March 01, 2010
— Purple Avenger If you can't win, change the rules, right? Its a tactic every little kid knows.
This may come as a surprise to some people, but the U.S. Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court...That opinion piece was printed in the Philadelphia Enquirer, a...Obama can give himself a fighting chance by changing the rules of the game, just as they were changed for other presidents in the 1800s. He should forget bipartisanship and work with congressional Democrats to name three new justices to the court to meet the challenges he faces.
It would be a tumultuous fight, but it would be for a change we could believe in.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at
06:52 AM
| Comments (189)
Post contains 136 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: President-in-exile Sarah Palin at March 01, 2010 06:57 AM (SgGTT)
Posted by: George Orwell at March 01, 2010 06:57 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: BlackOrchid at March 01, 2010 06:57 AM (SB0V2)
Let's see how much traction this gets on KOS and DU. Bet we haven't heard the last of this idea, stolen, like much of Obama's ideas, from Hugo!
Posted by: Kemp at March 01, 2010 06:57 AM (qvT/A)
Posted by: arhooley at March 01, 2010 06:58 AM (cFcLa)
Posted by: wiserbud at March 01, 2010 06:58 AM (wWwJR)
Posted by: FreakyBoy at March 01, 2010 06:58 AM (Q41Zh)
Posted by: Rocks at March 01, 2010 06:58 AM (Q1lie)
THE BACKLASH WAS HUGE. Obama would be an idiot to follow this moron's advice.
Heh. Has that imbecile shown any propensity at all for the keen eye required to read the obvious?
Posted by: maddogg at March 01, 2010 07:01 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: Tom Freidman at March 01, 2010 07:01 AM (D7/BU)
Consistency, it's a liberal's worst nightmare.
Posted by: taylork at March 01, 2010 07:01 AM (0Hn5w)
Posted by: Dave at March 01, 2010 07:01 AM (Hku6F)
And the fishwrap thinks that would get 60 Senate votes and more than half the House.
Has Pennsylvania become a "medical marihuana" state or something?
Posted by: J. Moses Browning at March 01, 2010 07:02 AM (b5s2f)
(Course, it didn't help that the Court backed down--well, one Justice anyway--and decided they loved, loved, loved this new socialism. You can't say had they continued to turn back the New Deal bullshit Crazy Frank wouldn't have kept pushing his court-packing scheme.)
Posted by: jimmuy at March 01, 2010 07:03 AM (xJzIj)
Posted by: Mortis at March 01, 2010 07:04 AM (QjuDE)
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at March 01, 2010 07:04 AM (SFRtJ)
Everything they accused Bush of was a wishlist. They don't object to fascism; they just want the power/perks for themselves.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at March 01, 2010 07:05 AM (mR7mk)
Posted by: TheQuietMan at March 01, 2010 07:06 AM (1Jaio)
Not only was FDR a better politician, he had multiple serious crises of the sort that makes Rahmbo swoon with opportunity. And he didn't get the expanded court done.
Though in fairness, FDR's gambit DID get Justice Roberts (Owen, not John) to change his votes against the New Deal and move us down the path to socialism that Obama is trying to complete.
That's what the Commie rag in Philly is missing - it would make more sense to try such a scheme if there were important challenges to Obama coming from the SCOTUS. But that's not where Obama has problems. In fact, it's about the ONLY place his agenda is NOT being actively torn apart. His biggest problem is the fact that even his own party realizes that his plans are anti-American and so won't rally behind him.
A 12 person SCOTUS won't help him - at all.
Posted by: Beta Phi at March 01, 2010 07:07 AM (fRnux)
Posted by: nickless at March 01, 2010 07:07 AM (MMC8r)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at March 01, 2010 07:08 AM (mHQ7T)
Posted by: FreakyBoy at March 01, 2010 07:08 AM (Q41Zh)
"I often like to ask college kids, except for the murder, bigotry, and genocide, what is it exactly about Nazism that you don't like? And they can't name anything. But, conservatives can come up with all sorts of stuff. They were socialists. They wanted free health care. They hated Christianity. They hated tradition. They were statists at the end of the day." -- Jonah Goldberg
Posted by: AmishDude at March 01, 2010 07:13 AM (T0NGe)
When FDR tried this it (supposedly) prompted a change in opinion on an important vote, and then helped save the new deal. Of course FDR was a lot more popular and powerful and he probably could have packed the court if he kept at it.
I wonder if bam bam thinks this is an option to pressure Kennedy into getting with the program?
Posted by: nine coconuts at March 01, 2010 07:13 AM (DHNp4)
to steal a joke, this proposal is lamer than FDR's legs.
Posted by: Ben at March 01, 2010 07:14 AM (wuv1c)
except for the murder, bigotry, and genocide,
What makes Jonas think that they don't like those parts too?
Posted by: wiserbud at March 01, 2010 07:15 AM (IHbof)
Posted by: Ben at March 01, 2010 07:15 AM (wuv1c)
Posted by: nine coconuts at March 01, 2010 07:16 AM (DHNp4)
I'm sure they'll give Barry a full and fair hearing.
Posted by: Little Miss Spellcheck at March 01, 2010 07:16 AM (xqhoO)
Posted by: Mal at March 01, 2010 07:16 AM (Z+qzA)
except for the murder, bigotry, and genocide,
What makes Jonas think that they don't like those parts too?
they don't like them because the wrong people were killed. See the Soviet Union, you never hear any complaints because the Soviets were smart enough to kill the people the far Left wants dead.
Posted by: Ben at March 01, 2010 07:16 AM (wuv1c)
Posted by: FreakyBoy at March 01, 2010 07:16 AM (Q41Zh)
Posted by: GarandFan at March 01, 2010 07:17 AM (6mwMs)
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at March 01, 2010 07:17 AM (I/MqP)
Posted by: SLow Joe Biden at March 01, 2010 07:18 AM (IHbof)
What on Earth makes Lefties think that Obama has a pair?
Seriously.
I'm not kidding.
Where and when has Obama exhibited any testicular fortitude?
Posted by: BumperStickerist at March 01, 2010 07:18 AM (ruzrP)
Posted by: Lt. Worf at March 01, 2010 07:20 AM (I/MqP)
Bush climbed into the cockpit of The Widowmaker and flew the motherfucker solo ... so low he could cook the hens in the barnyard.
Posted by: BumperStickerist at March 01, 2010 07:20 AM (ruzrP)
Posted by: Unclefacts, Summoner of Meteors, and buckets of scorn for the left at March 01, 2010 07:21 AM (erIg9)
Posted by: rawmuse at March 01, 2010 07:22 AM (VvG7g)
Posted by: rawmuse at March 01, 2010 11:22 AM (VvG7g)
pretty much this.
Posted by: Unclefacts, Summoner of Meteors, and buckets of scorn for the left at March 01, 2010 07:22 AM (erIg9)
Posted by: Hatchet Five at March 01, 2010 07:24 AM (yfa38)
Posted by: Redneck Klingon at March 01, 2010 07:24 AM (e8T35)
Posted by: Rocks at March 01, 2010 10:58 AM (Q1lie)
I hate skittles.
Posted by: Johnnyreb at March 01, 2010 07:26 AM (BuYeH)
Posted by: Techie at March 01, 2010 07:26 AM (ziPaE)
Posted by: The Highland Pipes at March 01, 2010 07:27 AM (xkHSZ)
they don't like them because the wrong people were killed.
I doubt they feel that way, deep down.
Posted by: wiserbud at March 01, 2010 07:27 AM (IHbof)
Wake me up when that happens.
Until then, this is just an other ill-informed post from the Daily Kos that happened to be parroted in a "news"paper.
Posted by: looking closely at March 01, 2010 07:28 AM (KNy97)
Posted by: FreakyBoy at March 01, 2010 07:28 AM (Q41Zh)
Posted by: robtron12 at March 01, 2010 07:29 AM (gue+Q)
43 Notice in the article how the retard writer claims Hugo Black as a liberal. The Ku Klux Klansman, Hugo Black.
Where's the contradiction, Cur?
Posted by: Truman North at March 01, 2010 07:30 AM (e8YaH)
Hey, he could give government broadband Internet access to everyone, too while he's at it!
Posted by: Pyrocles at March 01, 2010 07:30 AM (xzSvW)
Posted by: Chris R at March 01, 2010 07:30 AM (AO4qz)
Posted by: darii at March 01, 2010 07:34 AM (RdrW8)
Posted by: FDR at March 01, 2010 11:02 AM (+zo63)
FIFY
Posted by: Andrew Sullyvun at March 01, 2010 07:34 AM (Vu6sl)
Pathetic. The whole industry has blood on it's hands.
Posted by: Chris R at March 01, 2010 07:35 AM (AO4qz)
Where's the contradiction, Cur?
None whatsoever. I just found it amusing that he actually claimed Black as one of his own.
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at March 01, 2010 07:35 AM (I/MqP)
Scandi skier blames Olypmics for interfering with p0rn viewing.
Watching the olympics sure interfered with mine...
Posted by: Joy to the whirled at March 01, 2010 07:36 AM (WVBjj)
Posted by: Beppo at March 01, 2010 07:36 AM (Iixgl)
Posted by: Chris R at March 01, 2010 07:36 AM (AO4qz)
Posted by: slim at March 01, 2010 07:36 AM (yVt/g)
Obviously, not enough. Al Gore is still spouting off.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 01, 2010 07:38 AM (UwmFR)
they don't like them because the wrong people were killed.
I doubt they feel that way, deep down.
Yeah, Stalin wasn't real big on Jews, priests, Slavs, etc, either.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at March 01, 2010 07:39 AM (mR7mk)
Posted by: physics geek at March 01, 2010 07:40 AM (MT22W)
But it was Bush that was trying to impose a fascist dictatorship on America.Thank G-d we dodged that bullet.
Posted by: Mal at March 01, 2010 07:42 AM (Z+qzA)
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at March 01, 2010 07:42 AM (cpuvG)
Posted by: di butler at March 01, 2010 07:43 AM (S3xX1)
Who's to say this is just editorial hyperbole?
Obama is the first President to actively call out a SCOTUS ruling in the SOTU. It only took two decisions for FDR to try to pack his court.
We know this guy is far more impatient and thin-skinned than any of his predecessors.
Plus, nothing even shocks me with this guy anymore.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at March 01, 2010 07:44 AM (pLTLS)
I'm totally OK with people making the logical choice to permanently reduce their carbon dioxide emissions...but they don't get to make that choice for anyone else.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at March 01, 2010 07:45 AM (mR7mk)
Posted by: di butler at March 01, 2010 11:43 AM (S3xX1)
And these lefties claim it's not a religion. But it sure sounds like the makings of a cult.
Posted by: darii at March 01, 2010 07:46 AM (RdrW8)
It won't be long before the author updates with, "It was a joke! A silly, kooky joke! Hahaha, you guys don't know a joke when you see one? Huh?"
Posted by: Beppo at March 01, 2010 07:46 AM (Iixgl)
Posted by: MM at March 01, 2010 07:47 AM (5sgyt)
Uh, well, yes we can.
Posted by: Chainsaw Chimp at March 01, 2010 07:50 AM (j6H6o)
The Onion did this hilarious piece about the media trying to decide the right angle to take on Obama breaking into a home and ritually slaughtering a couple. The fretting by the major media outlets on whether or not to even run the story was funny because the quotes were so dead on.
Posted by: alexthechick at March 01, 2010 07:50 AM (8WZWv)
Posted by: 5th Level Fighter at March 01, 2010 07:50 AM (SgL5z)
Hey how about a post on the Sunday up/down vote to move on healthcare via reconciliation?
http://bit.ly/bfp7zv
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at March 01, 2010 07:52 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Ben at March 01, 2010 07:54 AM (wuv1c)
Posted by: Zombie James McReynolds at March 01, 2010 07:54 AM (GwPRU)
Yes. Obama can do this. If he can make the oceans recede (did it, all true, Mission Accomplished, look it up) he can pack the SCOTUS. Easy.
Posted by: Dang at March 01, 2010 07:55 AM (UA4gE)
Posted by: Ben at March 01, 2010 07:55 AM (wuv1c)
Posted by: Luca Brasi at March 01, 2010 07:55 AM (gF3a3)
Posted by: Rocks at March 01, 2010 07:56 AM (Q1lie)
Who's to say this is just editorial hyperbole?
Well it is for now of course, I won't much worry about it until I hear one of the leftist cronies who have administration ties starts "floating a trial balloon". That's what usually gets my attention, when one of the usual suspects begins publically musing over some stunt like this just to see what sort of reaction they get.
Gives the President and his people plenty of cover and ability to deny everything, and the leftist crony in question will just say he was "taken out of context" if the uproar is too great, the lamestream media of course will give him a complete pass and the whole thing will blow over in a week or two.
But if a couple of well placed cronies start kicking this around, then I'd be worried. Until then I think it's just another really idiotic idea from the people who have nearly cornered the market on really idiotic ideas.
Posted by: Redneck Klingon at March 01, 2010 07:58 AM (e8T35)
But really, why stop there? Why not just take Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas out and string them up for being counter-revolutionaries?
Of course you couldn't call them "counter-revolutionaries", because that sounds so paleo-Marxist, but you could say the called somebody a "macacca" or that they were "climate-change deniers"* or maybe that they were in league with corporate fat-cats and bankers or something.
(*If you go the "climate-change denier" route, you'd better do it quick as this one has about reached its shelf-life.)
Posted by: Kasper Hauser at March 01, 2010 07:58 AM (KeOQp)
Posted by: Luca Brasi at March 01, 2010 08:00 AM (gF3a3)
Please correct Enquirer to Inquirer.
I look to the former for REAL groundbreaking news... plus the occasional Elvis sighting update.
Posted by: Antimatter at March 01, 2010 08:01 AM (gbCNS)
Posted by: bill-tb at March 01, 2010 08:01 AM (y+QfZ)
My proposal is that appellate judges should not have law degrees. This way you avoid the obvious conflict of interest.
An interesting theory: What if a judge resigned/died and a president simply refused to fill the spot?
Posted by: AmishDude at March 01, 2010 08:01 AM (T0NGe)
More seriously, how, from a procedural standpoint would this work, and how many would he need to add to get a court that will agree to his every position. 13? Not sure 2 would be enough. This Connie Law, politics shit is out of my realm.
Posted by: Penfold at March 01, 2010 08:02 AM (1PeEC)
I'm not seeing the problem with that.
Posted by: Rob Crawford at March 01, 2010 08:04 AM (ZJ/un)
Hey, at least he stopped defending Cass Sunstein. I think.
Posted by: Ian S. at March 01, 2010 08:06 AM (p05LM)
Posted by: Mal at March 01, 2010 08:07 AM (Z+qzA)
Posted by: ChicagoJedi at March 01, 2010 08:09 AM (WZFkG)
Anyone still absolutely certain that he will go away gracefully when he gets voted out of office? C'mon, this has to give you some measure of doubt.
Posted by: Dang Straights at March 01, 2010 08:13 AM (fx8sm)
Posted by: Jean at March 01, 2010 08:14 AM (7K04W)
He should forget bipartisanship and work with congressional Democrats to name three new justices to the court to meet the challenges he faces.
Hahahaha; what are they smoking? None of his crap has made it to the supremes yet so what would it do for him? None of his "challanges" are coming from the court.
As for commie FDR being rebuffed on his court packing scheme things are a lot different now. Thanks to the fact that FDR was in office for four terms he got to pack the court anyway and it has stayed liberal ever since. Currently it is as conservative as it has been since before FDR took office.
The peple out there now have been living under socialism since the 1930s so they are now used to being par-broiled frogs. I would not count on a major squawk from the 52% if he tried packing the court now.
Posted by: Vic at March 01, 2010 08:15 AM (QrA9E)
Posted by: Jean at March 01, 2010 08:16 AM (pIKTP)
On second thought, I'm not sure I want him to try it after all. He might get away with it.
Posted by: Angry Beaver at March 01, 2010 08:18 AM (k0d5F)
At least as gracefully as Jimmeh Carteh or Slick Willy.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at March 01, 2010 08:19 AM (mR7mk)
Posted by: Kaitian at March 01, 2010 08:25 AM (g7R7K)
42 Hey, after he packs the court, he can start on those re-education camps.
Don't think he doesn't have Ayers working on it.
Posted by: skye at March 01, 2010 08:25 AM (HwMXR)
Posted by: Blogluddite at March 01, 2010 08:25 AM (fDWFP)
The Papers in the UK are reporting that Obama consumes too much Alchol. Could this be the reason for his continous stupid comment: "He is always drunk"???? Give you that "Hope and Change Warm Fuzzy"!!!!!
Posted by: Jack Meehoof at March 01, 2010 08:25 AM (SZy+Y)
OT but read the article, it's fucking insane. Sorry that the link is to the New York Times.
White House Is Rethinking Nuclear Policy
WASHINGTON — As President Obama begins making final decisions on a broad new nuclear strategy for the United States, senior aides say he will permanently reduce America’s arsenal by thousands of weapons.
As described by those officials, the new strategy commits the United States to developing no new nuclear weapons, including the nuclear bunker-busters advocated by the Bush administration.
Other officials, not officially allowed to speak on the issue, say that in back-channel discussions with allies, the administration has also been quietly broaching the question of whether to withdraw American tactical nuclear weapons from Europe, where they provide more political reassurance than actual defense.
Posted by: conscious and the beat goes on at March 01, 2010 08:25 AM (Vu6sl)
118 Anyone still absolutely certain that he will go away gracefully when he gets voted out of office?
At least as gracefully as Jimmeh Carteh or Slick Willy.
This fucktard makes me remember Slick Willy more fondly each day. Hell, Hillary is starting to look moderate.
Posted by: skye at March 01, 2010 08:27 AM (HwMXR)
If the goal is merely to advance his agenda, why stop at packing the court with other people? In fact, why don't we institute a cost saving measure and just have Obama lead the government by himself?
Posted by: 18-1 at March 01, 2010 08:27 AM (7BU4a)
OH! That kind of Nuclear Policy, the words get thrown around rather casually of late.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at March 01, 2010 08:27 AM (0q2P7)
This fucktard makes me remember Slick Willy more fondly each day. Hell, Hillary is starting to look moderate.
Posted by: skye at March 01, 2010 12:27 PM (HwMXR)
Clinton was a scumbag, but he had a deep seated need for public approval.
Obama gets all the approval he needs from his many mirrors...
Posted by: 18-1 at March 01, 2010 08:28 AM (7BU4a)
Posted by: Dave at March 01, 2010 11:01 AM (Hku6F)
Here's a public school progress update: I don't recall any mention of it whatsoever. Class of 2002.
Very best of hands, etc..
Posted by: Nicole at March 01, 2010 08:29 AM (CH1cF)
The Papers in the UK are reporting that Obama consumes too much Alchol. Could this be the reason for his continous stupid comment: "He is always drunk"???? Give you that "Hope and Change Warm Fuzzy"!!!!!
Posted by: Jack Meehoof at March 01, 2010 12:25 PM (SZy+Y)
Yeah, I like hard liquor and coke. Oh, and mixed drinks too.
Damn bloody nose.
Posted by: Barack Obama at March 01, 2010 08:29 AM (7BU4a)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 01, 2010 08:30 AM (UwmFR)
This fucktard makes me remember Slick Willy more fondly each day. Hell, Hillary is starting to look moderate.
Posted by: skye at March 01, 2010 12:27 PM (HwMXR)
Clinton was a scumbag, but he had a deep seated need for public approval.
Obama gets all the approval he needs from his many mirrors...
Yep, definitely.
I wonder if this will be the fucktard of a president that has the sercret service writing books upon books in the next few years? After they get that second or third identity established, I mean.
Posted by: skye at March 01, 2010 08:30 AM (HwMXR)
Don't think he doesn't have Ayers working on it.
Posted by: skye at March 01, 2010 12:25 PM (HwMXR)
Sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.
Posted by: The NYT at March 01, 2010 08:30 AM (7BU4a)
Posted by: Iskandar at March 01, 2010 08:31 AM (/o58C)
He makes FDR look like a spendthrift.
He makes LBJ look like a conservative hawk.
He makes WJC look like a Republican from Maine.
He makes JEC look like an economic genius.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at March 01, 2010 08:32 AM (0q2P7)
The Papers in the UK are reporting that Obama consumes too much Alchol.
Well he does spend our money like a drunken sailor.
Posted by: Mal at March 01, 2010 08:33 AM (Z+qzA)
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at March 01, 2010 11:42 AM (cpuvG)
Trust me, those Tea Party people won't just go away.
Damnable Rabble.
Posted by: King George III at March 01, 2010 08:34 AM (7BU4a)
Posted by: Kaitian at March 01, 2010 08:35 AM (g7R7K)
That FDR is a great President, huh? Stand up, Franklin and let the crowd see ya!!!
Oh......
Posted by: SLow Joe Biden at March 01, 2010 11:18 AM (IHbof)
Hey, at least he didn't oppressive Muslims in the US after 9/11.
Posted by: The Knowledeable Keith Olbermann at March 01, 2010 08:36 AM (7BU4a)
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at March 01, 2010 11:42 AM (cpuvG)
Trust me, those Tea Party people won't just go away.
\
I can take care of that.
Posted by: Rham at March 01, 2010 08:37 AM (HwMXR)
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at March 01, 2010 11:17 AM (I/MqP)
Eugenics/racism has always been part of the Left's philospohy. Visit a lefty forum where they feel free to let loose and ask them what they think about "third world breeders"
Posted by: 18-1 at March 01, 2010 08:38 AM (7BU4a)
Posted by: Mal at March 01, 2010 11:16 AM (Z+qzA)
Well, we can't let people confuse the narrative with silly things like facts.
Posted by: The MSM at March 01, 2010 08:39 AM (7BU4a)
Posted by: TheQuietMan at March 01, 2010 08:40 AM (1Jaio)
New strategy for getting O to play hardball with the terrorists. You do know that radical Muslims forbid the drinking of alcohol right? Stand up for Brewers Vinters and Distillers everywhere.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at March 01, 2010 08:41 AM (0q2P7)
I HATE NANCY PELOSI.
What IS it about these lunatics that causes such a real, visceral hatred in me? I am not like this. I'm going to sue them for breach of my character.
Posted by: Twinks at March 01, 2010 08:42 AM (wRPBa)
Posted by: HeatherRadish at March 01, 2010 11:05 AM (mR7mk)
Ding ding ding. The left simply wants more power, consolidated in their hands. As soon as you approach it from that angle, their whole policy platform makes sense.
Global cooling? More government control
Global Warming? More government control
Recession? More government control
Decade of Greed? More government control
Banks too picky in lending? More government control
Banks not picky enough? More government control
etc...etc...etc...
Posted by: 18-1 at March 01, 2010 08:43 AM (7BU4a)
THE BACKLASH WAS HUGE.
Posted by: The 10th Justice at March 01, 2010 10:54 AM (JjRkY)
Not exactly. He didn't do it because he didn't have to do it. He threatened, and the Justices rolled over like puppy dogs. Legislation formerly found unconstitutional suddenly became constitutional.
Or didn't you notice the legacy he left us?
Posted by: FUBAR at March 01, 2010 08:44 AM (1fanL)
Posted by: Bruce at March 01, 2010 08:45 AM (1Ftj8)
Or didn't you notice the legacy he left us?
Posted by: FUBAR at March 01, 2010 12:44 PM (1fanL)
Want, take, have.
Posted by: Barack the Vampire Slayer at March 01, 2010 08:45 AM (7BU4a)
What IS it about these lunatics that causes such a real, visceral hatred in me? I am not like this. I'm going to sue them for breach of my character.
It's amazing really, how easy it is to dislike someone pushing oppressive government and taxes on you against your will and over your loud protests. I wonder if Botox has a side effect of allowing people to completely ignore reality...
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at March 01, 2010 08:46 AM (0q2P7)
A 12 justice court.
Can this idiot spot the problem with an even number?
No wonder these guys have real problems when things get into the billions and trillions.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 01, 2010 08:48 AM (B+qrE)
Posted by: Jean at March 01, 2010 08:48 AM (7K04W)
New strategy for getting O to play hardball with the terrorists. You do know that radical Muslims forbid the drinking of alcohol right? Stand up for Brewers Vinters and Distillers everywhere.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at March 01, 2010 12:41 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Barry the moderate drinker Obama at March 01, 2010 08:48 AM (Vu6sl)
OT: 109's mention of the obvious made me recall the "ruckus" about the Mohammed cartoons. If good Muslims don't publish or look at pictures of Mohammed, how did they know it was him in the cartoon?
Just sayin'
Posted by: JW at March 01, 2010 08:48 AM (qwK3S)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at March 01, 2010 12:46 PM (0q2P7)
That's a point that gets lost in the debate actually.
Pelosi and co are specifically talking about taking things from you, I, and our children, and giving them to their friends - both our money and our rights.
To steal a quote from the Left, if you aren't outraged, you aren't paying attention.
On a related note, if Health Care is a right, and something we need now, what is stopping liberals from getting together and forming a Progressive Health Care Collective that will follow all of the mandates they want without having any effect on those that want no part of it?
Posted by: 18-1 at March 01, 2010 08:49 AM (7BU4a)
Posted by: Jean at March 01, 2010 12:48 PM (7K04W)
From my schooling the only coverage he got was in reference to WWI and the League of Nations.
Posted by: 18-1 at March 01, 2010 08:51 AM (7BU4a)
Hungry/malnourished children...gov't programs! Which led to....Fat children, which must be fixed with more gov't programs! (without ending the ones that let moms buy chips and soda at the corner shop with their food stamp card, of course)
Food too expensive for families....more gov't programs! Which led to...Food too affordable (how dare families be able to eat out!)....so we need more gov't programs! (but don't end the ag subsidies that make food cheap)
etc, etc, etc.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at March 01, 2010 08:52 AM (mR7mk)
From my schooling the only coverage
he got was in reference to WWI and the League of Nations.
Posted by: 18-1 at March 01, 2010 12:51 PM (7BU4a)
Glowing coverage, I'm sure. He played a large part in ensuring WW2.
Posted by: FUBAR at March 01, 2010 08:52 AM (1fanL)
And just to be sure he decided that no future President could serve four terms and change the Court to undo his socialist programs.
Posted by: Mal at March 01, 2010 08:52 AM (Z+qzA)
Global cooling? More government control
Global Warming? More government control
Recession? More government control
Decade of Greed? More government control
Banks too picky in lending? More government control
Banks not picky enough? More government control
Boy you can just keep going with that.
Too many crops? More government control
Not enough crops? More government control
To many poor people? More government control
To many rich people? More government control
Overconsumption? More government control
Underconsumption? More government control
Cost of energy to high? More government control
Cost of energy to low? More government control
American industry to profitable? More government control
American industry not profitable? More government control
American standards for medical care to low? More government control
Cost of American health care to high? More government control
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at March 01, 2010 08:53 AM (0q2P7)
Kids to skinny? More government control
Kids to fat? More government control.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at March 01, 2010 08:55 AM (0q2P7)
Same thing that stops them from pooling together to pay for abortions for poor women--they're selfish bastards. They don't want to help people, they want to look like they help people. And why should they have to give up their morning $4 cup of coffee when they can take the money from you?
Posted by: HeatherRadish at March 01, 2010 08:55 AM (mR7mk)
It can't be said enough; if you want to know who the Dems are and what they want, just look at whatever they accuse the Republicans of wanting to do. They want to the same thing x 10. Really, it is just that simple.
Posted by: Bitsko at March 01, 2010 08:56 AM (8/KZN)
Posted by: HeatherRadish at March 01, 2010 12:55 PM (mR7mk)
That was pure awesome!
Posted by: conscious, but drifting in and out of at March 01, 2010 08:57 AM (Vu6sl)
2 + 2 = ? Government.
The capital of Greece? Government.
The fourth planet from the Sun? Government.
The biggest ocean? Government.
Posted by: FUBAR at March 01, 2010 08:57 AM (1fanL)
You entirely miss the point.
Posted by: Deety at March 01, 2010 12:53 PM (aVzyR)
The funny thing though is I have posed this query to the left and they consistently refuse to respond. If they believe what they claim it makes sense to proceed in such a manner from both a strategic and ethical viewpoint. Yes, I know the "if" is the central issue with that statement. 
I also asked them the same thing about voluntarily cutting their own "carbon footprint" and got an occasional answer, to whit, "I bought carbon credits so my V8/vacation home/trips to Europe/etc are ok."
Posted by: 18-1 at March 01, 2010 08:59 AM (7BU4a)
I also asked them the same thing
about voluntarily cutting their own "carbon footprint" and got an
occasional answer, to whit, "I bought carbon credits so my V8/vacation
home/trips to Europe/etc are ok."
Posted by: 18-1 at March 01, 2010 12:59 PM (7BU4a)
The answer to this and collective health care: EVerybody must be forced to do it or it won't work.
Posted by: FUBAR at March 01, 2010 09:01 AM (1fanL)
From my schooling the only coverage he got was in reference to WWI and the League of Nations.
Posted by: 18-1 at March 01, 2010 12:51 PM (7BU4a)
That, and the bit about how his wife was running the office of President after he had his stroke. Hell, the first time I ever heard about Wilson's role in establishing Jim Crow and the like was in an interview with Thurgood Marshall (rather surprising given what a proggie both of them were, but I guess that came under whose ox had been gored and all that).
Posted by: Cave Bear at March 01, 2010 09:01 AM (WmZrs)
Posted by: HeatherRadish at March 01, 2010 12:55 PM (mR7mk)
Hey, it is scientifically proven we liberals can't be greedy. Hell, I donated my used underwear to charity - remember?
And look at my interns, I helped them till they couldn't walk straight.
Posted by: Bill Clinton at March 01, 2010 09:02 AM (7BU4a)
And look at my interns, I helped
them till they couldn't walk straight.
Posted by: Bill Clinton at March 01, 2010 01:02 PM (7BU4a)
And you donated your man jam to hungry interns. That was a resounding success.
Posted by: FUBAR at March 01, 2010 09:04 AM (1fanL)
116 How many Chicago politicians "gone away" this decade?
Chicago pols go away the same way pols did in the old Soviet Union, i.e., they overdose on aspirin, or they wander down to the river and shoot themselves (in the only stretch of downtown river that doesn't have security cameras, how convenient) or some other way that makes them "gone away" permanently.
Chicago pols and Chicago mobsters share more than a zip code, that's for sure.
Posted by: Boots at March 01, 2010 09:19 AM (06JTY)
Posted by: Greg at March 01, 2010 09:22 AM (PgC12)
Posted by: Glen at March 01, 2010 09:25 AM (BSbOk)
Stan Isaacs is apparently a sports writer who decided the world needed to hear his opinions about politics. Like Olbermann.
If you keep in mind that the naive, moronic court packing idea originated in the mind of a sports writer, its genesis becomes more understandable - he wants a new play that gets more muscle into the right positions. Envision a tactical football diagram with dotted lines, x's and o's, etc. Envision the search for a loophole in the rules to allow the new play.
Let's revive the Flying Wedge while we're at it, Moronic Stan - there's no federal law against it, just stuffy league rules and tradition.
Also, if Stan really graduated high school in 1950, that makes him what - about 78 years old?
The worst kind of annoying armchair commie is an old annoying armchair commie - they've had a lifetime to learn that their ideas fail in the real world and are therefore full of shit, but experience has failed to make any dent at all.
Posted by: Wm T Sherman at March 01, 2010 09:29 AM (w41GQ)
Perhaps the Chicago machine is thinking that they too can have their own "switch in time that saved nine" and get their way on all things Obama.
The problem is they do not have a bunch of negative rulings by the Supremes on their illegal crap. None of their unconsitutional doings have made it to the court yet because the lower courts refuse to grant standing.
In any case it would take a separate act of congress which would require 60 votes in the Senate which they do not have now.
Posted by: Vic at March 01, 2010 09:43 AM (QrA9E)
Wow. I don't know whether to laugh, cry, or clean my guns.
Posted by: Bruce at March 01, 2010 12:45 PM (1Ftj
I plan to do all three.
I guess I should have expected it, but somehow I still can't believe it's come to this.
Posted by: Reactionary at March 01, 2010 09:53 AM (xUM1Q)
As SCOTUSblogÂ’s Tom Goldstein pointed out last week, progressives are almost certain to be disappointed this summer when Obama replaces Justice John Paul Stevens with Solicitor General Elena Kagan or some other highly confirmable nominee able to attract bipartisan support.
Posted by: FUBAR at March 01, 2010 09:55 AM (1fanL)
Posted by: Lola at March 01, 2010 10:03 AM (qO6T2)
"It's amazing really, how easy it is to dislike someone pushing oppressive government and taxes on you against your will and over your loud protests."
It would be bad enough if the majority of the country wanted what they are selling, but the overwhelming majority of the country is dead set against what they are trying to do and this has been made crystal clear to everyone involved.
The Republicans, and everyone with a stake in it who opposes this, needs to do whatever is needed to beat this hydra headed snake until it is dead, and then burn it and salt the earth around it. There really can be no compromise at this point. The R's showed they were willing to negotiate in good faith. Obama and the D's basically said,
" You refuse to negotiate at the point of a gun. OK, the gun is pointed right at you, and we will use it on you to get what we want."
Posted by: RM at March 01, 2010 11:46 AM (1kwr2)
How many judges can you get in that courtroom. If Obiewan puts three in there, he is out as Pres. as soon as the counry can vote, in spite of all the work that Acorn and the unions will do. Then the next President (R) can add six more, and son on and so on until we have hundreds.
If anybody already posted this idea, sorry, but it's a busy Mon. and I don't have time to read all the comments. There is a massive number of them.
Posted by: timothyJ at March 01, 2010 12:14 PM (IKKIf)
If this silly proposal to "Add Robes" gets legs, the current Supremes will simply reopen the Birther case. There still are some appeals somewhere out there in RedState land.
There is more "D-uhh" political reasons to not try this one .....
Come on Pelosi, do you have the balls to try this one?
Posted by: Cromagnum at March 01, 2010 12:49 PM (QZFcc)
Posted by: Wyatt Earp at March 01, 2010 12:58 PM (zgZzy)
Posted by: yeast infection treatment at November 16, 2010 08:46 AM (olwoq)
Posted by: fat burning exercises at November 16, 2010 06:58 PM (JIhhW)
Our lace wigs are made of 100% Indian Remy or Virgin human hair to make it look like the real one. Human hair wigs have become extremely popular today. You would be surprised if you know how many people were wearing human hair wigs around you! Human hair lace wigs are made so well today that it is easy to use to have a completely new look or enhance your natural beauty.
Posted by: cheap lace front wigs at May 20, 2011 10:01 AM (682Fl)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2552 seconds, 317 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: The 10th Justice at March 01, 2010 06:54 AM (JjRkY)