1 People like this vacillating Republican appointee judge will get a lot of us killed.

People need to sh_t or get off the pot

2

Shep Smith mocked the whole "Individual Mandate unconstitutional" argument yesterday.

For a dick, he's really a douche bag.

3 Suckas...

4 If I'm concerned about something, I act accordingly, I don't pass the fucking buck.

5 For a dick, he's really a douche bag. Can I use that?

6 That a Republican Appointee did this is not surprising.  The GOP has treated the appointment of judges as a threat to comity while the left has recognized it is a means to legislate.

7 It's time for a 'reconsideration' of Many Things.   Many, many things.....

Communism fails, after murdering millions of their own citizens.

Socialism fails, after bankrupting and gelding most of their citizens

==Govt-regulated capitalism prospers, until the government and regulation become too powerful and intrusive.

therefore...........if communists and their socialist aschleckers try to take over a govt-regulated capitalist system, they should be stopped--by any means necessary

8 That brings me to the lingering intuition — shared by most Americans, I suspect — that Congress should not be able to compel citizens to buy products they do not want. Fucking read the Constitution. All you have left is a "lingering intuition" from your education?

9 I'm sure I *should* know the answer to this question, but I don't, so I hope someone smarter than I am can tell me.  What does the 6th Circuit's decision mean in regards to the 11th Circuit's hearing on Obamacare?  Will it impact it at all, or will the 11th Circuit decide on it's own regardless of what the 6th Circuit ruled?

10 I've said it before and I'll say it again: "Stare decisis" is Latin for "perpetuating stupidity."

These idiot judges have too much respect for other idiot judges.  Here's a clue: The Warren court got a lot of things wrong -- yes, even with good intentions. They left a lot of time-bombs in the law.  Defuse them, don't keep setting them off.

11 They'll probably call for a en banc decision before going to the Supremes unless the Suprmes go with the other cases first.

When I saw this I thought what is this a libtard court but I saw 2-1 decision and thought yeah, 2 Clinton appointees but I guess not.

12 In the future, everyone will be anally violated by the Commerce Clause for 15 minutes.

13 So now Liberty's torch is in Anthony Kennedy's hands? Hey, good game, America. Way to hustle out there. We'll get 'em next time. ***pats America on ass***

14

14 So now Liberty's torch is in Anthony Kennedy's hands?

The Universe yet again plays a cruel joke on humanity. 

15 You will bow down to me.

16 I've said it before and I'll say it again: "Stare decisis" is Latin for "perpetuating stupidity."

More than that, it was NEVER intended to apply to Con Law. Stare Decisis was developed for The Common Law where no written law existed. It was not originally supposed to apply to any "written" law at  all.

Just one more thing Ted Kennedy preached about constantly and was wrong.

17 or will the 11th Circuit decide on it's own regardless of what the 6th Circuit ruled?

Posted by: Call me Clueless at June 30, 2011 02:36 PM (SCwaH)

yes and no.  Their written opinion will likely be a masterpiece of obfuscation

18 16 You will bow down to me.   *insert General Zod clip here*   *or this little clip from the Oscar-worthy film Masters of the Universe*
 

19 Either bless this and confess there are virtually no limits on federal power whatsoever, at least according to those who supposedly interpret the Constitution, or start imposing some limits.

I don't think this requires imposing limits, just recognizing the ones they've been ignoring for so long

20 Limits on Federal power?

21 The 11th Circuit is not at all bound by the 6th. So, the 11th will do its' own thing. If it differs from the 6th's decision, then one of the primary rationales for Supreme Court jurisdiction kicks in--a split among the circuits. Yet, even if the 11th goes along with the 6th, the Supremes can still take up the decisions and render their own opinion.

22

14 So now Liberty's torch is in Anthony Kennedy's hands?

The Universe yet again plays a cruel joke on humanity.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at June 30, 2011 02:39 PM (9hSKh)

Yeah, makes about as much sense as the North Koreans being in charge of the UN DisArmament Council...

And Libya being head of the Human Rights Coucil...

And a Known Tax Cheat being charge of the IRS...

sometimes, you just can't make this stupid shit up...

23 *insert General Zod clip here*

KNEEL BEFORE CLAUSE!

24
dicks acting stupidly

25 Oh, it will be some sweet irony and long, deserved justice if the Obamacare case leads to reconsideration of underlying precedent on the Commerce Clause. That's a fantasy that smells like butterscotch pudding in the end.

26

This is about the time I start rooting for President Rubio/Bachmann/Cain/Perry/Genuine Constitutional Conservative of your choice to pack the court with true conservative justices who can actually read the plain wording of the document and properly interpret its meaning, aided by a veto-proof Congress to be elected in 2012.

This shit has gone on long enough. When the SCOTUS ruled against the very simple language of the Fourteenth Amendment, we were screwed. It's been downhill ever since.

27 I think it would be acgood idea if the GOP congress passed a series of silly laws like the mandate in order to draw attention to this... For example... make it a law that all Americans spend 20 minutes a day meditating .

28 He's a modern republican, or post-modern or whatever.  Make conservative sounding noises while voting for liberal bullshit.

29 Kennedy will be the seventh vote for the mandate, not the fifth.

30

...make it a law that all Americans spend 20 minutes a day meditating .

Mandatory Valu-Rite consumption. 8 oz./day.

Straight up, no chaser.

31 Way to kick the can up to the Supreme Court, Justice Dithers.

32 see update; there's another juicy quote.

33

see update

 

No, thanks.

34 If it's unconstitutional a judge is supposed to say so.


That's above my pay grade.

35 see update; there's another juicy quote.

It's almost like he's challenging the SCOTUS to rein this shit in...

36

Hate to say it, but this Judge DID rule based on prior Precedent...

When the Supremes rule that a Farmer cannot grow feed, for his OWN chickens, on his OWN Land, without somehow falling under the INTERSTATE Commerce Clause, then it is all encompassing according to that Precedent.

After all, they WERE controlling his LACK of Commerce in that case.

Its is however, a very flawed Precedent.

37 You know, as a judge, when you start disagreeing with your own concurrences *as you make them*, it's time to hang up the robe.

Seriously.

38 @35 Upon further consideration, this judge knows that Supreme Court review of Obamacare is going to happen. He has brilliantly placed the core issue right in the Supreme's lap. They will not be allowed to now squirm away from the issue.

39 @37 I agree.

40

But aren't Federal Judges supposed to follow what the Supreme Court put down?

In other words, he's saying "Hey the Supreme Court has basically shown there is no limit at all to the Commerce Clause. So I'm going to say that this passes muster because MY BOSSES have told me so."

Isn't that what Federal Judges are supposed to do? Follow what they believe the Supreme Court has told them?

41 ..make it a law that all Americans spend 20 minutes a day meditating . Mao had his Little Red Book. Obama is as accomplished an author as he is a President. Can't wait to get my own copy of "Obama's Stumbling Fucksterisms".

42 They will not be allowed to now squirm away from the issue.

Posted by: Dave at June 30, 2011 02:56 PM (Xm1aB)

Hah!  We could flip a coin on C-Span to make our decision and we'd face no consequences.

43 If it's unconstitutional a judge is supposed to say so.

Yeah, pretty much.  Plain language and original intent say it is.  Besides, the 10th amendment supercedes the interstate commerce clause, so there's that.

There is way too much fecklessness here. It's like he never wants to ever declare anything to be unconstitutional.

But this shows the poison of law schools and precedents.  These dumb judges can't think for themselves, they need somebody else to think for them.

44

You know, as a judge, when you start disagreeing with your own concurrences *as you make them*, it's time to hang up the robe.

If a thing can't possibly be done, then it must be done impossibly.

The question is, how?

45

Don't you all just love living in a country where the media decides which are the details we need not concern our pretty little heads with?

I hope Palin's movie is a signal that she is going to jump in and run a Kick-the-MSM-in-the-Balls campaign, because I have the feeling that there is a vast reservoir of resentment against the media that is bigger then even we imagine.  Mine is already so bad that I can barely avoid going Tourettesville when I read the newspaper.

46 Perhaps he's taking the position that only the SCOTUS can overrule bad law from past SCOTUS's.

47 OT, TCM has a movie coming on at 4:30 called "Border Incident", 1949, about U.S. and Mexican border setting out to smash a vicious illegal immigration ring. Huh, movie industry sure has changed.

48

@7: "if communists and their socialist aschleckers try to take over a govt-regulated capitalist system, they should be stopped--by any means necessary"

Oooooh....I'm gonna have to go ahead and ahhhhhh....disagree with you there.  See, ahhhhhhh....most of us here on the Right are basically cool with socialism, 'kay? Yeah.  So, while we do allow tepid voting to slow its implementation, we don't really actually do anything to stop it.

Besides, we can't ahhhhhhh....sink to their level.  We know they are impressed with our manners and politesse.  And when they ahhhhhhh....kill us in the extermination camps, we will die holding the moral high ground.  Soooooo, yeah.

Oh, and remember: next Friday... is Hawaiian shirt day. So, you know, if you want to, go ahead and wear a Hawaiian shirt and jeans.

49

Posted by: Bill Lumbergh at June 30, 2011 02:59 PM (xy9wk)

And besides.... Socialists put on the BEST Cocktail parties... but you have to be kewl to get invited...

50 Hate to say it, but this Judge DID rule based on prior Precedent... Sounds more like he searched for any previous rulings that seemed to support this one. Couldn't he have easily done the same for rulings that did NOT support unlimited power? Wouldn't it be easier to read the Constitution and see for yourself if there is a simple, original answer?

51 Ace, I question your use of the word "juicy." New categorical limits on the commerce power? What the fuck is this asshole on about? That's twice he's said "Wow. This individual mandate is one fucked-up power grab. If only there was someone with the authority to strike it down... Oh, sweet! Gaga's on Leno! I'm Audi 5000, y'all."

52 Pretend for a second that 99% of the American public will never read this ruling from the Sixth Circuit.

OK, now what bearing does this have on anything exactly?

53 Hate to say it, but this Judge DID rule based on prior Precedent...

Precedent is crap.  It's turtles upon turtles.  Fruit from the poisoned judge.  If plain language or original intent is informative, that needs to be used first.

54 The government can force hospitals to treat all people.  This causes people to not get insurance, since they have no worry about getting treatment.  For young, healthy people, this generally a very good bet to make.  But, the government wants to expand the government-funded treatment of the lower to middle classes, so it needs to suck money out of these young people and others (who might rationally choose not to waste money on health insurance, as the odds are very much in their favor) in order to fund its own un-Constitutional expenditures on individual health insurance and wants to force every American to buy from only one of the government's own certified insurance programs (providing lots of crap that people don;t need, in order to get more money into the insurance companies to waste on Medicaid - indirectly, of course, through pricing and remittance levels ... all to be handled in regulations).

and it's regulated by...Kevin Bacon!

55 Shep Smith mocked the whole "Individual Mandate unconstitutional" argument yesterday.

I call that bold talk, from a one eyed bellhead.

56
Dick in a box song?

Obama in a box.

57 I like Rubio -- a lot!!

But he is not a natural born citizen.  Do we have laws in this country?  You know, ones that matter?

58 OT, breaking news: Greg Gutfeld takes over Beck's slot.  Sort of:

http://tinyurl.com/3wjan28

59 Oh, #61 is a hat tip to @andylevy

60 I like Rubio -- a lot!!

But he is not a natural born citizen.  Do we have laws in this country?  You know, ones that matter?

Posted by: elspeth at June 30, 2011 03:05 PM (0AkWH)

Umm...what?  He was born in Miami.

61

Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 30, 2011 03:03 PM (G/MYk)

The key question though, in this case, is can the Federal Governemnt force you to buy somthing.

The Supremes told a Farmer, that he must destroy his home grown Chicken feed, and thus BUY it off the market, because under Commerce clause, his not buying it would affect prices, and quotas, which the US Congress had mandated UNDER their Commerce Clause power.

Thus, they Forced said Farmer into Buying somthing... AND illegaly took his property (destroyed the feed) without due compensation.

As I said... REALLY bad law and precedent... but that is what the Supremes did, so that is what this Judge had to work with.

62

Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 30, 2011 03:03 PM (G/MYk)

 

New House Rules:

you MUST play at the Blackjack Table.

 It doesn't matter what you are holding or what the dealer is showing -

you MUST double down.

Try not to Win. 

We would find it, upsetting.

Good Luck! and Enjoy your stay.

 

63 60 I like Rubio -- a lot!!

But he is not a natural born citizen.

Yes he is.  That bullshit that birthers (full disclosure, I was an "Obama is an ass for not releasing it and has something to hide"-style birther) were pulling to try to move the goalposts was just crap.  A "natural born citizen" is one who does not need to be naturalized.  Period.  End of discussion.  WorldNetDaily is not a controlling legal authority.

64 WND is the National Enquirer before they got good at busting Horney politicians.

65 64

Small difference, though.  That farmer could have sold his chickens, too.  He was not required to buy feed.

The Mandate requires purchase or penalty for all people just for being alive.

66

The Mandate requires purchase or penalty for all people just for being alive.

 

Wonder how they'll feel about home births if this thing sticks.

67 In the future you will be required to purchase: Mao type bicycles for transportation. Tickets to government diversity training seminars 50% of food purchase to be organic Burial insurance Anime porn just because

68 The Mandate requires purchase or penalty for all people just for being alive.

Posted by: nickless at June 30, 2011 03:12 PM (MMC8r)

Unless you have an exemption, or are Mormon, or 7th day Advent, or Moslem, or... (have to read up, but there are many who do not fall under the mandate).

And Actualy, I'd use THAT argument to further destroy the mandate... its a STARK case of the Congress passing a law which favors one relgion, over another.

69 Perhaps he's taking the position that only the SCOTUS can overrule bad law from past SCOTUS's.

Well, since Marbury v Madison that is true. Or at least they say so.

70 The Framers took the word "compel" quite literally and used it sparingly. I can't remember the exact reference but even in Madison's notes the word compel is somewhat equated with a tyrannical act except when associated with loyalty to the basic union of our Republic.

They (the Framers) never intended any citizen to be compelled to purchase anything and it's about time the judiciary stopped making things up to suit their political views and serve their political masters. They have invented rights and laws far outside the intent of our Founders wildest dreams.

The role of the judiciary in the Constitution in practically zero for a reason. And that reason is their tyrannical usurpation and corruption of democratic process was easily and rightly predicted. They are an unelected branch and don't serve the people, they serve themselves like the kings our Founders resoundingly despised.

This nonsense that the Framers knew changes to laws and rights by the judiciary was a natural progression necessary for our country's survival is pure bunk. They created a specific process for amending the Constitution which ensures a majority approves of such changes. But it has been obfuscated by a minority that seeks to impose their tyrannical ideology upon us without our consent or approval. And this latest intrusion by Obama is proof their intent is malicious and destructive. It also exposes liberal judges for what they really are; kings in robes that want to rule whimsically by fiat and force of hand.

When will we say- enough?

71 Forget it, Amish. It's BirtherTown.

72 OT, breaking news: Greg Gutfeld takes over Beck's slot.  Sort of:

Juan Williams? Better than Shep I suppose.

73 Ace, the link is to a piece by Ilya Shapiro, not Ilya Somin. You're welcome.

74 Looks like a new amendment is needed to explain to the 'tards in .gov what the limits to that article are.

Weights and measures, and forbidding intra-state tariffs and restrictions ( like California's border fruit police ) come to mind as a correct implentation of federal laws.

Forbidding federal meddling once a good is inside a state and stays there is another ( no more regulation of locally sold raw milk, or farmers who raise their own pig feed, for example ).

Any suggestions for a good bulletproof wording?

75 74 Forget it, Amish. It's BirtherTown.

Posted by: ace at June 30, 2011 03:22 PM (nj1bB)

She's your foreign-born mother, your American-born sister, your foreign-born mother...

76

She's your foreign-born mother, your American-born sister, your foreign-born mother...

Posted by: AmishDude at June 30, 2011 03:28 PM (T0NGe)

*SLAP*

77 66 60 I like Rubio -- a lot!!

A "natural born citizen" is one who does not need to be naturalized.  Period.  End of discussion.  WorldNetDaily is not a controlling legal authority.

But...but...you don't understand!  Rubio's parents weren't naturalized when he was born here, ERGO he has a "dual allegiance" to the US and Cuba.  NEVER MIND that his family fled Cuba and the Castro regime.   

(to believe that nonsense you need to be crazy as a rat in a Harlan county meth lab)

78

@42: "Isn't that what Federal Judges are supposed to do? Follow what they believe the Supreme Court has told them?"

Yes.  Inferior courts have to follow the rulings of superior courts.

79 Progress: McCain was born on Panamanian territory to two American citizens.   Therefore he had "dual allegiance" at birth.   Why was he eligible to run for POTUS (as proclaimed in a non-binding Senate resolution) but Rubio, who was born here, is not?

Please address that question!!!!!

Face it: your claim is nothing more than an idiosyncratic application of reasoning that applied 200 years ago, when we were a new country fearful of foreigners coming here to subvert it.    We've had fifty million people emigrate to the US since, and we pride ourselves as being a "nation of immigrants". So the fears of the late 18th/early 19th centuries are well behind us, and---as you say yourself---dual citizenship is common today.  

AND there is absolutely no American case law (as opposed to the vague wording of the Constitution) to support your position.   If McCain was eligible, with his "dual allegiance" and birth on foreign soil, so his Rubio, who I'm sure has no "allegiance" to Castro or Cuba.

(If you want to make the "Manchurian Candidate" argument, go right ahead.)

btw:  Chester A Arthur remained president, did he not?  Or was he impeached for being ineligible?  Were the bills he signed into law invalidated? 

80

@73: "When will we say- enough?"

How's the Twelth of Never look on your calendar?

81 The real question is this:

If Justice Weathervane decides the federal government has all the power the current wielders claim it has, will you comply?

82 The Republican appointee who joined with him in the ruling, but wrote separately in a concurrence, seems ambivalent. His own concurrence seems to say that given the current ultra-liberal, virtually-no-limits jurisprudence on the Commerce Clause, this new power grab would probably pass muster.

He did exactly as he was supposed to do. Rule in accordance with current precedent from SCOTUS, which, considering the whole "You can't grow corn on your own property for your own use because, you know, interstate commerce and all" would indicate that congress has essentially unfettered power in the commerce clause.

While simultaneously writing an opinion in concurrence stating that this is the logical conclusion to the line of thinking SCOTUS used in that decision. And given that conclusion, now both inarguable and obvious regarding abuse of government power, perhaps SCOTUS should revisit that thinking and propose a more limiting standard as to what "regulate interstate commerce" really is intended to mean.

Because that was the states argument in the whole corn feed debacle, that the Citizen growing his own corn allowed him to *NOT* participate in interstate commerce and buy feed. That change in participation was an effect, and therefore congress could regulate and control it. And Congress could make laws preventing someone from *NOT* participating. And that is what this is, congress making a law stating you cannot *NOT* participate.

On a personal note if SCOTUS upholds Obamacare, I will personally consider federalism and the Constitution dead, the social contract willfully broken by the Federal Government, and this and all following law pursuant to the regulation of private lives at the federal level as openly subjecting me and my follow citizens. Our system of checks and balances will have, in my mind ,officially and irrevocably failed.

83

Minor v. Happersett – wherein the Supreme Court stated:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

 

So, to paraphrase, the Supreme Court, in this decision, said there was reason to 'doubt' if a person born of Foreign Nationals, on American soil, was a "Natural Born Citizen", but did not feel the need to clarify it IN THIS CASE.

And those doubts, as far as I can tell, have never been adjudicated.

As to McCain?  The Senate did weigh in, with a NON BINDING Resolution in his case... but did not even bother to pass an actual law about it... and IF it had ever gone to court, it would have been an interesting case...

IMO we had the First Ever Presidential Election, where we had not ONE, not TWO, but THREE Non Natural Born folks running for President... (there was a guy on the ballot for some Socialist Party who was not even born anywhere near America who was on some ballots).

84 Any country can grant you Citizenship at any time for any reason. If you never accept or acknowledge that Citizenship you have no dual loyalty. If you could be disqualified for merely being eligible to be a dual Citizen at some point in life, any country could disqualify any candidate by simply awarding Citizenship to them. But in reality Citizenship is not just bestowed it must also be claimed.

85 But first, you will blow me.

86 By your reasoning, any country can make me a bigamist by declaring me married to someone or two people.  Think about it.

That was in fact my point. That McCain even if he was eligible to be a dual citizen since he was born in Panama never was by virtue of the fact that he never claimed to be anything other than a Citizen of the US. My broader point was that if you were born a US citizen even if you are eligible to be a dual citizen, you can still be "naturally born" if you never claim an alternate citizenship. Because Citizenship is an affirmative status that must be declared like marriage. Not a passive one that can be merely conferred by a sovereign.

87 It is a passive transfer when ones parents hold foreign citizenship - a transfer that we accept.

That transfer is not passive and requires declaration. Your parents must stand up for you and declare you a Citizen by birth.

88

Given the prevalence of such Americans, one would think here would be an interest in having the Court rule one way or another on it, or a Constitutional amendment detailing exactly what the story is ... but, until then it's an open question that many of us have pretty firm ideas about and those on the other side never seem to want to have the problem actually resolved, just waving it off, instead.

Posted by: progressoverpeace

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

That's far different than asserting that the matter is clear and settled, as you and the birthers have done.

This issue will be resolved  via (a) a constitutional amendment clearly defining the qualifications for POTUS, or (b) a Supreme Court decision based on an actual "case or controversy".   The Supremes do not issue advisory opinions, so someone would have to sue to keep Rubio, or Barack, or Jindal or whoever off state presidential ballots on the basis of their ineligibility.

The politics of the latter would be hugely  bad for  the GOP .

If  the Court decided, as I think it would, that "natural-born" must NOW encompass the millions born here to legal immigrants, at least, the birthers would have unnecessarily alienated millions of immigrant voters and their native-born citizen offspring 

Face it:  ain't gonna fly.

89 Fracking sock!  I denounce myself!

90 "The McCain issue was never adequately addressed and resolved.  The Senate action on it was a total waste, as it meant nothing.  Congress cannot define "natural born citizen".  That can only be done by the Court's interpretation (sadly) or by specification by amendment. "

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

The problem for you is that McCain provides a hefty counter to your opinion.

His case is not legal precedent, but it's historical precedent, as was the case of Chester A. Arthur.

You  think the Supremes will issue a holding that invalidates McCain's candidacy, as well as Barack's presidency, because both held this "dual allegiance" you keep yammering about?

Lemme boil it down for you:

Barack: born in the US with one immigrant parent,

McCain:  born outside the US, with two citizen parents

You would apparently disqualify both.

Good frackin' luck.

91 That is useful information and its quite easy to come a croper if you are not vigilant.

92 I just cant stop reading this. Its so cool, so full of information that I just didnt know. Im glad to see that people are actually writing about this issue in such a smart way, showing us all different sides to it. Youre a great blogger. Please keep it up. I cant wait to read whats next.

93 Progressive, I get your point.  We've got vague constitutional language.  We've got a vastly changed country with a huge immigrant population now.  And we've got state and federal courts that won't touch the issue.

For someone like me, who agrees with Vic that if you're born here, you're natural - born (except for the children of embassy officials and the like, as set forth in the 14th amendment), the issue is not really that important today.   Is there really a valid concern today that Bobby Jindal, for example, would have conflicts of "dual allegiance" to India?   If you think that, then you should push for a constitutional amendment requiring dual citizens to renounce their other citizenship before they can become POTUS or VPOTUS.  Then let the electorate decide if they are really "straws", "running horses" (as the chicoms used to say) or "Manchurian Candidates.

Right now, at least, most would agree that as a country we have far bigger fish to fry.

94 So, big deal -- some RINO judge has the Emperor has clothes virus.  

What could possibly go wrong stating such a milk toast vision? 

95 I am so lucky to read your post!thank you!

96 2011 sees the seventh Rugby World Cup to date, with the first egrey purple black jordan shoesver being played in 1987, jointly hosted by New Zealand and Ausair jordan 11 dark concordtralia. England will host the eighth Rugby World Cup in 2015, bair jordan 13 white true red-black priceut lots of English, Irish, Welsh and Scottish supporters will bAuthentic Jordan Shoese enjoying the rugby and the hospitality in New Zealand in 2011Air Jordan 15 Black Varsity Red.