I just hired a law firm for my own victimization by Spike Lee. My victimization was the film Bamboozled.

I have scars in my eyeballs.

"At this point, they have retained us to protect their interests" and their safety, attorney Matt Morgan said of Elaine and David McClain, an elderly Sanford-area couple in their 70s.

...

"At this point, they've had to move out of their home and their lives have been upended," Morgan said.

Morgan declined Wednesday to discuss any possible future litigation on the couple's behalf....

"The first thing they're hoping for is an apology and a retraction by Spike Lee," Morgan said...

The First Thing

This one's a bargain. The other things might be more expensive.

Via @DanRiehl, @keithboykin, and @caldodge.

Wow: MSNBC's quote (safe link to Breitbart):

“This guy looks like he’s up to no good … he looks black,” Zimmerman told a police dispatcher...

The actual quote, in context:

ZIMMERMAN: This guy looks like he's up to no good, [begin ellipsis] or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.

911 DISPATCHER: Okay, is this guy, is he white, black, or Hispanic? [end ellipsis]

ZIMMERMAN: He looks black.

Thanks to @rdbrewer4.

Update: Lead Investigator Did Not Believe Zimmerman's Story; Recommended Warrant For Arrest For Manslaughter. More facts.

ABC News said that lead investigator Chris Serino said he "disbelieved" Zimmerman's testimony and recommended in an affidavit that he be arrested for manslaughter.

State Attorney Norm Wolfinger "held off pending further review" Zimmerman's arrest, according to the Miami Herald.

On March 12, police gave the case to Wolfinger, and he told the Sanford police they needed more evidence to arrest Zimmerman, said CBS News.

Posted by: Ace at 02:19 PM | Comments (209)
Post contains 315 words, total size 3 kb.

So this is okay, right? Because she's a "public" person or something?

While Democratic femme-a-gogues continue their plaintive wailing about a “war on women,” Kleefisch has battled vile misogyny from liberal detractors. When lefty Wisconsin radio host John “Sly” Sylvester accused Kleefisch of performing “fellatio on all the talk-show hosts in Milwaukee” and sneered that she had “pulled a train” (a crude phrase for gang sex), feminists remained silent. A former television anchor, small businesswoman and mother of two, Kleefisch’s quiet work on economic development has reaped untold dividends for the state. But if conservatives who preach the gospel of fiscal conservatism do not act, the profligate progressives’ vendetta against Wisconsin may result in the first-ever recall of a lieutenant governor in American history.

Kleefisch is also a recall target.

From Nolte at Breitbart.

Posted by: Ace at 02:13 PM | Comments (30)
Post contains 158 words, total size 1 kb.

Joe Biden, one of the dumbest people to ever hold an office often reserved for dummies.

“So let me say it again: Thank you, Terry, and thank you, Dr. Pepper, and thank you, Chancellor — Dr. Paper — and thank you, Chancellor, for this partnership of yours. You are one of the reasons why — you’re literally one of the reasons why American companies are now insourcing instead of outsourcing,” he said.

Posted by: Ace at 01:54 PM | Comments (123)
Post contains 96 words, total size 1 kb.

Talkin' 'bout health and the whole "Let's Move" thing.

Not as a contestant.

Next Tuesday, they'll tease the segment, and I guess talk up how awesome Let's Move! is, and the Tuesday following that they'll visit her. And I guess work out. And plant some brussel sprouts.

via @museisluse

Posted by: Ace at 01:07 PM | Comments (214)
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.

Here.

Transcript here.

Trying to figure out which of the liberal justices I hate most. I think it's between Breyer and Kagan, though Sotomayor is really showing me something.

Kagan claims that the federal government's "offer of boatloads" of money is obviously not coercive -- they're "offering" "boatloads" of money.

When Clement objects that they're offering their own money back to states, the liberal justices chuckle.

They really do seem to believe in the concept of "free money." When Clement argues this money isn't free -- no money is -- they just can't wrap their minds around it.

Posted by: Ace at 12:36 PM | Comments (198)
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.

This is cool beans. The Sand Flea is designed for scouting the enemy.

How to ascend heights? I guess simply jumping turned out to be more effective than other methods.

Supposedly...

In the hands of a capable operator, it is reportedly accurate enough to jump through a second-story window.

Gotta watch the video. Very neat stuff. more...

Posted by: Ace at 12:17 PM | Comments (91)
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.

If ObamaCare fails they'll do that; if ObamaCare stands they'll do that.

Either way. Government control, baby.

But I guess this is a threat or something.

If Democrats make little progress on alternatives, some purists might decide itÂ’s best to just renew the case for a single-payer system in which all Americans receive health care paid for by the government.

Sidney M. Wolfe, the director of the Health Research Group at Public Citizen, an advocacy group, has been pushing for government-run health care for decades.

In an interview Tuesday, Mr. Wolfe said a ruling against the current law could help spark a renewed drive for a system that essentially expanded Medicare into a program for everyone, not just the elderly.

“If this is what happens, it may offer more incentive to say let’s decide once and for all that health care is a right,” Mr. Wolfe said. “It will certainly present an opportunity to a number of people.”

Yeah. That's likely. Having suffered a historic drubbing in 2010, and with ObamaCare as unpopular as ever, I totally believe your threat that if I don't let baby have his ObamaCare bottle, he'll just have to go Single Payer on my ass.

Posted by: Ace at 11:39 AM | Comments (227)
Post contains 226 words, total size 2 kb.

But.

Conservative justices pressed Obama's mouthpiece for a limiting principle to his assertion that the government could compel you to buy something.

The justices want the same thing regarding the ObamaCare's coercive mandates that states greatly expand Medicaid, on pain of losing all funds. They want a limiting principle there, a bright line where they can say on one side of it, the federal government is behaving appropriately, but on the other side of it, they are usurping states' prerogatives and powers in the federal system.

Or else surely the federal government can just do whatever it likes, right? And whatever we think about ObamaCare, we know, as a foundational fact, that the American system of government is not premised on the idea that the federal government can do whatever it likes.

A common useful phrase in law is "But that proves too much." You have to be careful of that. If your suggested rule "proves too much" -- winds up resulting in unexpected or plainly-wrong situations, like "the federal government can do whatever it likes, really" -- your suggested rule can't possibly be correct. There has to be some corollary rule that would stop your main rule from reaching that absurd conclusion. And if you can't think of such a corollary rule, such a limiting principle, it casts doubt on the main rule you're pushing.

SCOTUSBlog reports:

So far in the [Solicitor General's] argument, significant pressure from the conservatives to acknowledge some line beyond which threats to funding are coercive. But no strong questions that this particular extension goes too far. So far, it looks safe.

Kind of a mix, there, obviously. On one hand, the Solicitor General can't offer up a limit to the power he's claiming to force states to do the federal government's bidding. On the other hand, no one is asserting (or asserting in the guise of a question) that this particular overreach is too much overreach.

Not sure how you would "ask" that "question" though. Seems if they're asking about a limiting principle, they're already entertaining the notion that this, too, goes too far.

Why This Is Important: If the justices also think this is unconstitutional, there's no possible way to keep the whole law alive.

One gaping hole in the side of a ship? Well, okay, I guess maybe you can bail and seal off that compartment.

Two gaping holes? Scuttle it.

Philip Klein, at the Court: Some Tough Questions, But He'd Be "Surprised" if Court Struck Down Law on This Basis. @philipaklein is reporting via tweet on the Medicaid discussion.

Here are his most recent tweets. They're in reverse order, so start at the bottom, you morons.

To clarify prior tweet, I'd be surprised if they struck down Medicaid expansion. Of course, it would be moot if they struck down whole law.

Kennedy on Medicaid expansion: "There is no real choice." [i.e., this is not a carrot from the government -- it's a pure command, on penalty of losing a huge amount of your own citizens' tax money. -- ace]

Scalia after Verrilli struggled to answer him: "I wouldn't think that would be a surprise question."

Scalia likened the Medicaid expansion to the fed gov't making states an offer they can't refuse.

Also, Scalia managed to make a Jack Benny joke and a Godfather reference in one line of questioning on Medicaid.

Alito and Scalia seemed most sympathetic to arg that Medicaid expansion was coercive. Kennedy expressed concerns, but harder to read.

On the other hand, Roberts said that states have been compromised since New Deal by dependence on federal money. (2/2)

On one hand, Roberts seemed concerned abt Medicaid expansion being coercive. (1/2)

Just got out of Medicaid args. Tough to say, but I'd be surprised if they struck it down.

Summary: Klein has now put his thoughts into a short report that you don't have to read from the bottom up.

Posted by: Ace at 10:41 AM | Comments (190)
Post contains 638 words, total size 4 kb.

If I were a c***s*cker, and advising that elderly couple that non-filmmaker Spike Lee endangered, I'd tell them to incur some costs.

Because you can't have a lawsuit without costs. For one thing, you have to be able to show the costs you incurred due to your tortfeasor's actions.

For another thing, it's going to be hard to sell a claim of emotional duress if you just chillax at home. Like, you claim you feared for your life, but then you sit home and watch Matlock, same as before.

So if I were a real c***s*cker, advising these folks -- I'm sorry, that's offensive, I meant Person of C***s*cking -- I would tell them "Go to a hotel and keep the receipt."

As they did already.

But I would also tell them -- just sayin' -- that they should contact a security company for an estimate on securing their home better, and should spend as much as they could afford there, too. At least change and improve the locks and add in a motion detector. At least do that.

Because if you can show actual financial injury, you can show a genuine case, and if you have a genuine case, well, then you can start talking about emotional distress and non-economic harm.

That's where the money is. You might think actual economic harm is where the money is. No, not usually, because we can readily estimate actual economic losses and, as far as a lawsuit goes, it's pretty cheap. If a guy making $150,000 per year is forced out of work for a year due to your actions, well, that's $150,000. That sucks, but it's hardly a jackpot for him, and it's not going to kill you.

Now when that guy pitches his $5 million pain and suffering claim, well, there's where you gulp.

So, if I were Person of C**ks**king, I would tell this elderly couple to take some trips to the doctor to make sure stress and fear aren't having bad effects on their health. I might also buy a gun.

And I'd keep the receipts. Sweet sweet little certificates of fear and suffering.

I would tell them to treat these expenses as investments. Investments that might pay off just grandly.

I would also tell them not to accept points in Spike Lee's next movie as a payoff, because he's a no-talent and no one sees his stupid college movies. Cash, baby.

Posted by: Ace at 10:09 AM | Comments (267)
Post contains 416 words, total size 2 kb.

Steven den Beste wonders if Obama's best possible outcome is to find that the mandate is unconstitutional, but the law could otherwise be upheld without it. That could actually destroy the private health insurance markets, because if insurers are required to insure everyone but there is no mandate, someone who just got into a car accident would sign up as he entered the operating room.

No one would have to carry insurance... except at the moment he needed it.

That would destroy the system and then maybe they could then try for what they really wanted, single-payer.

That said, the Administration argues that if the mandate falls, only one other provision of the law directly dependent on the mandate -- the guaranteed issue provision, that you must cover anyone who applies -- would have to go. If the mandate goes, the guaranteed issue goes. Or at least the Administration concedes that much.

Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler, on behalf of the Obama administration, was arguing that only the ban on pre-existing conditions and cap on the cost of policies should be turned down if the mandate was gone.

But the mandate is also a revenue-raising provision, and the bill's enormous funding relies on Mandate Money to be slightly less enormous.

Clement argued, however, that so many provisions of the law were so interconnected that if they got rid of all of them, they'd only be left will a hallowed out shell of a bill, which they never would have passed. He said it's called the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" and the mandate is a key to what makes it affordable.

Kennedy wonders if leaving this dying, hollowed-out animal on the side of the road wouldn't be inhumane. Maybe best to just shoot it in the head.

Justice Anthony Kennedy argued [that removing the mandate but trying to rescue what was left of the bill] could be seen as more "extreme" than simply striking down the whole law.

They're also considering the Medicaid expansion provision challenge today, something that doesn't get mentioned as much as the Mandate. The argument goes that by demanding states expand Medicaid, per the federal government's new diktat, on pain of losing all Medicaid funding (which states have paid for, via citizen's taxes), the federal government is essentially now just deputizing states to do as the federal government commands, and basically ends the federal system of governance. Because if the government can do this, it can just say, next week, "Lower all DUI intoxication levels to 0.02, or you'll lose all your Medicaid funding."

The rebuttal to this argument is that the government does this sort of thing all the time.

But it's a matter of degree. Usually the federal government offers carrots of money -- highway bill funding, etc. -- to work its will.

But with Medicaid, they'd simply be seizing all of a state's Medicaid money if the state didn't expand the program per the federal government's wishes. Sometimes a a matter of degree becomes determinative. For example, in "regulatory takings" cases, the courts allow that laws may restrict property rights without compensation so long as it's a 5% or 10% regulation here or there, but if you try to "take" the entirety of the use of the property by disallowing all building on it, then you owe that taxpayer his fair compensation.

There's a difference between "a little bit here and there" and "all of it."

A bit of a dark horse, but the argument always struck me as much, much stronger than it was being credited as.

Kennedy Continues Straddling The Fence: If parts of ObamaCare get struck down but not others, it would be up to Congress, of course, to do most of the job of repairing the bill into something functional. (Not good, of course, but functional.)

So it worries me that Kennedy, and even Scalia, are troubling themselves to think about what Congress may do in the event of a repeal.

Congress’s capacity to react in a sensible way also came into some question, particularly from Justice Scalia and, in a way, from Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, both of whom seemed to harbor doubts that the lawmakers would be up to the task of working out a new health care law if this one failed, either totally or partially. Scalia noted the problems in the filibuster-prone Senate. Kennedy wondered whether expecting Congress to perform was a reference to “the real Congress or the hypothetical Congress.”

Guys? it's real simple. It re-enters the legislative process. The same way it did when it had its corrupt birth.

If "nothing gets done," oh my god, we have to live with the same system we had for 50 years before.

I don't like the sort of implicit assumption here that the past Congress, controlled by Democrats, ought to have their permanent stamp on the country. That is, the justices seem to be fretting that their are new Congressmen who won't pass "comprehensive health care reform," so we better stick to what the old Congressmen did.

In Toto: This account makes it sound as if the five conservatives have already decided to not only knock down part of the law, but all of the law.

"One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto," said Justice Antonin Scalia.

Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an "extreme proposition" to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.

Meanwhile, the court's liberal justices argued for restraint. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court should do a "salvage job," not undertake a “wrecking operation." But she looked to be out-voted.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they shared the view of Scalia and Kennedy that the law should stand or fall in total. Along with Justice Clarence Thomas, they would have a majority to strike down the entire statute as unconstitutional.

One thing is that I don't trust liberals as far as prognostication. They haughtily dismissed these arguments previously, deciding to not even bother reading or considering the arguments. It would be 8-1 or 7-2 to uphold. These stupid conservatives. Don't they know they're so extreme that the more educated versions of them, on the Supreme Court, laugh at their silly ideas?

But now that that cockiness has been rubbished, they're overreacting the other way, assuming the whole law is gone. Their worlds are spinning, so their bearings are a little off.

(A commenter, whose name I forget, suggested something like that yesterday, and now, considering it, I agree.)

Posted by: Ace at 09:23 AM | Comments (215)
Post contains 1132 words, total size 7 kb.