees swarm the Senate, at least something is mad...
Posted by: Colin at June 29, 2015 03:02 PM (WQLtV)
54
I guess words have meanings sometimes.
And now the real trick is guessing which words will have meanings on which days.
#WASTF
And now the real trick is guessing which words will have meanings on which days.
#WASTF
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this sh1t at June 29, 2015 03:02 PM (eEb+d)
55
37 It is very disappointing to see the Supreme Court side with the extremists and rule against clean air.
A safe, healthy environment for all people should not be a partisan issue.
Posted by: Susan Olivia Cuthbertson-Klein
The euphemism of a politicized law's made-up title (The "Clean Air" Act) is not a truth or an unquestioned statement of fact. It's an attempt to put a smiley face on a partisan political maneuver.
As truth-telling environmentalists note, the only way to actually decrease the amount of emissions is to impose "de-development" (as Obama's Science Czar John Holdren called it) -- an intentional downgrading of the economy and industrial civilization.
Otherwise, all you are doing is simply hiding the emissions at other levels of the economy, and offshoring them to China. (I.e. if we stop manufacturing here, yeah we get less emission here, but the same stuff will ultimately get manufactured in China instead, where they have fewer laws, and end up making MORE emissions overall globally).
We're not that naive to believe the happy-face names of laws.
A safe, healthy environment for all people should not be a partisan issue.
Posted by: Susan Olivia Cuthbertson-Klein
The euphemism of a politicized law's made-up title (The "Clean Air" Act) is not a truth or an unquestioned statement of fact. It's an attempt to put a smiley face on a partisan political maneuver.
As truth-telling environmentalists note, the only way to actually decrease the amount of emissions is to impose "de-development" (as Obama's Science Czar John Holdren called it) -- an intentional downgrading of the economy and industrial civilization.
Otherwise, all you are doing is simply hiding the emissions at other levels of the economy, and offshoring them to China. (I.e. if we stop manufacturing here, yeah we get less emission here, but the same stuff will ultimately get manufactured in China instead, where they have fewer laws, and end up making MORE emissions overall globally).
We're not that naive to believe the happy-face names of laws.
Posted by: zombie at June 29, 2015 03:02 PM (jBuUi)
56
Guys don't wear robes like these unless they know what they're talking about.
Posted by: Justice John Roberts at June 29, 2015 03:02 PM (8ZskC)
57
>>Coal power is gone. Eventually only the wealthy and the poor will have electricity.
It won't be long before we become like Africa and Mexico, where people just hook up to electrical lines and run homemade wiring to their shacks.
It won't be long before we become like Africa and Mexico, where people just hook up to electrical lines and run homemade wiring to their shacks.
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at June 29, 2015 03:03 PM (O7MnT)
58
They are saying that standards or society, or some other immeasurable have changed and therefore, even though it wasn't a constitutional right in 1865, it is now.
Death is a Democrat.
Death is a Democrat.
Posted by: Grump928(c) is an AllenG wannabe at June 29, 2015 03:03 PM (evdj2)
59
***"Lawless, Politically-Rotten Supreme Court Randomly Rules that Obama's EPA Rule is "Unconstitutional"***
So I guess all those lefty rags that are suddenly enamored with the finality of SCOTUS rulings are going to be shutting down debate now eh?
/straight face
So I guess all those lefty rags that are suddenly enamored with the finality of SCOTUS rulings are going to be shutting down debate now eh?
/straight face
Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 29, 2015 03:03 PM (xSCb6)
60
Sois Kennedy drunk when he rules this way, forgetting how to put his ideas on dignity and reaching together in his head to be able to find a justification that salves his conscience when he ignores the plain meaning of words?
OR, does he go on LSD binges that make him come up with groovy new ways to look at the world man when he votes spouts offirrational garbage?
Sois Kennedy drunk when he rules this way, forgetting how to put his ideas on dignity and reaching together in his head to be able to find a justification that salves his conscience when he ignores the plain meaning of words?
OR, does he go on LSD binges that make him come up with groovy new ways to look at the world man when he votes spouts offirrational garbage?
Posted by: Minuteman at June 29, 2015 03:04 PM (HKyCl)
61
Such "reasoning" gives any five legislators (there are actually 6 on
the court right now) a blank check to declare anything a constitutional
right.
But if you're not gay, that doesn't affect you!
the court right now) a blank check to declare anything a constitutional
right.
But if you're not gay, that doesn't affect you!
Posted by: MSM, Mr Poo Poo, et al at June 29, 2015 03:04 PM (ZKzrr)
62
CNN: so far no coverage of the EPA decision. Probably doesn't fit the agenda, They had the other decisions out within minutes of announcement.
Posted by: Colin at June 29, 2015 03:05 PM (WQLtV)
63
Given the recent rulings from SCOTUS, I was tossing this around in my head without finding a good answer: what's the point of states in the US? Since there no longer seems to be any "power reserved to the States," How are they less useless than your appendix? Are they around just to do the piddly little crap the feds don't want to be bothered with?
Posted by: notthatGreg at June 29, 2015 03:05 PM (hpFfx)
64
Barack Obama is a SCOAMT.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Not dead yet at June 29, 2015 03:05 PM (kff5f)
65
Of all the many things FDR tried to do in the 30's, packing the Court was probably the most Constitutional.
Posted by: SH at June 29, 2015 03:05 PM (gmeXX)
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Not dead yet at June 29, 2015 03:06 PM (kff5f)
67
So NBC/Universal is severing ties with Donald Trump, because he is a big racisty racist to Mexicans. Apprentice hardest hit? I guess he can pull a Jeremy Clarkson and start a new one on Netflix or somewhere.
Posted by: LizLem, Flynn for the Win! at June 29, 2015 03:06 PM (hvf9s)
68
I know a lot of pretty level headed people that are thinking along the same lines. it's not just guys in trailers with Ham radios.
Whoa, when did a technician's license brand you with the mark of Cain?
Whoa, when did a technician's license brand you with the mark of Cain?
Posted by: Jean at June 29, 2015 03:06 PM (ztOda)
69
"How do you find this info regarding ammo sales?
I'm curious"
gunbot.net
wikiarms.com
Ammoseek.com
slickguns.com
ammospy.net
for starters.
I'm curious"
gunbot.net
wikiarms.com
Ammoseek.com
slickguns.com
ammospy.net
for starters.
Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at June 29, 2015 03:07 PM (VPLuQ)
Posted by: HUCK / AKIN 2016 at June 29, 2015 03:07 PM (0LHZx)
71
Posted by: notthatGreg at June 29, 2015 03:05 PM (hpFfx)
Honest answer: Until one of them (Governor Abbott, I'm looking at you) stands up and tells the Feds to F Off, they serve exactly the same purpose as the Roman Senate after the Caesars took power- to keep the mob ignorant of the facts.
Honest answer: Until one of them (Governor Abbott, I'm looking at you) stands up and tells the Feds to F Off, they serve exactly the same purpose as the Roman Senate after the Caesars took power- to keep the mob ignorant of the facts.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Not dead yet at June 29, 2015 03:07 PM (kff5f)
Posted by: Thomas Jefferson at June 29, 2015 03:07 PM (MYCIw)
73
Definitely a run on "new" ammo right now. Even my .40 is a little iffy.
Posted by: Chupacabras at June 29, 2015 03:07 PM (l2max)
74
So NBC/Universal is severing ties with Donald Trump, because he is a big
racisty racist to Mexicans. Apprentice hardest hit? I guess he can pull
a Jeremy Clarkson and start a new one on Netflix or somewhere.
That's where the future viewers are going anyway...Roku/smart TV/etc.
racisty racist to Mexicans. Apprentice hardest hit? I guess he can pull
a Jeremy Clarkson and start a new one on Netflix or somewhere.
That's where the future viewers are going anyway...Roku/smart TV/etc.
Posted by: Colin at June 29, 2015 03:08 PM (WQLtV)
75
OK, I found it, the 4 hardcore liberals voted with the EPA. Roberts and Kennedy decided to go with logic this time.
As a note, the EPA is REQUIRED by law to demonstrate why any new or changed regulation is required and they are supposed to use 'real" science for this. They are also supposed to justify it is worth the cost.
They haven't even made an attempt at this since the Choom King appointed that fugly scrunt.
As a note, the EPA is REQUIRED by law to demonstrate why any new or changed regulation is required and they are supposed to use 'real" science for this. They are also supposed to justify it is worth the cost.
They haven't even made an attempt at this since the Choom King appointed that fugly scrunt.
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at June 29, 2015 03:09 PM (GpgJl)
76
71 Posted by: notthatGreg at June 29, 2015 03:05 PM (hpFfx)
Honest answer: Until one of them (Governor Abbott, I'm looking at you) stands up and tells the Feds to F Off, they serve exactly the same purpose as the Roman Senate after the Caesars took power- to keep the mob ignorant of the facts.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Not dead yet at June 29, 2015 03:07 PM (kff5f)
Let's be fair, part of the reason the mob loved Caesar was because he was putting it to the Senate. And considering what was said about Caesar and Nicomedas maybe literally.
Honest answer: Until one of them (Governor Abbott, I'm looking at you) stands up and tells the Feds to F Off, they serve exactly the same purpose as the Roman Senate after the Caesars took power- to keep the mob ignorant of the facts.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Not dead yet at June 29, 2015 03:07 PM (kff5f)
Let's be fair, part of the reason the mob loved Caesar was because he was putting it to the Senate. And considering what was said about Caesar and Nicomedas maybe literally.
Posted by: Austin in TX at June 29, 2015 03:09 PM (lKVc4)
77
Of all the many things FDR tried to do in the 30's, packing the Court was probably the most Constitutional.
Posted by: SH at June 29, 2015 03:05 PM (gmeXX)
So Constitutional his own vice president stopped him dead in his tracks. At least back then there was one principled democrat.
Posted by: SH at June 29, 2015 03:05 PM (gmeXX)
So Constitutional his own vice president stopped him dead in his tracks. At least back then there was one principled democrat.
Posted by: Arson Wells at June 29, 2015 03:10 PM (UnJ7w)
78
So what was that big 2A case the SCOTUS should have taken recently because of Heller, but didn't?
My guess is that we're about to see a new push against the 2A, and that right soon.
My guess is that we're about to see a new push against the 2A, and that right soon.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 29, 2015 03:10 PM (xSCb6)
79
"that the right to gay-marry was established 150 years ago by the 14th Amendment, but no one realized that until last Thursday"
I'm sure that every politician who voted for the 14th Amendment would have had a violent reaction to the ruling.
I'm sure that every politician who voted for the 14th Amendment would have had a violent reaction to the ruling.
Posted by: Jean at June 29, 2015 03:10 PM (ztOda)
80
Under the Constitution, only the Supreme Court is set. All other courts are at the discretion of Congress. SC Justices hold their position for life except upon impeachment which really means whatever Congress wants it to mean.
--------------
We can fix the judiciary as follows (without having to pass any amendments):
1. Minimize it - get rid of some lower courts.
2. Maximize it - make it bigger by either packing the SC or adding new lower courts. I'm not advocating either, but packing seems better than making the overall judiciary bad.
3. Cut judicial pay. Would this provide judges/justices with an incentive to leave or not take? Specifically those educated by the Ivy League?
4. Increase pay. Would lower pay just encourage more true believers who want to change the American way of life.
5. Impeach.
--------------
We can fix the judiciary as follows (without having to pass any amendments):
1. Minimize it - get rid of some lower courts.
2. Maximize it - make it bigger by either packing the SC or adding new lower courts. I'm not advocating either, but packing seems better than making the overall judiciary bad.
3. Cut judicial pay. Would this provide judges/justices with an incentive to leave or not take? Specifically those educated by the Ivy League?
4. Increase pay. Would lower pay just encourage more true believers who want to change the American way of life.
5. Impeach.
Posted by: SH at June 29, 2015 03:10 PM (gmeXX)
81
This opinion goes to show how far behind we really are. It ain't a 5-4 divide or even 6-3. It's 8-1.
Not to get too far into the weeds, but Scalia's opinion centers around EPA not doing a cost-benefit analysis before promulgating the rule. Had they done so - regardless of the reasonableness of the test itself - the rule would be kosher.
Thomas is the only one who wants to go further. As he writes in the concurrence, why should SCOTUS be so deferential to an agency?
I think most people assume Scalia and Thomas are on the same page. They vote the same way often on the big decisions, but they're coming at it from different perspectives. Scalia is often way more deferential to established precedents and agency rulemakings. Thomas is the only one on the Court who consistently wants to go further and reevaluate the decisions that have brought us to this point. Alito shows willingness on occasion, and I think he'd be willing to go as far as Thomas if there were more votes to do so. But Thomas is really the only Justice on the Court who wants to fight tooth and claw for an originalist interpretation.
Not to get too far into the weeds, but Scalia's opinion centers around EPA not doing a cost-benefit analysis before promulgating the rule. Had they done so - regardless of the reasonableness of the test itself - the rule would be kosher.
Thomas is the only one who wants to go further. As he writes in the concurrence, why should SCOTUS be so deferential to an agency?
I think most people assume Scalia and Thomas are on the same page. They vote the same way often on the big decisions, but they're coming at it from different perspectives. Scalia is often way more deferential to established precedents and agency rulemakings. Thomas is the only one on the Court who consistently wants to go further and reevaluate the decisions that have brought us to this point. Alito shows willingness on occasion, and I think he'd be willing to go as far as Thomas if there were more votes to do so. But Thomas is really the only Justice on the Court who wants to fight tooth and claw for an originalist interpretation.
Posted by: Paul at June 29, 2015 03:11 PM (P1jJI)
82
Where do I buysome spaces for myposts?
Posted by: Minuteman at June 29, 2015 03:11 PM (HKyCl)
83
The destruction of the coal fired power industry in the U.S. may be one of the biggest self inflicted economic blows in modern history. Indefensible idiocy, enacted or allowed by a fundamentally unserious and economically and scientifically illiterate society.
Posted by: rhomboid at June 29, 2015 03:11 PM (mDALH)
84
It's a tit tax I tell ya, a tit tax!
Posted by: Killerdog at June 29, 2015 03:11 PM (2AyY3)
85
If your blood isn't boiling enough yet today, this 45-second LiveLeak video of a racial attack in which a baby got its skull cracked open should put you over the edge:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b3c_1435119168
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b3c_1435119168
Posted by: zombie at June 29, 2015 03:11 PM (jBuUi)
Posted by: Sam In VA at June 29, 2015 03:11 PM (FcHky)
87
So Constitutional his own vice president stopped him dead in his tracks. At least back then there was one principled democrat.
-----
Oh, it wasn't popular. Because he wanted to pack the Court to uphold his unConstitutional actions.
But the court packing part was perfectly fine.,
-----
Oh, it wasn't popular. Because he wanted to pack the Court to uphold his unConstitutional actions.
But the court packing part was perfectly fine.,
Posted by: SH at June 29, 2015 03:12 PM (gmeXX)
88
Let's be fair, part of the reason the mob loved Caesar was because he was putting it to the Senate. And considering what was said about Caesar and Nicomedas maybe literally.
Nico-who?
But, yeah, that was part of it, too.
Now who does that remind me of?
Nico-who?
But, yeah, that was part of it, too.
Now who does that remind me of?
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Not dead yet at June 29, 2015 03:12 PM (kff5f)
89
So NBC/Universal is severing ties with Donald Trump..I guess he can pull
a Jeremy Clarkson and start a new one on Netflix or somewhere.
Posted by: Colin
Combine the two shows: The Stig in a Wig
So NBC/Universal is severing ties with Donald Trump..I guess he can pull
a Jeremy Clarkson and start a new one on Netflix or somewhere.
Posted by: Colin
Combine the two shows: The Stig in a Wig
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at June 29, 2015 03:12 PM (kdS6q)
90
I'm still using illegal light bulbs. I haven't got an illegal flag yet.
Posted by: Boss Moss at June 29, 2015 03:12 PM (CdIQH)
91
So Constitutional his own vice president stopped him dead in his tracks. At least back then there was one principled democrat.
Posted by: Arson Wells at June 29, 2015 03:10 PM (UnJ7w)
And after his death congress imposed term limits. Because having a four term president is so wonderful that it can only be a one time thing!
Posted by: Arson Wells at June 29, 2015 03:10 PM (UnJ7w)
And after his death congress imposed term limits. Because having a four term president is so wonderful that it can only be a one time thing!
Posted by: LizLem, Flynn for the Win! at June 29, 2015 03:12 PM (hvf9s)
92
Yo!
Posted by: Yo! at June 29, 2015 03:12 PM (q+zA9)
93
So CO and a few other states legalized pot against Federal law....not sure how that works but can the same apply to gay marriage and Obamacare?
Posted by: Cheri at June 29, 2015 03:13 PM (oiNtH)
94
And they also ruled that states can turn their districting over to unelected committees. (All very "non-partisan" of course.)
Posted by: Farmer Joe at June 29, 2015 03:13 PM (Q2akM)
95
Trumps show made money for NBC.They fucked themselves over.Excellent.
Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2015 03:13 PM (sPO3u)
96
This is a terrible ruling! What about teh global climating?
Posted by: Teh Pope from Argentina at June 29, 2015 03:13 PM (7Kbxu)
97
49 34 So a cost to a corporation (EPA ruling) is more important then the cost to the individual citizen (Obamacare ruling).
Good to know, thanks third chamber of congress!
Posted by: SGTYork at June 29, 2015 02:54 PM (/yNLK)
Like fascism. Supreme fascism.
Posted by: Gruber Mench at June 29, 2015 03:00 PM (1isJI)
Corporations can afford to defend their Rights in a court of law...
Us Plebes cannot....
They can also afford to buy off the Legislature... while the Legislature ignores the common voter....
Its all about the Money...
Good to know, thanks third chamber of congress!
Posted by: SGTYork at June 29, 2015 02:54 PM (/yNLK)
Like fascism. Supreme fascism.
Posted by: Gruber Mench at June 29, 2015 03:00 PM (1isJI)
Corporations can afford to defend their Rights in a court of law...
Us Plebes cannot....
They can also afford to buy off the Legislature... while the Legislature ignores the common voter....
Its all about the Money...
Posted by: BB Wolf at June 29, 2015 03:14 PM (qh617)
98
This is the new America, Citizen. Keep your head down. Don't make waves. Conform. Nice job you got there. Wouldn't want anything to happen to it.
Posted by: Farmer Joe at June 29, 2015 03:14 PM (Q2akM)
99
Trumps show made money for NBC.They fucked themselves over.Excellent.
-----
To go with Drew this morning. This will also be perceived as Trump giving something up to take a principled stand. That will resonate with people. Trump had skin in the game, and he risked it.
-----
To go with Drew this morning. This will also be perceived as Trump giving something up to take a principled stand. That will resonate with people. Trump had skin in the game, and he risked it.
Posted by: SH at June 29, 2015 03:14 PM (gmeXX)
100
They will be hanging climate heretics before this is over.
Posted by: Boss Moss at June 29, 2015 03:14 PM (CdIQH)
101
Putting a half-assed muzzle on the EPA is meaningless in the long run. Who's going to enforce it when Obama starts spewing executive orders that defy this ruling? The Republicans? Sure, they're suddenly going to grow a pair. It's over as soon as they legalize 20 million+ illegal aliens (aka undocumented Democrats), and we all know it's going to happen. The Republicans are going to make sure it happens.
Posted by: nraendowment at June 29, 2015 03:15 PM (Msv+6)
102
But the court packing part was perfectly fine.,
Posted by: SH at June 29, 2015 03:12 PM (gmeXX)
Except for the circumventing the Congress part and manipulating the Constitution.
The "ends justify the means" is why the country is so fucked right now.
Posted by: SH at June 29, 2015 03:12 PM (gmeXX)
Except for the circumventing the Congress part and manipulating the Constitution.
The "ends justify the means" is why the country is so fucked right now.
Posted by: Arson Wells at June 29, 2015 03:15 PM (UnJ7w)
103
We can fix the judiciary as follows (without having to pass any amendments):
1. Minimize it - get rid of some lower courts.
2. Maximize it - make it bigger by either packing the SC or adding new lower courts. I'm not advocating either, but packing seems better than making the overall judiciary bad.
3. Cut judicial pay. Would this provide judges/justices with an incentive to leave or not take? Specifically those educated by the Ivy League?
4. Increase pay. Would lower pay just encourage more true believers who want to change the American way of life.
5. Impeach.
Posted by: SH
The easiest solution would be to pack the Courts like FDR threatened to do
There would be a gnashing of teeth for a week and then our dumb nation would focus on something else like another celebrity becoming transgender
I just don't see a Constitutional Amendment being realistic, you might as well just say "secession" as long as you're wish casting.
1. Minimize it - get rid of some lower courts.
2. Maximize it - make it bigger by either packing the SC or adding new lower courts. I'm not advocating either, but packing seems better than making the overall judiciary bad.
3. Cut judicial pay. Would this provide judges/justices with an incentive to leave or not take? Specifically those educated by the Ivy League?
4. Increase pay. Would lower pay just encourage more true believers who want to change the American way of life.
5. Impeach.
Posted by: SH
The easiest solution would be to pack the Courts like FDR threatened to do
There would be a gnashing of teeth for a week and then our dumb nation would focus on something else like another celebrity becoming transgender
I just don't see a Constitutional Amendment being realistic, you might as well just say "secession" as long as you're wish casting.
Posted by: McAdams at June 29, 2015 03:15 PM (4b2BH)
Posted by: fixerupper at June 29, 2015 03:15 PM (8XRCm)
105
97: Corporations can afford to defend their Rights in a court of law...
Us Plebes cannot....
----------
It's not even a question of affordability. We don't have "standing."
Us Plebes cannot....
----------
It's not even a question of affordability. We don't have "standing."
Posted by: Farmer Joe at June 29, 2015 03:15 PM (Q2akM)
106
And after his death congress proposed an amendment which was then adopted and ratified that imposed term limits. Because having a four term president is so wonderful that it can only be a one time thing!
Posted by: LizLem, Flynn for the Win! at June 29, 2015 03:12 PM (hvf9s)
Pedantic? Me?
That said, it is important, because at least back then they still believed in needing Constitutional Amendments to, get this, amend the Constitution. We, as a society, don't seem to hold to that anymore.
Also, this is the primary reason I am in favor of term limits for Congress. Either they should all (and I'm with Ace on voting for SCOTUS Justices) have term limits, or none of them should.
Posted by: LizLem, Flynn for the Win! at June 29, 2015 03:12 PM (hvf9s)
Pedantic? Me?
That said, it is important, because at least back then they still believed in needing Constitutional Amendments to, get this, amend the Constitution. We, as a society, don't seem to hold to that anymore.
Also, this is the primary reason I am in favor of term limits for Congress. Either they should all (and I'm with Ace on voting for SCOTUS Justices) have term limits, or none of them should.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Not dead yet at June 29, 2015 03:16 PM (kff5f)
107
If I were a Federal judge, I'd start citing dissents as precedent.
Why not? It's an opinion of the court.
Why not? It's an opinion of the court.
Posted by: AmishDude at June 29, 2015 03:16 PM (b65cm)
108
The lawlessness of this Court calls for some justice to be dealt out according to the Carcano rule....6.5 six times I believe.
Posted by: Lee Harvey Oswald at June 29, 2015 03:17 PM (D0NZx)
109
Except for the circumventing the Congress part and manipulating the Constitution.
The "ends justify the means" is why the country is so fucked right now.
-----
What? How did he manipulate the Constitution? There is no reason why we can't have 10, 11, 12, 100 justices. We must only have two.
The "ends justify the means" is why the country is so fucked right now.
-----
What? How did he manipulate the Constitution? There is no reason why we can't have 10, 11, 12, 100 justices. We must only have two.
Posted by: SH at June 29, 2015 03:17 PM (gmeXX)
Posted by: Yao at June 29, 2015 03:17 PM (JtwS4)
111
If I were a Federal judge, I'd insist on trial by combat.
Posted by: Grump928(c) is an AllenG wannabe at June 29, 2015 03:17 PM (evdj2)
112
So... the Supreme Beings ruled this one "right?"
I take it that means they flipped Anthony Kennedy, and he landed on heads this time. Wonderful. What a way to rule a country.
I take it that means they flipped Anthony Kennedy, and he landed on heads this time. Wonderful. What a way to rule a country.
Posted by: BurtTC at June 29, 2015 03:17 PM (TOk1P)
113
In a 5-4 ruling, the justices ruled that the EPA should have taken into account the costs before even deciding whether to set limits for the toxic air pollutants it regulated in 2011.
----
But we did?!!!!!!!!
It wont cost *us* anything.
----
But we did?!!!!!!!!
It wont cost *us* anything.
Posted by: THE E.P.A. at June 29, 2015 03:17 PM (8XRCm)
114
They will be hanging climate heretics before this is over.
One congresscritter already wants to jail us for our opinions.
Let him try.
One congresscritter already wants to jail us for our opinions.
Let him try.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this sh1t at June 29, 2015 03:18 PM (eEb+d)
115
So very, very thirsty...
Posted by: Tree of Liberty at June 29, 2015 03:18 PM (Q2akM)
116
The number of the seats on the Court can be adjusted at any time. All it takes is an act of Congress. There is nothing in the Constitution mandating the number of seats.
Posted by: Paul at June 29, 2015 03:18 PM (P1jJI)
117
How come this court decided to hold the EPA to the letter of the law this week, while last Thursday they said that the wording of the law was irrelevant when it comes to socialized medicine?
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at June 29, 2015 03:18 PM (vJki2)
118
85 If your blood isn't boiling enough yet today, this 45-second LiveLeak video of a racial attack in which a baby got its skull cracked open should put you over the edge:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b3c_1435119168
Posted by: zombie at June 29, 2015 03:11 PM (jBuUi)
Posting that is racist. Now that I've gotten that out of the way, I would have shot the bitch dead.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b3c_1435119168
Posted by: zombie at June 29, 2015 03:11 PM (jBuUi)
Posting that is racist. Now that I've gotten that out of the way, I would have shot the bitch dead.
Posted by: Insomniac at June 29, 2015 03:18 PM (2Ojst)
119
That said, it is important, because at least back then they still
believed in needing Constitutional Amendments to, get this, amend the
Constitution.
That was before scholars discovered the Good and Welfare Clause....
believed in needing Constitutional Amendments to, get this, amend the
Constitution.
That was before scholars discovered the Good and Welfare Clause....
Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at June 29, 2015 03:18 PM (ZKzrr)
120
Just want to take the opportunity to thank you, Ace. Your postings as well as those of the cobs - and the responses of the commenters - have managed to soften the blows of these days for me. A grin is worth a lot - so I've sent you a bit of pizza money since today I can afford it.
Again, thanks.
Again, thanks.
Posted by: Inspector Cussword at June 29, 2015 03:18 PM (ukTrJ)
121
I just don't see a Constitutional Amendment being realistic, you might as well just say "secession" as long as you're wish casting.
Posted by: McAdams at June 29, 2015 03:15 PM (4b2BH)
Speaking of "wishing" we can't even get a principled candidate nominated much less elected. No thanks, I'll go with the Framers and Article V.
Posted by: McAdams at June 29, 2015 03:15 PM (4b2BH)
Speaking of "wishing" we can't even get a principled candidate nominated much less elected. No thanks, I'll go with the Framers and Article V.
Posted by: Arson Wells at June 29, 2015 03:19 PM (UnJ7w)
122
112 So... the Supreme Beings ruled this one "right?"
I take it that means they flipped Anthony Kennedy, and he landed on heads this time. Wonderful. What a way to rule a country.
Posted by: BurtTC at June 29, 2015 03:17 PM (TOk1P)
__________
And then they flipped again and it was tails. And Kennedy decided a commission composed of liberal activists is perfectly acceptable to decide on the boundaries of congressional districts, instead of state legislatures as the constitution clearly states.
Voila 5-4 ruling that will, in the long term, be worse than whatever short term benefits we get from this EPA ruling.
I take it that means they flipped Anthony Kennedy, and he landed on heads this time. Wonderful. What a way to rule a country.
Posted by: BurtTC at June 29, 2015 03:17 PM (TOk1P)
__________
And then they flipped again and it was tails. And Kennedy decided a commission composed of liberal activists is perfectly acceptable to decide on the boundaries of congressional districts, instead of state legislatures as the constitution clearly states.
Voila 5-4 ruling that will, in the long term, be worse than whatever short term benefits we get from this EPA ruling.
Posted by: HUCK / AKIN 2016 at June 29, 2015 03:19 PM (0LHZx)
123
That was before scholars discovered the Good and Welfare Clause....
Point of order, it was the Good n Plenty Clause.
Point of order, it was the Good n Plenty Clause.
Posted by: Grump928(c) is an AllenG wannabe at June 29, 2015 03:19 PM (evdj2)
124
Still trying to comprehend how the coal industry. Is being destroyed when the Senate majority leader is from.KY. Mind boggling, even given every other incredible development of recent years.
Posted by: rhomboid at June 29, 2015 03:19 PM (mDALH)
125
We have classes so you don't have to guess what the constitution means. They are free.
Posted by: Hillsdale college at June 29, 2015 03:19 PM (wkuqO)
126
Good Citizen's are Chumps.
Posted by: Grump928(c) insists at June 29, 2015 03:20 PM (evdj2)
127
We have classes so you don't have to guess what the constitution means. They are free.
I already have reading comprehension, and the document isn't that complex.
I already have reading comprehension, and the document isn't that complex.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Not dead yet at June 29, 2015 03:20 PM (kff5f)
Posted by: Grump928(c) insists at June 29, 2015 03:20 PM (evdj2)
129
That was before scholars discovered the Good and Welfare Clause....
Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at June 29, 2015 03:18 PM (ZKzrr)
----
.... and that "Ceteris paribus" is more important that Constitutionality.
Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at June 29, 2015 03:18 PM (ZKzrr)
----
.... and that "Ceteris paribus" is more important that Constitutionality.
Posted by: THE E.P.A. at June 29, 2015 03:20 PM (8XRCm)
130
oops..... pardon my sock.
Posted by: fixeruppr at June 29, 2015 03:21 PM (8XRCm)
131
So very, very thirsty...
Posted by: Tree of Liberty
I'm not really that thirsty, but if you're having an iced tea, I'll have one too. Ooo! Ooo! Can they do a half tea/half lemonade instead? That sounds dee-lish!
Posted by: The Shrub of Republican Moderation
So very, very thirsty...
Posted by: Tree of Liberty
I'm not really that thirsty, but if you're having an iced tea, I'll have one too. Ooo! Ooo! Can they do a half tea/half lemonade instead? That sounds dee-lish!
Posted by: The Shrub of Republican Moderation
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at June 29, 2015 03:21 PM (kdS6q)
132
Good Citizens are Chumps.
Posted by: Grump928(c) insists at June 29, 2015 03:20 PM (evdj2)
It is very quickly getting to the point where Good Citizens are... not.
Posted by: Grump928(c) insists at June 29, 2015 03:20 PM (evdj2)
It is very quickly getting to the point where Good Citizens are... not.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Not dead yet at June 29, 2015 03:21 PM (kff5f)
133
Interstate Commerce applies to all things including those not interstate or commerce.
Posted by: Boss Moss at June 29, 2015 03:21 PM (CdIQH)
134
I like Williamson's take even better:
Ayatollah Roberts and His Sharia Council
http://tinyurl.com/o7vnbak
h/t, well whaddya know, BenK, at this very blog
Ayatollah Roberts and His Sharia Council
http://tinyurl.com/o7vnbak
h/t, well whaddya know, BenK, at this very blog
Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at June 29, 2015 03:21 PM (IN7k+)
135
Interesting article at Legal Insurrection about Justice Kagen's views on SSM, back in 2009
http://legalinsurrection.com/?p=131866
One interesting part was her expression of a desire that the Court find a right for SSM.
How the hell do you find a right?
It's there, or it isnt'
http://legalinsurrection.com/?p=131866
One interesting part was her expression of a desire that the Court find a right for SSM.
How the hell do you find a right?
It's there, or it isnt'
Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at June 29, 2015 03:21 PM (VPLuQ)
136
Celebrity Apprentice was one of the highest rated shows that NBC had. Watch, Trump will move it somewhere else to a company that would love to have those ratings and commercial ad dollahs.
Money, money, monyeeeeey
Money, money, monyeeeeey
Posted by: Cheri at June 29, 2015 03:21 PM (oiNtH)
137
The people have done enough damage. Don't need to have them messing with the Supreme Court as well. Look at how direct voting for Senators has turned out. Retention votes would be a disaster.
There isn't much to do about the Supreme Court. Sometimes we get good justices. But as Andrew Jackson proved, there's not much they can do if they are ignored by the other branches. Doubtful Obama ignores the victories he had last week, but I could see him ignoring or circumventing this one.
There isn't much to do about the Supreme Court. Sometimes we get good justices. But as Andrew Jackson proved, there's not much they can do if they are ignored by the other branches. Doubtful Obama ignores the victories he had last week, but I could see him ignoring or circumventing this one.
Posted by: Nutsy the Buzzard at June 29, 2015 03:21 PM (+s5bL)
138
Gell-Mann amnesia effect is not just for the news media.
Once a liar is caught lying, then everything the liar says is suspect.
The Supreme Court wants cheap electricity. The law be damned. The EPA still exists.
Once a liar is caught lying, then everything the liar says is suspect.
The Supreme Court wants cheap electricity. The law be damned. The EPA still exists.
Posted by: Khalid el Browncowski at June 29, 2015 03:21 PM (zGQ5T)
139
The number of the seats on the Court can be adjusted at any time. All it takes is an act of Congress. There is nothing in the Constitution mandating the number of seats.
------
It does not even take an act of Congress. The president could nominate a new justice and if the Senate confirmed - he would be appointed.
Now, I suspect it would take the House to fund his/her salary and office.
------
It does not even take an act of Congress. The president could nominate a new justice and if the Senate confirmed - he would be appointed.
Now, I suspect it would take the House to fund his/her salary and office.
Posted by: SH at June 29, 2015 03:22 PM (gmeXX)
140
We have classes so you don't have to guess what the constitution means. They are free.
Posted by: Hillsdale college>>>
So do we.
Posted by: Hillsdale college>>>
So do we.
Posted by: Acorn under a new name weekly at June 29, 2015 03:22 PM (P/aDH)
141
We could pass term limits on Congress tomorrow. If you serve more than X terms you forfeit all future government pensions.
Perfectly Constitutional, there's nothing about lifetime pensions, health care, etc and it would push 90% of them to leave so they could collect. Problem is, what current Congress critter would vote for such a bill?
Perfectly Constitutional, there's nothing about lifetime pensions, health care, etc and it would push 90% of them to leave so they could collect. Problem is, what current Congress critter would vote for such a bill?
Posted by: McAdams at June 29, 2015 03:22 PM (4b2BH)
142
Why don't we take to the streets like the left does? We look invisable to the country. Will we use our right given to us by the founders, or just bitch among ourselves? Time to stand up for something and make it shown. I can take being called names, I'm sure all of us can.
Posted by: Tinfoilbaby at June 29, 2015 03:22 PM (H3SRF)
143
Posted by: The Shrub of Republican Moderation
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at June 29, 2015 03:21 PM (kdS6q)
LOL!
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at June 29, 2015 03:21 PM (kdS6q)
LOL!
Posted by: Arson Wells at June 29, 2015 03:22 PM (UnJ7w)
Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 29, 2015 03:22 PM (xSCb6)
145
Honest answer: Until one of them (Governor Abbott, I'm looking at you) stands up and tells the Feds to F Off . . .
___________
Hey, Greg! How about it, buddy? Stand up and let everyone see you!
___________
Hey, Greg! How about it, buddy? Stand up and let everyone see you!
Posted by: Joe Biden at June 29, 2015 03:23 PM (UlJ3l)
146
>>>the EPA "unreasonably" interpreted the Clean Air Act when it decided not to consider industry compliance costs and whether regulating the pollutants is "appropriate and necessary.”
So a government agency didn't stop to consider the costs of the idiot regulations it is imposing on businesses? Amazing.
So a government agency didn't stop to consider the costs of the idiot regulations it is imposing on businesses? Amazing.
Posted by: Hilldawg at June 29, 2015 03:23 PM (6qR/9)
147
Posted by: Tinfoilbaby at June 29, 2015 03:22 PM (H3SRF)
Because we're to busy working and supporting our families and the country?
Because we're to busy working and supporting our families and the country?
Posted by: Arson Wells at June 29, 2015 03:23 PM (UnJ7w)
148
You don't actually need to pack the court to potentially get a desired outcome. FDR's packing scheme didn't work, but the Court did start upholding some of his stuff. Would they without the packing?
Posted by: SH at June 29, 2015 03:23 PM (gmeXX)
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Not dead yet at June 29, 2015 03:23 PM (kff5f)
150
Did you see the Ted Cruz piece at NRO? He's suggesting exactly the same -- that we reconfirm SCOTUS appointees every eight years. Keep 'em honest.
Posted by: red speck at June 29, 2015 03:23 PM (9/Ug/)
151
To go with Drew this morning. This will also be
perceived as Trump giving something up to take a principled stand. That
will resonate with people. Trump had skin in the game, and he risked
it.
Posted by: SH at June 29, 2015 03:14 PM (gmeXX)
It looks like Trump clarified his original statements somewhat, but doubled down on the spirit behind it. Did not grovel or back away from them like I think leftists were hoping.The nice thing is that Trump already has a brand and is out there in the public eye, for better are worse. Majority of LIVs have already made up their mind how they feel about him, if they respect him or think he is a tool. NBC/MSM can't just smear his name like he was a nobody and 100% control the narrative, like they can with the smaller GOP candidtes. Popcorn time?Not stumping for Trump, but I do admire his willingness to fight.
perceived as Trump giving something up to take a principled stand. That
will resonate with people. Trump had skin in the game, and he risked
it.
Posted by: SH at June 29, 2015 03:14 PM (gmeXX)
It looks like Trump clarified his original statements somewhat, but doubled down on the spirit behind it. Did not grovel or back away from them like I think leftists were hoping.The nice thing is that Trump already has a brand and is out there in the public eye, for better are worse. Majority of LIVs have already made up their mind how they feel about him, if they respect him or think he is a tool. NBC/MSM can't just smear his name like he was a nobody and 100% control the narrative, like they can with the smaller GOP candidtes. Popcorn time?Not stumping for Trump, but I do admire his willingness to fight.
Posted by: LizLem, Flynn for the Win! at June 29, 2015 03:24 PM (hvf9s)
152
Nothing will change so long as judges, no matter how many there are, have life tenure.
Posted by: Nick in South Bend at June 29, 2015 03:24 PM (zOWjo)
153
I didn't down-read all the comments, but why doesn't the EPA turn around and say: "Oh, ok, we're considering the cost. It's really, really, f*&%#ing expensive." And carry on destroying a viable industry that has no practical alternative. (Except nuclear, and that's like the Corvair of power generation.)
Posted by: Brave Sir Robin at June 29, 2015 03:24 PM (5buP8)
154
Of course, one of the things that we need to do is go full anti-lawyer.
Yes, yes, I know, I know but Scalia gave a talk once where he lamented the fact that smart kids were going into law rather than something useful like medicine or science.
He was not being facetious and neither am I.
Judges are only a symptom of the problem. The real problem is the Lawyer-Government complex. Judges and justices feel that they are all-powerful because they have a support system that produces a ruling class.
Yes, yes, I know, I know but Scalia gave a talk once where he lamented the fact that smart kids were going into law rather than something useful like medicine or science.
He was not being facetious and neither am I.
Judges are only a symptom of the problem. The real problem is the Lawyer-Government complex. Judges and justices feel that they are all-powerful because they have a support system that produces a ruling class.
Posted by: AmishDude at June 29, 2015 03:25 PM (b65cm)
155
whoa!!
are we saying that certain judges do not look to the US Constitution on how to rule on the issue before them??
That sounds really bad
whoa!!
are we saying that certain judges do not look to the US Constitution on how to rule on the issue before them??
That sounds really bad
Posted by: Yo! at June 29, 2015 03:25 PM (q+zA9)
156
***"Did you see the Ted Cruz piece at NRO? He's suggesting exactly the same
-- that we reconfirm SCOTUS appointees every eight years. Keep 'em
honest."***
I'd prefer every four, but I could go with eight.
-- that we reconfirm SCOTUS appointees every eight years. Keep 'em
honest."***
I'd prefer every four, but I could go with eight.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 29, 2015 03:25 PM (xSCb6)
157
Nothing will change so long as judges, no matter how many there are, have life tenure.
-----
Cut their salaries and benefits.
-----
Cut their salaries and benefits.
Posted by: SH at June 29, 2015 03:25 PM (gmeXX)
158
Posted by: SH at June 29, 2015 03:23 PM (gmeXX)
We should be packing, just not the court.
SWIDT?
We should be packing, just not the court.
SWIDT?
Posted by: Arson Wells at June 29, 2015 03:25 PM (UnJ7w)
159
5-4 ruling. Why it's almost as if 4 "justices" will vote in lockstep no matter what the issue is.
Posted by: TheQuietMan at June 29, 2015 03:26 PM (493sH)
160
We could pass term limits on Congress tomorrow. If you serve more than X terms you forfeit all future government pensions.
Also, we need massive restrictions on activities by people who are members of the bar, were members of the bar or hope to be members of the bar.
We can start with lobbying.
Also, we need massive restrictions on activities by people who are members of the bar, were members of the bar or hope to be members of the bar.
We can start with lobbying.
Posted by: AmishDude at June 29, 2015 03:26 PM (b65cm)
161
Would they without the packing?
Apparently they would: Barky talked shit about them all the previous week. They got on their knees like a drunk prom queen.
Apparently they would: Barky talked shit about them all the previous week. They got on their knees like a drunk prom queen.
Posted by: Brave Sir Robin at June 29, 2015 03:26 PM (5buP8)
162
How the hell do you find a right?
It's there, or it isnt'
We had a whole bunch of them around here somewhere, we just needed to find them.
But the Big One, the right to a small, inexpensive and unobtrusive government, they can't seem to locate.
Funny, that...
It's there, or it isnt'
We had a whole bunch of them around here somewhere, we just needed to find them.
But the Big One, the right to a small, inexpensive and unobtrusive government, they can't seem to locate.
Funny, that...
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this sh1t at June 29, 2015 03:26 PM (eEb+d)
163
I'd prefer every four, but I could go with eight.
Set the requirement that they have to be sixty or older. Death gets a vote then.
Set the requirement that they have to be sixty or older. Death gets a vote then.
Posted by: Grump928(c) insists at June 29, 2015 03:27 PM (evdj2)
164
that we reconfirm SCOTUS appointees every eight years. Keep 'em honest."***
I'd prefer every four, but I could go with eight.
Split the difference. Six.
I'd prefer every four, but I could go with eight.
Split the difference. Six.
Posted by: rickb223 at June 29, 2015 03:27 PM (BKWpy)
165
148 You don't actually need to pack the court to potentially get a desired outcome. FDR's packing scheme didn't work, but the Court did start upholding some of his stuff. Would they without the packing?
Posted by: SH
It did what it was supposed to do, they suddenly went along with the New Deal because they were afraid he would have neuteured the 3rd Branch of government into a rubber stamp
All it took for this Supreme Court was a finger wagging at a SOTU to be bullied.
The Judiciary needs to be reformed even if we need to cross the Rubicon, or otherwise we should stop all pretense and just recognize we're ruled by dictators in black robes
Posted by: SH
It did what it was supposed to do, they suddenly went along with the New Deal because they were afraid he would have neuteured the 3rd Branch of government into a rubber stamp
All it took for this Supreme Court was a finger wagging at a SOTU to be bullied.
The Judiciary needs to be reformed even if we need to cross the Rubicon, or otherwise we should stop all pretense and just recognize we're ruled by dictators in black robes
Posted by: McAdams at June 29, 2015 03:27 PM (4b2BH)
Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at June 29, 2015 03:28 PM (ZKzrr)
167
Well, it had to end sometime. We lasted almost 240 years. We have all the elements of collapse in place. A lazy majority who only want bread and circuses, a hollowed-out and demoralized military, a totally corrupt and morally bankrupt political/ruling class, and bloodthirsty uncivilized devil-worshiping savages at the gates. It's only a matter of time. Could be short as a year or more than 3 years. Not much past that, though. Your mileage may vary.
Posted by: Eromero at June 29, 2015 03:28 PM (go5uR)
168
LizLem,
Regarding Trump, On his show CA, he has a variety of contestant celebrities on many of whom are liberals, conservative, blacks, whites, etc.
Regarding Trump, On his show CA, he has a variety of contestant celebrities on many of whom are liberals, conservative, blacks, whites, etc.
Posted by: Cheri at June 29, 2015 03:28 PM (oiNtH)
169
We should. We need retention votes. If these motherf***ers want to be political, we get to vote on them, and run campaigns against them.
Ding ding ding ding ding! Winner winner chicken dinner!
Also this is the definition of Pyrrhic victory. As I understand it, many of those plants are already shut down or spent hundreds of millions to comply while the appeal was heard.
Ding ding ding ding ding! Winner winner chicken dinner!
Also this is the definition of Pyrrhic victory. As I understand it, many of those plants are already shut down or spent hundreds of millions to comply while the appeal was heard.
Posted by: alexthechick at June 29, 2015 03:28 PM (mf5HN)
170
Split the difference. Six With an axe.
Posted by: rickb223 at June 29, 2015 03:27 PM (BKWpy)
FIFY.
Posted by: rickb223 at June 29, 2015 03:27 PM (BKWpy)
FIFY.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Not dead yet at June 29, 2015 03:28 PM (kff5f)
171
Set the requirement that they have to be sixty or older. Death gets a vote then.
If we cared about the corrupt Lawyer-Government system, one solution is to require that all justices be former appellate judges and all appellate judges be former Federal district court judges. Would force them to have some age to them.
If we cared about the corrupt Lawyer-Government system, one solution is to require that all justices be former appellate judges and all appellate judges be former Federal district court judges. Would force them to have some age to them.
Posted by: AmishDude at June 29, 2015 03:29 PM (b65cm)
172
10 When I think of Breyer, Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, I just picture 4 large rubber stamps saying "Ruling In Favor Of Democrats" sticking out of judicial robes.
Posted by: Sort-of-Mad Max at June 29, 2015 02:47 PM (DLu2s)
This.
It makes you wonder why the Gang of Four even bothers to attend sessions. Just phone in your vote from the Bahamas. We all know what it's going to be.
Posted by: Sort-of-Mad Max at June 29, 2015 02:47 PM (DLu2s)
This.
It makes you wonder why the Gang of Four even bothers to attend sessions. Just phone in your vote from the Bahamas. We all know what it's going to be.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 29, 2015 03:29 PM (oKE6c)
173
Have you seen the second scene in the new Expedia ad?
Posted by: Fox2! at June 29, 2015 03:29 PM (brIR5)
174
VIA, also see the DOMA ruling, wherein SCOTUS majority striking it down noted that marriage issues have always been handled by the states. Same people who just made sweeping change in the very definition of marriage.
That's why I have been using the phrase "super legislature for dummies" - there's really little sophistication or sophistry in these absurd rulings, just crude arbitrary baseless crap working back from decision to "arguments".
That's why I have been using the phrase "super legislature for dummies" - there's really little sophistication or sophistry in these absurd rulings, just crude arbitrary baseless crap working back from decision to "arguments".
Posted by: rhomboid at June 29, 2015 03:30 PM (mDALH)
175
The number of the seats on the Court can be adjusted
at any time. All it takes is an act of Congress. There is nothing in
the Constitution mandating the number of seats. Posted by: Paul at June 29, 2015 03:18 PM (P1jJI)
I assume this would be done after we get some mystical GOP candidate back in the WH? Because I don't see how handing Obama a bunch of new SCOTUS chairs to fill right before he leaves solves anything.
at any time. All it takes is an act of Congress. There is nothing in
the Constitution mandating the number of seats. Posted by: Paul at June 29, 2015 03:18 PM (P1jJI)
I assume this would be done after we get some mystical GOP candidate back in the WH? Because I don't see how handing Obama a bunch of new SCOTUS chairs to fill right before he leaves solves anything.
Posted by: LizLem, Flynn for the Win! at June 29, 2015 03:30 PM (hvf9s)
176
At least we still have Nino.
As a former law student, I can vouch for the relief everyone, even the libs, felt when we were assigned a Scalia opinion.
O'Connor was perhaps the worst. Section I, Part 3, subsection vi, sub-subsection 24, etc. Oy.
Scalia is, for better or worse, maybe the best writer the SCOTUS has ever seen. He was terribly wrong on random sobriety checkpoints, but even then, he said what he had to say succinctly.
As a former law student, I can vouch for the relief everyone, even the libs, felt when we were assigned a Scalia opinion.
O'Connor was perhaps the worst. Section I, Part 3, subsection vi, sub-subsection 24, etc. Oy.
Scalia is, for better or worse, maybe the best writer the SCOTUS has ever seen. He was terribly wrong on random sobriety checkpoints, but even then, he said what he had to say succinctly.
Posted by: Bob's House of Flannel Shirts and Wallet Chains at June 29, 2015 03:30 PM (vgIRn)
177
When I think of Breyer, Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, I just picture 4 large rubber stamps saying "Ruling In Favor Of Democrats" sticking out of judicial robes.
Posted by: Sort-of-Mad Max at June 29, 2015 02:47 PM (DLu2s)
This.
It makes you wonder why the Gang of Four even bothers to attend sessions. Just phone in your vote from the Bahamas. We all know what it's going to be.
------
A relatively simple solution would be to actually Bork one of the left's nomination. Well maybe not a solution - but at least a start.
Posted by: Sort-of-Mad Max at June 29, 2015 02:47 PM (DLu2s)
This.
It makes you wonder why the Gang of Four even bothers to attend sessions. Just phone in your vote from the Bahamas. We all know what it's going to be.
------
A relatively simple solution would be to actually Bork one of the left's nomination. Well maybe not a solution - but at least a start.
Posted by: SH at June 29, 2015 03:30 PM (gmeXX)
178
I'm guessing one of the big reasons for the push for gay marriage hasn't been covered much: spousal benefits for Social Security.
As you've probably noticed, a lot of those 'loving couples' getting gaymarried are rather long in the tooth. And, unless you're rolling up on retirement age (like I am), you may not be aware that Social Security hands out a lot of money to 'spouses' collecting benefits exclusive of their own. Guess who's now eligible for this cash with gaymarriage?
If you check it out, there' a lot of bennies riding on marital status. Rather suddenly a whole lot of people are going to be able to cash in through gaymarriage.
And, how is this going to affect the looming bankruptcy of the whole Social Security pyramid?
My rather solid hunch is, not very well.
I'm sure I'm a hater for pointing out the math involved.
As you've probably noticed, a lot of those 'loving couples' getting gaymarried are rather long in the tooth. And, unless you're rolling up on retirement age (like I am), you may not be aware that Social Security hands out a lot of money to 'spouses' collecting benefits exclusive of their own. Guess who's now eligible for this cash with gaymarriage?
If you check it out, there' a lot of bennies riding on marital status. Rather suddenly a whole lot of people are going to be able to cash in through gaymarriage.
And, how is this going to affect the looming bankruptcy of the whole Social Security pyramid?
My rather solid hunch is, not very well.
I'm sure I'm a hater for pointing out the math involved.
Posted by: Sort-of-Mad Max at June 29, 2015 03:30 PM (DLu2s)
179
The Judiciary needs to be reformed even if we need to cross the Rubicon, or otherwise we should stop all pretense and just recognize we're ruled by dictators in black robes
Posted by: McAdams at June 29, 2015 03:27 PM (4b2BH)
I agree, an amendment for term limits of Supreme Court Judges via Article V Convention of the States. Why were we disagreeing again?
Posted by: McAdams at June 29, 2015 03:27 PM (4b2BH)
I agree, an amendment for term limits of Supreme Court Judges via Article V Convention of the States. Why were we disagreeing again?
Posted by: Arson Wells at June 29, 2015 03:30 PM (UnJ7w)
180
I think a term limit needs to be three Senate terms. This allows them to insulated from domestic fads, but still responsive.
Posted by: Grump928(c) insists at June 29, 2015 03:31 PM (evdj2)
181
It's the Most Magical House of Congress. when the Nine High Wizards enter into conclave all from the king through the nobles to the peasantry tremble with wonder at the results of their communing with the spirits from other worlds.
Posted by: Mikey NTH - The Outrage Outlet - If your right eyebrow isn't twitching you simply don't care. at June 29, 2015 03:31 PM (hLRSq)
182
The problem with judicial retention votes is that the same LIVs who give us Obama are the same people who vote almost 100% of the time to retain judges. Why?
Posted by: Furious George at June 29, 2015 03:31 PM (UlJ3l)
183
"Why it's almost as if 4 "justices" will vote in lockstep no matter what the issue is."
Not only that, when's the last time any of the four wrote an opinion of note? Not only do they vote in lock step, they contribute nothing intellectually to the Court.
Not only that, when's the last time any of the four wrote an opinion of note? Not only do they vote in lock step, they contribute nothing intellectually to the Court.
Posted by: Paul at June 29, 2015 03:31 PM (P1jJI)
184
I assume this would be done after we get some mystical GOP candidate back in the WH? Because I don't see how handing Obama a bunch of new SCOTUS chairs to fill right before he leaves solves anything.
-----
Well I certainly wouldn't do it now. It would involve political risk for certain.
You seem to think that the GOP will never win the WH again?
-----
Well I certainly wouldn't do it now. It would involve political risk for certain.
You seem to think that the GOP will never win the WH again?
Posted by: SH at June 29, 2015 03:32 PM (gmeXX)
185
I'm with Andy C. McCarthy -- I'm done with the ruse. The Supreme Court is just a political organ -- but one we don't get to vote on.
If we had any decent human beings in the House then most of dimwitted hacks on this SCOTASS would be impeached. Certainly, Benedict Roberts should have been impeached after his first lunatic, treasonous BarkyCare "tax, not a tax, tax on inaction" bullshit.
But ... we've got nothing but cowards, traitors and douchebag imbeciles in Congress, too.
The problem isn't that the SCOTASS is a political piece of half-brained, anti-American stupidity ... it's that we've got nothing but half-brained, anti-American lowlife traitors occupying pretty much all of the feral government.
If we had any decent human beings in the House then most of dimwitted hacks on this SCOTASS would be impeached. Certainly, Benedict Roberts should have been impeached after his first lunatic, treasonous BarkyCare "tax, not a tax, tax on inaction" bullshit.
But ... we've got nothing but cowards, traitors and douchebag imbeciles in Congress, too.
The problem isn't that the SCOTASS is a political piece of half-brained, anti-American stupidity ... it's that we've got nothing but half-brained, anti-American lowlife traitors occupying pretty much all of the feral government.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at June 29, 2015 03:32 PM (MYSVz)
186
LizLem,
Regarding Trump, On his show CA, he has a variety of contestant
celebrities on many of whom are liberals, conservative, blacks, whites,
etc. Posted by: Cheri at June 29, 2015 03:28 PM (oiNtH)
Yep. Thus the racism charge was stupid. Hope the LIVs see through it. Happy to see NBC kill a gold plated goose though! No network deserves it more.
Regarding Trump, On his show CA, he has a variety of contestant
celebrities on many of whom are liberals, conservative, blacks, whites,
etc. Posted by: Cheri at June 29, 2015 03:28 PM (oiNtH)
Yep. Thus the racism charge was stupid. Hope the LIVs see through it. Happy to see NBC kill a gold plated goose though! No network deserves it more.
Posted by: LizLem, Flynn for the Win! at June 29, 2015 03:33 PM (hvf9s)
187
Not only that, when's the last time any of the four wrote an opinion of note? Not only do they vote in lock step, they contribute nothing intellectually to the Court.
You've been spoiled by Nino.
There is nothing intellectual in law. Nor should there be.
You've been spoiled by Nino.
There is nothing intellectual in law. Nor should there be.
Posted by: AmishDude at June 29, 2015 03:33 PM (b65cm)
188
Posted by: Sort-of-Mad Max at June 29, 2015 03:30 PM (DLu2s)
And again, don't you DARE point out that gay marriage affects anyone else.
And again, don't you DARE point out that gay marriage affects anyone else.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 29, 2015 03:33 PM (xSCb6)
189
If we term limited Senators, we could say that the Judge loses their seat in the first Congress where none of the sitting Senators voted for them. They've lost the Mandate of Heaven, as it were.
Posted by: Grump928(c) insists at June 29, 2015 03:34 PM (evdj2)
190
I'm with Andy C. McCarthy -- I'm done with the ruse. The Supreme Court is just a political organ -- but one we don't get to vote on.
------
Did anyone doubt that it was not a political organ? It has been from our founding. Hello, Marbury v. Madison.
------
Did anyone doubt that it was not a political organ? It has been from our founding. Hello, Marbury v. Madison.
Posted by: SH at June 29, 2015 03:34 PM (gmeXX)
191
It's those black robes. We don't know what's under them, and we never will. They could all be going commando, you never know.
Posted by: Sphynx at June 29, 2015 03:34 PM (OZmbA)
Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at June 29, 2015 03:35 PM (VPLuQ)
193
153
I didn't down-read all the comments, but why doesn't the EPA turn around
and say: "Oh, ok, we're considering the cost. It's really, really,
f*%#ing expensive." And carry on destroying a viable industry that
has no practical alternative. (Except nuclear, and that's like the
Corvair of power generation.)
Posted by: Brave Sir Robin at June 29, 2015 03:24 PM (5buP
See #75
I didn't down-read all the comments, but why doesn't the EPA turn around
and say: "Oh, ok, we're considering the cost. It's really, really,
f*%#ing expensive." And carry on destroying a viable industry that
has no practical alternative. (Except nuclear, and that's like the
Corvair of power generation.)
Posted by: Brave Sir Robin at June 29, 2015 03:24 PM (5buP
See #75
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at June 29, 2015 03:35 PM (GpgJl)
194
"There is nothing intellectual in law. Nor should there be."
Well it would be nice if they could actually muster a defense of their rulings. The again, maybe it's a good thing we're left with Kennedy's cringe-worthy, sweet mystery of life ramblings. It does make it easier to pick apart down the line.
Well it would be nice if they could actually muster a defense of their rulings. The again, maybe it's a good thing we're left with Kennedy's cringe-worthy, sweet mystery of life ramblings. It does make it easier to pick apart down the line.
Posted by: Paul at June 29, 2015 03:35 PM (P1jJI)
195
>>Not only that, when's the last time any of the four wrote an opinion of
note? Not only do they vote in lock step, they contribute nothing
intellectually to the Court.
But remember, the totes non-racist, tolerant Left keeps telling us that Clarence Thomas is the dumb one.
Think that's one of Harry Reid's favorite meme's (before he got stuck on the Koch bros being the root of all evil).
note? Not only do they vote in lock step, they contribute nothing
intellectually to the Court.
But remember, the totes non-racist, tolerant Left keeps telling us that Clarence Thomas is the dumb one.
Think that's one of Harry Reid's favorite meme's (before he got stuck on the Koch bros being the root of all evil).
Posted by: Lizzy at June 29, 2015 03:35 PM (NOIQH)
196
How the hell do you find a right?
It's there, or it isnt'
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
How the hell do you find a right?
It's there, or it isnt'
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Posted by: Bandersnatch at June 29, 2015 03:35 PM (JtwS4)
197
If we term limited Senators, we could say that the Judge loses their seat in the first Congress where none of the sitting Senators voted for them. They've lost the Mandate of Heaven, as it were.
----
I kind of like that. Of course, I can just see the campaign ads for the continual election of some old geezer Senator.
----
I kind of like that. Of course, I can just see the campaign ads for the continual election of some old geezer Senator.
Posted by: SH at June 29, 2015 03:36 PM (gmeXX)
198
Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at June 29, 2015 03:35 PM (VPLuQ)
1) I'm pretty sure at least a couple red flags went up just from viewing it.
B) That looks like *almost* enough ammunition.
1) I'm pretty sure at least a couple red flags went up just from viewing it.
B) That looks like *almost* enough ammunition.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Not dead yet at June 29, 2015 03:36 PM (kff5f)
199
What??? Voting on judges???
THAT'S WHACKED OUT! Way to start a revolution!
This problem would be solved by an Art. V convention!
/sarc
THAT'S WHACKED OUT! Way to start a revolution!
This problem would be solved by an Art. V convention!
/sarc
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at June 29, 2015 03:36 PM (YYJjz)
200
The problem isn't that the SCOTASS is a political piece of half-brained, anti-American stupidity ... it's that we've got nothing but half-brained, anti-American lowlife traitors occupying pretty much all of the feral government.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at June 29, 2015 03:32 PM (MYSVz)
----------------------------------------
We need term limits, and maybe elections 4x a year. The moment these bums start misbehaving, throw them out quickly. They won't have the time to benefit from their misdeeds.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at June 29, 2015 03:32 PM (MYSVz)
----------------------------------------
We need term limits, and maybe elections 4x a year. The moment these bums start misbehaving, throw them out quickly. They won't have the time to benefit from their misdeeds.
Posted by: Hilldawg at June 29, 2015 03:36 PM (6qR/9)
201
Posted by: Sort-of-Mad Max at June 29, 2015 03:30 PM (DLu2s)
___________
Wonder if we're going to see a lot of "accidents" in the near future for newly married gays over 65. Spousal survivor benefits and all.
___________
Wonder if we're going to see a lot of "accidents" in the near future for newly married gays over 65. Spousal survivor benefits and all.
Posted by: HUCK / AKIN 2016 at June 29, 2015 03:36 PM (0LHZx)
202
This decision makes it all better. We're good now. Thanks, guys.
Posted by: Weasel at June 29, 2015 03:37 PM (e3bId)
Posted by: Arson Wells at June 29, 2015 03:37 PM (UnJ7w)
204
At least we still have Nino.
As a former law student, I can vouch for the relief everyone, even the libs, felt when we were assigned a Scalia opinion.
O'Connor was perhaps the worst. Section I, Part 3, subsection vi, sub-subsection 24, etc. Oy.
Scalia is, for better or worse, maybe the best writer the SCOTUS has ever seen. He was terribly wrong on random sobriety checkpoints, but even then, he said what he had to say succinctly.
Posted by: Bob's House of Flannel Shirts and Wallet Chains at June 29, 2015 03:30 PM (vgIRn)
Heh. Further teasing for the so not super long nope nope and not at all yelly BC and I podcast.
We discuss in passing the joys of counting up actual votes on decisions and who dissented in part and concurred in part II of Section 47 of Subsection C and kill me now.
As a former law student, I can vouch for the relief everyone, even the libs, felt when we were assigned a Scalia opinion.
O'Connor was perhaps the worst. Section I, Part 3, subsection vi, sub-subsection 24, etc. Oy.
Scalia is, for better or worse, maybe the best writer the SCOTUS has ever seen. He was terribly wrong on random sobriety checkpoints, but even then, he said what he had to say succinctly.
Posted by: Bob's House of Flannel Shirts and Wallet Chains at June 29, 2015 03:30 PM (vgIRn)
Heh. Further teasing for the so not super long nope nope and not at all yelly BC and I podcast.
We discuss in passing the joys of counting up actual votes on decisions and who dissented in part and concurred in part II of Section 47 of Subsection C and kill me now.
Posted by: alexthechick at June 29, 2015 03:37 PM (mf5HN)
205
178 I'm guessing one of the big reasons for the push for gay marriage hasn't been covered much: spousal benefits for Social Security.
Posted by: Sort-of-Mad Max
I'll never understand why conservatives didn't bring this up regarding SS benefits, pensions, life insurance, etc.
Instead it was pretty weak arguments about child rearing
the amount of fraud you're going to see with this is going to be breathtaking
Posted by: Sort-of-Mad Max
I'll never understand why conservatives didn't bring this up regarding SS benefits, pensions, life insurance, etc.
Instead it was pretty weak arguments about child rearing
the amount of fraud you're going to see with this is going to be breathtaking
Posted by: McAdams at June 29, 2015 03:37 PM (4b2BH)
206
Roe v Wade. Another great judicial ruling.
Posted by: Cheri at June 29, 2015 03:37 PM (oiNtH)
207
>>How the hell do you find a right?
Dunno.
I would guess it helps to deny they're endowed by our Creator and that they instead come from government.
Dunno.
I would guess it helps to deny they're endowed by our Creator and that they instead come from government.
Posted by: Lizzy at June 29, 2015 03:37 PM (NOIQH)
208
When a motor shaft gets distorted and is too far out of balance, left unchecked it will destroy the motor. The relationship between the 3 branches of our govt is distorted, out of balance, and thus far unchecked, and we are watching it tear apart our nation.
Posted by: 1bulwetweft at June 29, 2015 03:37 PM (nqiq9)
209
"If we term limited Senators, we could say that the Judge loses their seat in the first Congress where none of the sitting Senators voted for them. They've lost the Mandate of Heaven, as it were. "
That's a really good idea. Although in practice would it change much? Some of these senators stay for 40 years.
That's a really good idea. Although in practice would it change much? Some of these senators stay for 40 years.
Posted by: HUCK / AKIN 2016 at June 29, 2015 03:37 PM (0LHZx)
210
. They won't have the time to benefit from their misdeeds.
Posted by: Hilldawg at June 29, 2015 03:36 PM (6qR/9)
Once they learn how to get their hand in the till, they're anathema to the rest of uscitizens serfs.
Posted by: Hilldawg at June 29, 2015 03:36 PM (6qR/9)
Once they learn how to get their hand in the till, they're anathema to the rest of us
Posted by: We got this covered! at June 29, 2015 03:38 PM (ftVQq)
211
Mmm. Ham radio.
Posted by: homer simpson at June 29, 2015 03:38 PM (kivUY)
212
Decree by Dartboard.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this sh1t at June 29, 2015 03:38 PM (eEb+d)
213
Wonder if we're going to see a lot of "accidents" in the near future for
newly married gays over 65. Spousal survivor benefits and all.
Tragic slip-and-fall in the shower bending over for the soap, resulting in multiple fractures to the head and spinal column, (plus a large dent in the tile) maybe?
newly married gays over 65. Spousal survivor benefits and all.
Tragic slip-and-fall in the shower bending over for the soap, resulting in multiple fractures to the head and spinal column, (plus a large dent in the tile) maybe?
Posted by: Sort-of-Mad Max at June 29, 2015 03:39 PM (DLu2s)
214
Most of these structural "fixes" to lawlessness will probably fail, absent an engaged citizenry electing and holding accountable a serious Congress and executive. Our whole system is not self-policing, only the people can keep it on track.
Posted by: rhomboid at June 29, 2015 03:39 PM (mDALH)
215
ACE: When the Apollo 13 Astronauts were in peril, NASA had one question. This should be homework for the hordes.
"Let's look at this thing from standpoint of status. What do we got on the spacecraft (America) that's good? "
"Let's look at this thing from standpoint of status. What do we got on the spacecraft (America) that's good? "
Posted by: pam at June 29, 2015 03:39 PM (EAZ7y)
216
Posted by: SH at June 29, 2015 03:25 PM (gmeXX)
Can't do that. Article III Section :
The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Posted by: SH at June 29, 2015 03:25 PM (gmeXX)
Can't do that. Article III Section :
The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Posted by: AZ Hi Desert (All my hate cannot be found) at June 29, 2015 03:39 PM (O9qtX)
217
I'll never understand why conservatives didn't bring this up regarding SS benefits, pensions, life insurance, etc.
Instead it was pretty weak arguments about child rearing
the amount of fraud you're going to see with this is going to be breathtaking
Posted by: McAdams at June 29, 2015 03:37 PM (4b2BH)
______________
The counter argument would have been "well plenty of straight people cheat the system, does that mean we don't allow anyone to get married?"
Instead it was pretty weak arguments about child rearing
the amount of fraud you're going to see with this is going to be breathtaking
Posted by: McAdams at June 29, 2015 03:37 PM (4b2BH)
______________
The counter argument would have been "well plenty of straight people cheat the system, does that mean we don't allow anyone to get married?"
Posted by: HUCK / AKIN 2016 at June 29, 2015 03:39 PM (0LHZx)
218
It's those black robes. We don't know what's under them, and we never will. They could all be going commando, you never know. Posted by: Sphynx at June 29, 2015 03:34 PM (OZmbA)
Isn't Natalie Portman going to play Ruth Bader in an upcoming biopic on her life? I think the project got stalled because Portman demanded a women director; sexist much? But maybe your query will be brought to life in the screenplay, hah.
And yes, I love that the film on Ruth Bader will probably be a tonguebath on her gloriousness, while the new movie about Anita Hill staring Kerry Washington will paint Thomas as an evil perv. Hollywood, they just can't help themselves, poor things.
Isn't Natalie Portman going to play Ruth Bader in an upcoming biopic on her life? I think the project got stalled because Portman demanded a women director; sexist much? But maybe your query will be brought to life in the screenplay, hah.
And yes, I love that the film on Ruth Bader will probably be a tonguebath on her gloriousness, while the new movie about Anita Hill staring Kerry Washington will paint Thomas as an evil perv. Hollywood, they just can't help themselves, poor things.
Posted by: LizLem, Flynn for the Win! at June 29, 2015 03:39 PM (hvf9s)
219
Dunno.
I would guess it helps to deny they're endowed by our Creator and that they instead come from government.
Posted by: Lizzy at June 29, 2015 03:37 PM (NOIQH)
Dingdingdingdingding!
The moment "Rights" cease being Natural Rights, and start being... well, anything else... you lose the Rights you actually had, and start making up these nonsensical non-rights.
I would guess it helps to deny they're endowed by our Creator and that they instead come from government.
Posted by: Lizzy at June 29, 2015 03:37 PM (NOIQH)
Dingdingdingdingding!
The moment "Rights" cease being Natural Rights, and start being... well, anything else... you lose the Rights you actually had, and start making up these nonsensical non-rights.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Not dead yet at June 29, 2015 03:39 PM (kff5f)
220
How does the left always manage to get reliable rubber stamp votes from their SC nominees for life?
Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2015 03:40 PM (sPO3u)
221
Again with that Sandra Fluke chick. Is this ever getting tiresome. See your gyno, bitch, don't complain to me!
Posted by: The Burning Bush at June 29, 2015 03:40 PM (kivUY)
222
Most of these structural "fixes" to lawlessness will probably fail, absent an engaged citizenry electing and holding accountable a serious Congress and executive. Our whole system is not self-policing, only the people can keep it on track.
-------
True, very true. The Constitution gives a lot of remedies to fix these problems. But Congress has long ago neutered itself.
We need a Congress that is willing to take political risk.
-------
True, very true. The Constitution gives a lot of remedies to fix these problems. But Congress has long ago neutered itself.
We need a Congress that is willing to take political risk.
Posted by: SH at June 29, 2015 03:41 PM (gmeXX)
223
>>If you check it out, there' a lot of bennies riding on marital status.
Rather suddenly a whole lot of people are going to be able to cash in
through gaymarriage.
Not a surprise as this was their stated goal: beyondmarriage.org
And they want these bennies for more than just SSM, they want all sorts of family configurations in on them.
Rather suddenly a whole lot of people are going to be able to cash in
through gaymarriage.
Not a surprise as this was their stated goal: beyondmarriage.org
And they want these bennies for more than just SSM, they want all sorts of family configurations in on them.
Posted by: Lizzy at June 29, 2015 03:41 PM (NOIQH)
224
How does the left always manage to get reliable rubber stamp votes from their SC nominees for life?
They're not hindered by that troublesome 'thinking' part of their job. Makes things much easier.
They're not hindered by that troublesome 'thinking' part of their job. Makes things much easier.
Posted by: Sort-of-Mad Max at June 29, 2015 03:41 PM (DLu2s)
225
http://tinyurl.com/p9jedpl
Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at June 29, 2015 03:35 PM
I need a cigarette after that.
Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at June 29, 2015 03:35 PM
I need a cigarette after that.
Posted by: RedMindBlueState at June 29, 2015 03:42 PM (h4vJk)
226
Finally. A small victory. Since 2006, the only political victories I've celebrated have been Walker the Barbarian's conquests in Wisconsin, and now this. The SCOTUSCare ruling of 2012 was a devastating gut punch, so last week's doses of judicial castor oil weren't much of a surprise. Republicans picking up congressional seats in 2010 & 2014 really did nothing to slow down the progressive onslaught of the last 10 years.
Even this victory is hollow. If you read the article that Ace linked, the EPA asshat basically chortles that the edict is 3 years old so that most plants are already on the way to compliance, so suck on that, you mouth-breathing cons. And someone else chimes in that overall this ruling "is a huge setback for our kids". Wah-wahhh. There's the Godwin law for Hitler invocation in online commentary; there needs to be an equivalent law for how quickly an environmentalist invokes "but what about the children?"
Even this victory is hollow. If you read the article that Ace linked, the EPA asshat basically chortles that the edict is 3 years old so that most plants are already on the way to compliance, so suck on that, you mouth-breathing cons. And someone else chimes in that overall this ruling "is a huge setback for our kids". Wah-wahhh. There's the Godwin law for Hitler invocation in online commentary; there needs to be an equivalent law for how quickly an environmentalist invokes "but what about the children?"
Posted by: Brass Bancroft at June 29, 2015 03:43 PM (hAFla)
227
Term limits on SCOTUS would require an amendment and if we are going to all that trouble I prefer my solution. Take appontiment away from Washington and give it to the individual States.
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at June 29, 2015 03:43 PM (GpgJl)
228
The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
-----
I thought there might be something about that in the Constitution. Three things.
1. That doesn't mean you have to raise them.
2. Reduce benefits and argue over benefits means compensation.
3. Reduce it all and see how the Court reacts.
-----
I thought there might be something about that in the Constitution. Three things.
1. That doesn't mean you have to raise them.
2. Reduce benefits and argue over benefits means compensation.
3. Reduce it all and see how the Court reacts.
Posted by: SH at June 29, 2015 03:43 PM (gmeXX)
229
"How does the left always manage to get reliable rubber stamp votes from their SC nominees for life?"
Their moral compass isn't attracted to the same thing that our moral compass is.
Their moral compass isn't attracted to the same thing that our moral compass is.
Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at June 29, 2015 03:44 PM (VPLuQ)
230
***"Instead it was pretty weak arguments about child rearing"***
Actually it was more about procreation and maintaining the society. The arguments were much stronger to a secular-minded opponent than a religious objection.
The Potential For Fraud argument will be easily pooh-poohed away.
You cannot make a rational argument for why the State should provide benefits to sanction homosexual couplings. That's why the majority's opinion read like a horoscope.
Actually it was more about procreation and maintaining the society. The arguments were much stronger to a secular-minded opponent than a religious objection.
The Potential For Fraud argument will be easily pooh-poohed away.
You cannot make a rational argument for why the State should provide benefits to sanction homosexual couplings. That's why the majority's opinion read like a horoscope.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 29, 2015 03:44 PM (xSCb6)
231
If the process is broken (and it is), then you get random, unpredictable output. Sometimes that output can be favorable, but mostly it's not. Don't draw to many deductions from the favorable output - it's still unpredictable and the process is STILL broken.
Posted by: 1bulwetweft at June 29, 2015 03:44 PM (nqiq9)
232
"How does the left always manage to get reliable rubber stamp votes from their SC nominees for life?"
-----
Their Senators are better than our Senators on the "advise and consent" role.
-----
Their Senators are better than our Senators on the "advise and consent" role.
Posted by: SH at June 29, 2015 03:44 PM (gmeXX)
233
How does the left always manage to get reliable rubber stamp votes from their SC nominees for life?
Blackmail.
You only nominate those you have the goods on.
Blackmail.
You only nominate those you have the goods on.
Posted by: rickb223 at June 29, 2015 03:45 PM (BKWpy)
234
Exactly, SH.
Posted by: rhomboid at June 29, 2015 03:45 PM (mDALH)
235
We should be packing, just not the court.
SWIDT?
Posted by: Arson Wells at June 29, 2015 03:25 PM (UnJ7w)
------------------------------------------------
Oh, all the time.
SWIDT?
Posted by: Arson Wells at June 29, 2015 03:25 PM (UnJ7w)
------------------------------------------------
Oh, all the time.
Posted by: Bawney Fwank at June 29, 2015 03:46 PM (6qR/9)
236
220
How does the left always manage to get reliable rubber stamp votes from their SC nominees for life?
Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2015 03:40 PM (sPO3u)
Because they always nominate known idealogs and there is no opposition party to shoot them down. When Republican nominate a conservative judge the Democrats block it. The Republicans have NEVER played Tit-For-Tat and we are seeing the results of that.
It is very simple.
How does the left always manage to get reliable rubber stamp votes from their SC nominees for life?
Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2015 03:40 PM (sPO3u)
Because they always nominate known idealogs and there is no opposition party to shoot them down. When Republican nominate a conservative judge the Democrats block it. The Republicans have NEVER played Tit-For-Tat and we are seeing the results of that.
It is very simple.
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at June 29, 2015 03:46 PM (GpgJl)
237
The most favorable interpretation I can come up with was that Roberts and Kennedy know just how brazenly horrible the so-called-logic of the SCOTUSCare decision is, and they couldn't let it stand as the last word on statutory interpretation of the term. So they took a case the EPA probably could/should have won prior to SCOTUSCare and made them lose it just to make the lesson of SCOTUSCare "some laws are special, don't read too much into our decisions on them."
And yes, that's the *most* charitable interpretation.
Scalia, clever man that he is, planted the seed for the overruling of the SCOTUSCare decision on page 9 of the EPA slip opinion: "Chevron allows agencies to choose among competing reasonable interpretations of a statute; it does not license interpretive gerrymanders under which an agency keeps parts of statutory context it likes while throwing away parts it does not."
And yes, that's the *most* charitable interpretation.
Scalia, clever man that he is, planted the seed for the overruling of the SCOTUSCare decision on page 9 of the EPA slip opinion: "Chevron allows agencies to choose among competing reasonable interpretations of a statute; it does not license interpretive gerrymanders under which an agency keeps parts of statutory context it likes while throwing away parts it does not."
Posted by: Sayyid at June 29, 2015 03:46 PM (7QDkc)
238
As far as the SS benfits, fraud, etc....I don't know how much of a factor that will be. MA has had SSM since 2004. Guess how many marriages occured between 2004 and 2012?
a) 2000
b) 22,000
c) 220,000
d) 2.2M
Time's up, pencils down.
Answer is 22,000. In 8 years. In a state with a population of 7 million.
And Between 2004 and 2006/7 a lot of those were from out of state since MA was one of the only states to allow SSM, and lots of couples went there to get married who coldn't do it in their home state.
So I'm not too worried about a huge rush of millions of gays getting married to get benefits.
a) 2000
b) 22,000
c) 220,000
d) 2.2M
Time's up, pencils down.
Answer is 22,000. In 8 years. In a state with a population of 7 million.
And Between 2004 and 2006/7 a lot of those were from out of state since MA was one of the only states to allow SSM, and lots of couples went there to get married who coldn't do it in their home state.
So I'm not too worried about a huge rush of millions of gays getting married to get benefits.
Posted by: HUCK / AKIN 2016 at June 29, 2015 03:46 PM (0LHZx)
239
>>Apparently they would: Barky talked shit about them all the previous week. They got on their knees like a drunk prom queen.
Hah.
Mitch I never get OFF of ours.
*hic*
Hah.
Mitch I never get OFF of ours.
*hic*
Posted by: John Boehner at June 29, 2015 03:47 PM (sQzB6)
240
The counter argument would have been "well plenty of straight people cheat the system, does that mean we don't allow anyone to get married?"
Posted by: HUCK / AKIN 2016
I know the argument, but people instinctively know that you're going to see a lot more fraud once you basically say states no longer have the power to decide who can get legally married
Gays make up something like 2% of the population, I wouldn't be surprised as people learn to work the system seeing far more than that percentage claiming same sex benefits
Posted by: HUCK / AKIN 2016
I know the argument, but people instinctively know that you're going to see a lot more fraud once you basically say states no longer have the power to decide who can get legally married
Gays make up something like 2% of the population, I wouldn't be surprised as people learn to work the system seeing far more than that percentage claiming same sex benefits
Posted by: McAdams at June 29, 2015 03:47 PM (4b2BH)
241
I'll never understand why conservatives didn't bring this up regarding SS benefits, pensions, life insurance, etc.
I used to point out it was about the free shit you can collect by being a member of a legally privileged class, and y'all just made fun of me for being ugly and unlovable.
I used to point out it was about the free shit you can collect by being a member of a legally privileged class, and y'all just made fun of me for being ugly and unlovable.
Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at June 29, 2015 03:47 PM (ZKzrr)
242
"If these motherf***ers want to be political... "
That means, "motherfuckers", right? Because "fuckers" can be written as, "f*ckers" when someone means, "fuckers". Not sure if their being "motherfuckers" has anything to do with that "fuckers" having three asterisks. Maybe. Seems like a lot of fucking asterisks.
That means, "motherfuckers", right? Because "fuckers" can be written as, "f*ckers" when someone means, "fuckers". Not sure if their being "motherfuckers" has anything to do with that "fuckers" having three asterisks. Maybe. Seems like a lot of fucking asterisks.
Posted by: Dang at June 29, 2015 03:48 PM (2oWD2)
243
If the process is broken (and it is), then you get random, unpredictable output. Sometimes that output can be favorable, but mostly it's not. Don't draw to many deductions from the favorable output - it's still unpredictable and the process is STILL broken.
It's not the process that's broken: it's the broken people processing it.
It's not the process that's broken: it's the broken people processing it.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this sh1t at June 29, 2015 03:49 PM (eEb+d)
244
And yes, I love that the film on Ruth Bader will probably be a tonguebath on her gloriousness, while the new movie about Anita Hill staring Kerry Washington will paint Thomas as an evil perv. Hollywood, they just can't help themselves, poor things.
Posted by: LizLem, Flynn for the Win
And these movies generally tank. The think that American Sniper's success was just a fluke? There is nothing more that I love is to see is Hollywood idiot"s lose their ass at the box office.
Posted by: LizLem, Flynn for the Win
And these movies generally tank. The think that American Sniper's success was just a fluke? There is nothing more that I love is to see is Hollywood idiot"s lose their ass at the box office.
Posted by: Cheri at June 29, 2015 03:49 PM (oiNtH)
245
238.
8 years ago the marriage license didn't mean much in terms of gov't benefits, the Defense of Marriage Act was still in place which cut off federal benefits on that basis
8 years ago the marriage license didn't mean much in terms of gov't benefits, the Defense of Marriage Act was still in place which cut off federal benefits on that basis
Posted by: McAdams at June 29, 2015 03:50 PM (4b2BH)
246
"The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. "
Good news guys.
The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision determined that "Shall not be diminished" was actually intended to read "May be diminished" by the original writers.
Good news guys.
The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision determined that "Shall not be diminished" was actually intended to read "May be diminished" by the original writers.
Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at June 29, 2015 03:50 PM (VPLuQ)
247
Wonder if we're going to see a lot of "accidents" in the near future for
newly married gays over 65. Spousal survivor benefits and all.
Tragic slip-and-fall in the shower bending over for the soap, resulting in multiple fractures to the head and spinal column, (plus a large dent in the tile) maybe?
Posted by: Sort-of-Mad Max at June 29, 2015 03:39 PM (DLu2s)
-----------------------------------
Domestic violence in lesbian relationships is about the same as in heterosexual relationships. Violence in gay men relationships is through the roof.
newly married gays over 65. Spousal survivor benefits and all.
Tragic slip-and-fall in the shower bending over for the soap, resulting in multiple fractures to the head and spinal column, (plus a large dent in the tile) maybe?
Posted by: Sort-of-Mad Max at June 29, 2015 03:39 PM (DLu2s)
-----------------------------------
Domestic violence in lesbian relationships is about the same as in heterosexual relationships. Violence in gay men relationships is through the roof.
Posted by: Bawney Fwank at June 29, 2015 03:50 PM (6qR/9)
248
>>Gays make up something like 2% of the population, I wouldn't be
surprised as people learn to work the system seeing far more than that
percentage claiming same sex benefits
IIRC, many employers/federal gov't started giving benefits to domestic partners (no marriage required) - not sure if that will be revised or if it already has.
This is going to effect a lot of areas, including Obama already allowing same-sex partners to emigrate, marry to become Americans, etc.
surprised as people learn to work the system seeing far more than that
percentage claiming same sex benefits
IIRC, many employers/federal gov't started giving benefits to domestic partners (no marriage required) - not sure if that will be revised or if it already has.
This is going to effect a lot of areas, including Obama already allowing same-sex partners to emigrate, marry to become Americans, etc.
Posted by: Lizzy at June 29, 2015 03:50 PM (NOIQH)
249
Its that they were not 'reasonable' in how they came up with their decision.
Yeah, uh....be more reasonable and lie better next time, k?
Yeah, uh....be more reasonable and lie better next time, k?
Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Staring at the Lake in the rain at June 29, 2015 03:51 PM (CFcIt)
250
The founders gave the people a way to save themselves - Congress. If you look at the Constitution, Congress is really the superior branch with the impeachment power and the power of the purse. But Congress doesn't use those powers and it gave away its primary role as law writer. So here we are.
We can blame the system. But the people have spoken.
We can blame the system. But the people have spoken.
Posted by: SH at June 29, 2015 03:51 PM (gmeXX)
251
What would be great about my concerns about the added payouts from Social Security would be getting the answer from the feds that, 'Nah, we ran the numbers; the amount of people affected by benefits from gaymarriage is so small it doesn't even register.'
'But it was totally worth unilaterally upending society for this miniscule group, hater!'
'But it was totally worth unilaterally upending society for this miniscule group, hater!'
Posted by: Sort-of-Mad Max at June 29, 2015 03:52 PM (DLu2s)
252
If we are going to vote on them, we might as well do away with the court and just have 2 branches. Plus, what makes anyone think the GOP could win those elections, or even if they did, that the SCOTUS GOP would do any different than a GOP Congress?
Posted by: FishUnderTheSea at June 29, 2015 03:52 PM (rtZ6u)
253
248.
It's going to take a while for the Free Shit Army to figure it out.
I'm sure when Federal Housing first became available, everyone that was eligible didn't go get their free house to live in it all at once.
It's going to take a while for the Free Shit Army to figure it out.
I'm sure when Federal Housing first became available, everyone that was eligible didn't go get their free house to live in it all at once.
Posted by: McAdams at June 29, 2015 03:53 PM (4b2BH)
254
>>And these movies generally tank. The think that American Sniper's
success was just a fluke? There is nothing more that I love is to see
is Hollywood idiot"s lose their ass at the box office.
And yet....they are rewarded in other ways, such as with all kinds of awards and played in high rotation on the movie channels, slowly indoctrinating the LIVs.
success was just a fluke? There is nothing more that I love is to see
is Hollywood idiot"s lose their ass at the box office.
And yet....they are rewarded in other ways, such as with all kinds of awards and played in high rotation on the movie channels, slowly indoctrinating the LIVs.
Posted by: Lizzy at June 29, 2015 03:53 PM (NOIQH)
255
You only nominate those you have the goods on. Posted by: rickb223 at June 29, 2015 03:45 PM (BKWpy)
Like in House of Cards, Francis Underwood helps Peter Russo out of a jam so he has a convenient stooge when need be. Then puts him forward as Senator as part of the turning gears of his revenge scheme.
But (SPOILER) eventually that stooge gets uppity and you have to bump him off by faking a suicide. Politics are so messy!
Like in House of Cards, Francis Underwood helps Peter Russo out of a jam so he has a convenient stooge when need be. Then puts him forward as Senator as part of the turning gears of his revenge scheme.
But (SPOILER) eventually that stooge gets uppity and you have to bump him off by faking a suicide. Politics are so messy!
Posted by: LizLem, Flynn for the Win! at June 29, 2015 03:54 PM (hvf9s)
256
Violence in gay men relationships is through the roof.
Posted by: Bawney Fwank
Very true. In many cases not only violent but not exactly monogamous.
Posted by: Bawney Fwank
Very true. In many cases not only violent but not exactly monogamous.
Posted by: Cheri at June 29, 2015 03:54 PM (oiNtH)
257
And word has just come in that the M'fin supreme court has just blocked Texas from enacting our pro-life laws.
Posted by: Lauren at June 29, 2015 03:54 PM (MYCIw)
258
I know the argument, but people instinctively know that you're going to see a lot more fraud once you basically say states no longer have the power to decide who can get legally married
Gays make up something like 2% of the population, I wouldn't be surprised as people learn to work the system seeing far more than that percentage claiming same sex benefits
Posted by: McAdams at June 29, 2015 03:47 PM (4b2BH)
___________
But the same could be said about anyone. There are people who cheat the system. Some are gay, some are straight. Gays who want to scam the system, could easily do it by getting "married" to a woman as well. Hell look at immigration marriages, they're pretty much all shams.
Gays make up something like 2% of the population, I wouldn't be surprised as people learn to work the system seeing far more than that percentage claiming same sex benefits
Posted by: McAdams at June 29, 2015 03:47 PM (4b2BH)
___________
But the same could be said about anyone. There are people who cheat the system. Some are gay, some are straight. Gays who want to scam the system, could easily do it by getting "married" to a woman as well. Hell look at immigration marriages, they're pretty much all shams.
Posted by: HUCK / AKIN 2016 at June 29, 2015 03:54 PM (0LHZx)
259
" "I know a lot of pretty level headed people that are thinking along the same lines. it's not just guys in trailers with Ham radios."
Whoa, when did a technician's license brand you with the mark of Cain? "
Let alone a Novice, General, Advanced, or Extra .... I'm
wondering the same thing.
Whoa, when did a technician's license brand you with the mark of Cain? "
Let alone a Novice, General, Advanced, or Extra .... I'm
wondering the same thing.
Posted by: sock_rat_eez, still recovering from Field Day at June 29, 2015 03:54 PM (OCcU9)
260
It is very simple.
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at June 29, 2015 03:46 PM (GpgJl)
Times a fucking million
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at June 29, 2015 03:46 PM (GpgJl)
Times a fucking million
Posted by: Velvet Ambition greatest thing since before sliced bread at June 29, 2015 03:54 PM (R8hU8)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 29, 2015 03:54 PM (wq4B0)
262
254 Another thing I notice,all kinds of left wing shit is always "Popular on YouTube".John Oliver clips,Jon Stewart clips etc.After Friday tos of ghey shit,including Obama's statement.
Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2015 03:54 PM (sPO3u)
263
How does the left always manage to get reliable rubber stamp votes from their SC nominees for life?
Blackmail.
You only nominate those you have the goods on.
Posted by: rickb223 at June 29, 2015 03:45 PM (BKWpy)
Nah, people like Kagan, Sotomayor and Buzzy-Ginsberg are true believers that's why they got nominated. They're political hacks dressed up as judges.
Blackmail.
You only nominate those you have the goods on.
Posted by: rickb223 at June 29, 2015 03:45 PM (BKWpy)
Nah, people like Kagan, Sotomayor and Buzzy-Ginsberg are true believers that's why they got nominated. They're political hacks dressed up as judges.
Posted by: TheQuietMan at June 29, 2015 03:54 PM (493sH)
264
Posted by: SH at June 29, 2015 03:51 PM (gmeXX)
The Constitution is fine. When the 17th amendment was passed taking representation of the state legislators away is when the problem began. Senators are only beholden to their party and lobbyists.
The Constitution is fine. When the 17th amendment was passed taking representation of the state legislators away is when the problem began. Senators are only beholden to their party and lobbyists.
Posted by: Arson Wells at June 29, 2015 03:56 PM (UnJ7w)
265
I'm really annoyed by a bunch of Greek freeloaders are effing up my stock portfolio today. And I don't even own stock in ladie's moustaches, unibrows or body odor.
Posted by: Dang at June 29, 2015 03:56 PM (2oWD2)
266
"But the same could be said about anyone. There are people who cheat the system. Some are gay, some are straight. Gays who want to scam the system, could easily do it by getting "married" to a woman as well. Hell look at immigration marriages, they're pretty much all shams."
I'm beginning to suspect that Moo Moo has more then one BamaPhone.
I'm beginning to suspect that Moo Moo has more then one BamaPhone.
Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at June 29, 2015 03:57 PM (VPLuQ)
Posted by: wrg500 at June 29, 2015 03:57 PM (kQBSd)
268
Ah hell, I forgot all about that 'Defense of Marriage act". What ever happened to that. Didn't pass or something. No wait, Obama said he wouldn't enforce it.
So the Supreme Court just nullified the Defense of Marriage law? That whole thing is out the window now, right?
So the Supreme Court just nullified the Defense of Marriage law? That whole thing is out the window now, right?
Posted by: Khalid el Browncowski at June 29, 2015 03:58 PM (zGQ5T)
269
"I'm beginning to suspect that Moo Moo has more then one BamaPhone."
He could buy all the BamaPhones in the world with the money he makes before 9AM, you jerk!
He could buy all the BamaPhones in the world with the money he makes before 9AM, you jerk!
Posted by: Lauren at June 29, 2015 03:58 PM (MYCIw)
270
And word has just come in that the M'fin supreme court has just blocked Texas from enacting our pro-life laws.
Posted by: Lauren
I'm thinking that may have been expected while the baby killers work on their appeal. It happens. But what the fuck do I know?
Posted by: Lauren
I'm thinking that may have been expected while the baby killers work on their appeal. It happens. But what the fuck do I know?
Posted by: Dang at June 29, 2015 03:59 PM (2oWD2)
271
I would love to see a state (Texas!!) that just tells the Feds to sod off. Force the hand of the federal govt. What will they do? Have the TX National Guard raid the capitol?
Posted by: Cheri at June 29, 2015 03:59 PM (oiNtH)
272
Ah hell, I forgot all about that 'Defense of Marriage act". What ever happened to that. Didn't pass or something. No wait, Obama said he wouldn't enforce it.
So the Supreme Court just nullified the Defense of Marriage law? That whole thing is out the window now, right?
Posted by: Khalid el Browncowski at June 29, 2015 03:58 PM (zGQ5T)
Funny how Barry only follows laws he wants to. But no imperial presidency here.
So the Supreme Court just nullified the Defense of Marriage law? That whole thing is out the window now, right?
Posted by: Khalid el Browncowski at June 29, 2015 03:58 PM (zGQ5T)
Funny how Barry only follows laws he wants to. But no imperial presidency here.
Posted by: TheQuietMan at June 29, 2015 03:59 PM (493sH)
273
Ha! SCOTUS has no standing in the halls of this fine Bureaucracy!
We crap on the floor in your general direction.
Ha! SCOTUS has no standing in the halls of this fine Bureaucracy!
We crap on the floor in your general direction.
Posted by: EPA at June 29, 2015 03:59 PM (ODxAs)
274
But the same could be said about anyone. There are people who cheat the system. Some are gay, some are straight. Gays who want to scam the system, could easily do it by getting "married" to a woman as well. Hell look at immigration marriages, they're pretty much all shams.
Posted by: HUCK / AKIN 2016
But you've opened up the avenues of fraud to more people. At least before you had to find a willing female and male to pull this scam. Now just any two friends can hook each other up with lifetime benefits
I really have ZERO doubt there will be more sham marriages with SSM on the books.
If there's one silver lining, I do see a huge reforms though in antiquated concepts like alimony over the coming decade
Posted by: HUCK / AKIN 2016
But you've opened up the avenues of fraud to more people. At least before you had to find a willing female and male to pull this scam. Now just any two friends can hook each other up with lifetime benefits
I really have ZERO doubt there will be more sham marriages with SSM on the books.
If there's one silver lining, I do see a huge reforms though in antiquated concepts like alimony over the coming decade
Posted by: McAdams at June 29, 2015 04:00 PM (4b2BH)
275
And word has just come in that the M'fin supreme court has just blocked Texas from enacting our pro-life laws.
Posted by: Lauren at June 29, 2015 03:54 PM (MYCIw)
The f*ck?
Posted by: Lauren at June 29, 2015 03:54 PM (MYCIw)
The f*ck?
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Not dead yet at June 29, 2015 04:01 PM (kff5f)
276
And word has just come in that the M'fin supreme court has just blocked Texas from enacting our pro-life laws.
Posted by: Lauren at June 29, 2015 03:54 PM
The Supreme Court has made its decision, etc...
Posted by: Lauren at June 29, 2015 03:54 PM
The Supreme Court has made its decision, etc...
Posted by: RedMindBlueState at June 29, 2015 04:01 PM (h4vJk)
Posted by: Khalid el Browncowski at June 29, 2015 04:01 PM (zGQ5T)
278
I'm really annoyed by a bunch of Greek freeloaders
are effing up my stock portfolio today. And I don't even own stock in
ladie's moustaches, unibrows or body odor. Posted by: Dang at June 29, 2015 03:56 PM (2oWD2)
Heh.
I was gonna legitimately ask the Horde today about portfolios. Part of my retirement investments are tied to international stocks; not a huge part but enough I'm worried about it. I don't have to worry about retiring for another thirty years at least; with the way the govmint is acting could be more like forty, sigh. Should I just sit tight and leave everything be, ride out the EU crazy, or should I try to move some of that investment to something more stable? What will lose me less money?
are effing up my stock portfolio today. And I don't even own stock in
ladie's moustaches, unibrows or body odor. Posted by: Dang at June 29, 2015 03:56 PM (2oWD2)
Heh.
I was gonna legitimately ask the Horde today about portfolios. Part of my retirement investments are tied to international stocks; not a huge part but enough I'm worried about it. I don't have to worry about retiring for another thirty years at least; with the way the govmint is acting could be more like forty, sigh. Should I just sit tight and leave everything be, ride out the EU crazy, or should I try to move some of that investment to something more stable? What will lose me less money?
Posted by: LizLem, Flynn for the Win! at June 29, 2015 04:02 PM (hvf9s)
279
And word has just come in that the M'fin supreme court has just blocked Texas from enacting our pro-life laws.
Posted by: Lauren at June 29, 2015 03:54 PM (MYCIw)
The f*ck?
Gov. Abbot's response - Blow me.
Posted by: Lauren at June 29, 2015 03:54 PM (MYCIw)
The f*ck?
Gov. Abbot's response - Blow me.
Posted by: Cheri at June 29, 2015 04:02 PM (oiNtH)
280
Posted by: Dang at June 29, 2015 03:56 PM (2oWD2)
You should of gone long on lube.
Posted by: wrg500
My broker recommended glory holes and knee pads to offset my losses.
You should of gone long on lube.
Posted by: wrg500
My broker recommended glory holes and knee pads to offset my losses.
Posted by: Dang at June 29, 2015 04:02 PM (2oWD2)
281
Gov. Abbot's response - Blow me.
Posted by: Cheri at June 29, 2015 04:02 PM
I hope he at least did the polite thing and preceded it with "But first...."
Posted by: Cheri at June 29, 2015 04:02 PM
I hope he at least did the polite thing and preceded it with "But first...."
Posted by: RedMindBlueState at June 29, 2015 04:03 PM (h4vJk)
282
Who gets custody of the children of a same sex marriage when it goes to divorce court?
Posted by: Khalid el Browncowski
Who knows. Rosie O'Big Mouth is in a battle royale with her former over the kids. Her ex says that she's a boozer and pothead. Makes sense.
Posted by: Khalid el Browncowski
Who knows. Rosie O'Big Mouth is in a battle royale with her former over the kids. Her ex says that she's a boozer and pothead. Makes sense.
Posted by: Cheri at June 29, 2015 04:03 PM (oiNtH)
283
Who gets custody of the children of a same sex marriage when it goes to divorce court?
Posted by: Khalid el Browncowski at June 29, 2015 04:01 PM (zGQ5T)
How does the judge know who is the "man of the house" so he can be screwed by the family court rules?
Posted by: Khalid el Browncowski at June 29, 2015 04:01 PM (zGQ5T)
How does the judge know who is the "man of the house" so he can be screwed by the family court rules?
Posted by: Hrothgar at June 29, 2015 04:03 PM (ftVQq)
284
But (SPOILER) eventually that stooge gets uppity and you have to bump him off by faking a suicide.
And every other mark gets his heart right.
And every other mark gets his heart right.
Posted by: rickb223 at June 29, 2015 04:04 PM (BKWpy)
285
Definitely a run on "new" ammo right now. Even my .40 is a little iffy.
Posted by: Chupacabras
Pure coincidence.
Posted by: Chupacabras
Pure coincidence.
Posted by: Moderate Salami at June 29, 2015 04:04 PM (/Ho8c)
286
nood
Posted by: rickb223 at June 29, 2015 04:05 PM (BKWpy)
287
"I would love to see a state (Texas!!) that just tells the Feds to sod off. Force the hand of the federal govt. What will they do? Have the TX National Guard raid the capitol?"
It's all good.
Feds said that marijuana sales were illegal nationwide.
Colorado told the Feds to Fcuk off, and allowed sales total place.
Nothing happened to them, so I'm guessing Texas would follow the same path with Gay Marriage, and be left alone.
Right?
It's all good.
Feds said that marijuana sales were illegal nationwide.
Colorado told the Feds to Fcuk off, and allowed sales total place.
Nothing happened to them, so I'm guessing Texas would follow the same path with Gay Marriage, and be left alone.
Right?
Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at June 29, 2015 04:05 PM (VPLuQ)
288
So, there is another run on ammo going on?
Posted by: wrg500 at June 29, 2015 04:06 PM (kQBSd)
289
VIA, also see the DOMA ruling, wherein SCOTUS
majority striking it down noted that marriage issues have always been
handled by the states. Same people who just made sweeping change in the
very definition of marriage.
Posted by: rhomboid at June 29, 2015 03:30 PM (mDALH)
Thanks for reminding me. Now I'm REALLY pissed off.
majority striking it down noted that marriage issues have always been
handled by the states. Same people who just made sweeping change in the
very definition of marriage.
Posted by: rhomboid at June 29, 2015 03:30 PM (mDALH)
Thanks for reminding me. Now I'm REALLY pissed off.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 29, 2015 04:06 PM (oKE6c)
Posted by: Hrothgar at June 29, 2015 04:06 PM (ftVQq)
291
What will lose me less money?
Posted by: LizLem, Flynn for the Win!
The euro is a house of cards. Like having a sled dog team with a huskie, a chihuahua and a cat. Eventually the huskie will get mad at the chihuahua and the cat will just sit on the sled. Eff 'em all.
Posted by: LizLem, Flynn for the Win!
The euro is a house of cards. Like having a sled dog team with a huskie, a chihuahua and a cat. Eventually the huskie will get mad at the chihuahua and the cat will just sit on the sled. Eff 'em all.
Posted by: Dang at June 29, 2015 04:07 PM (2oWD2)
292
"Not showing on Drudge! Is this recent"
Yeah, past 15 minutes or so. They're blocking enacting the law until they decide if they're going to take the case or not.
Yeah, past 15 minutes or so. They're blocking enacting the law until they decide if they're going to take the case or not.
Posted by: Lauren at June 29, 2015 04:10 PM (MYCIw)
293
They did not block TX from enacting the law. They over-road the appeals court that had refused a stay until they issued a ruling on the law which is ALREADY in place. SCOTUS issued a stay instead.
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at June 29, 2015 04:11 PM (GpgJl)
294
Fox has a red flag alert w/link.
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at June 29, 2015 04:12 PM (GpgJl)
295
1. That doesn't mean you have to raise them.
2. Reduce benefits and argue over benefits means compensation.
3. Reduce it all and see how the Court reacts.
Confiscatory surtax on all members of the bar. If justices leave the bar, automatic impeachment.
2. Reduce benefits and argue over benefits means compensation.
3. Reduce it all and see how the Court reacts.
Confiscatory surtax on all members of the bar. If justices leave the bar, automatic impeachment.
Posted by: AmishDude at June 29, 2015 04:14 PM (b65cm)
296
nood ace for stay
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at June 29, 2015 04:15 PM (GpgJl)
297
"EPA strayed well beyond the bounds of reasonable interpretation in concluding that cost is not a factor relevant to the appropriateness of regulating power plants."
... did this affect a "protect group" or something
... did this affect a "protect group" or something
Posted by: President Asshole Obama at June 29, 2015 04:20 PM (e8kgV)
298
178 I'm guessing one of the big reasons for the push for gay marriage hasn't been covered much: spousal benefits for Social Security.
As you've probably noticed, a lot of those 'loving couples' getting gaymarried are rather long in the tooth. And, unless you're rolling up on retirement age (like I am), you may not be aware that Social Security hands out a lot of money to 'spouses' collecting benefits exclusive of their own. Guess who's now eligible for this cash with gaymarriage?
If you check it out, there' a lot of bennies riding on marital status. Rather suddenly a whole lot of people are going to be able to cash in through gaymarriage.
And, how is this going to affect the looming bankruptcy of the whole Social Security pyramid?
My rather solid hunch is, not very well.
I'm sure I'm a hater for pointing out the math involved.
Posted by: Sort-of-Mad Max at June 29, 2015 03:30 PM (DLu2s)
And here I figured it was for all the jailhouse marriages that would inevitably occur (you cannot be compelled to testify against your spouse.....so, why not marry your collaborator?).
As you've probably noticed, a lot of those 'loving couples' getting gaymarried are rather long in the tooth. And, unless you're rolling up on retirement age (like I am), you may not be aware that Social Security hands out a lot of money to 'spouses' collecting benefits exclusive of their own. Guess who's now eligible for this cash with gaymarriage?
If you check it out, there' a lot of bennies riding on marital status. Rather suddenly a whole lot of people are going to be able to cash in through gaymarriage.
And, how is this going to affect the looming bankruptcy of the whole Social Security pyramid?
My rather solid hunch is, not very well.
I'm sure I'm a hater for pointing out the math involved.
Posted by: Sort-of-Mad Max at June 29, 2015 03:30 PM (DLu2s)
And here I figured it was for all the jailhouse marriages that would inevitably occur (you cannot be compelled to testify against your spouse.....so, why not marry your collaborator?).
Posted by: cthulhu at June 29, 2015 04:21 PM (EzgxV)
299
Once again, the left has that 4 man/womyn voting bloc to rely on.
In this vein, ace, look up TWANLOC by commenter with the nom de plumme Subotai Bahadur at the Richard Fernandez' Belmont Club. You'll identify with him, I think, and enjoy his take, I think more.
In this vein, ace, look up TWANLOC by commenter with the nom de plumme Subotai Bahadur at the Richard Fernandez' Belmont Club. You'll identify with him, I think, and enjoy his take, I think more.
Posted by: John Doe@AnotherQuidam at June 29, 2015 06:14 PM (g1MTt)
300
Where else can I read a blog where the SCOTUS is rightfully called "M-Fers"? One of the many reasons I come to Ace everyday.
Posted by: Aslan's Girl at June 29, 2015 06:21 PM (xetep)
Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.0397 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0141 seconds, 309 records returned.
Page size 167 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.
MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Real Clear Politics
Gallup
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Primary Document: The Audio
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Top Top Tens
Democratic Forays into Erotica
New Shows On Gore's DNC/MTV Network
Nicknames for Potatoes, By People Who Really Hate Potatoes
Star Wars Euphemisms for Self-Abuse
Signs You're at an Iraqi "Wedding Party"
Signs Your Clown Has Gone Bad
Signs That You, Geroge Michael, Should Probably Just Give It Up
Signs of Hip-Hop Influence on John Kerry
NYT Headlines Spinning Bush's Jobs Boom
Things People Are More Likely to Say Than "Did You Hear What Al Franken Said Yesterday?"
Signs that Paul Krugman Has Lost His Frickin' Mind
All-Time Best NBA Players, According to Senator Robert Byrd
Other Bad Things About the Jews, According to the Koran
Signs That David Letterman Just Doesn't Care Anymore
Examples of Bob Kerrey's Insufferable Racial Jackassery
Signs Andy Rooney Is Going Senile
Other Judgments Dick Clarke Made About Condi Rice Based on Her Appearance
Collective Names for Groups of People
John Kerry's Other Vietnam Super-Pets
Cool Things About the XM8 Assault Rifle
Media-Approved Facts About the Democrat Spy
Changes to Make Christianity More "Inclusive"
Secret John Kerry Senatorial Accomplishments
John Edwards Campaign Excuses
John Kerry Pick-Up Lines
Changes Liberal Senator George Michell Will Make at Disney
Torments in Dog-Hell
Greatest Hitjobs
The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat