Ace of Spades HQ

November 14, 2011

Supreme Court Grants Cert In ObamaCare Cases
— Ace

Just announced, now on their docket for this term. A decision will come sometime between March and June.

Details: At SCOTUSblog, thanks to Drew.

Setting the stage for a historic constitutional confrontation over federal power, the Supreme Court on Monday granted three separate cases on the constitutionality of the new federal health care law, and set aside 5 1/2 hours Â— probably in March Â— for oral argument. The Court, however, did not grant all of the issues raised and it chose issues to review only from three of the five separate appeals before it. It is unclear, at this point, whether all of the cases will be heard on a single day.
The Court will hold two hours of argument on the constitutionality of the requirement that virtually every American obtain health insurance by 2014, 90 minutes on whether some or all of the overall law must fail if the mandate is struck down, one hour on whether the Anti-Injunction Act bars some or all of the challenges to the insurance mandate, and one hour on the constitutionality of the expansion of the Medicaid program for the poor and disabled.

Other challenges were not granted cert, ones that I don't think ever got any traction from any lower court.

Posted by: Ace at 06:04 AM | Comments (90)
Post contains 224 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Obama at 50% approval in Rasmussen this morning.

Posted by: Greg at November 14, 2011 06:05 AM (AixDW)

2 And for all of us non-scumbagslawyers, what does this mean?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at November 14, 2011 06:05 AM (ES+yV)

The next 12 months should be, ah, interesting.

Posted by: dblwmy at November 14, 2011 06:06 AM (BvTwT)

4 March and June?

I'm reading July.

(on twitter - no link yet)

Posted by: laceyunderalls at November 14, 2011 06:08 AM (d16c4)

5 I'm scared. The pucker factor intensifies. Hold me.

Posted by: Ms Choksondik at November 14, 2011 06:08 AM (fYOZx)

6 This is the multi-state case right?

Posted by: JAFKIAC at November 14, 2011 06:08 AM (pEQp9)

7 Yeah.....but did you hear.....Rick Perry is stupid, and Herman Cain hates women !

Posted by: RUReadingthis at November 14, 2011 06:08 AM (V92KK)

I'm not sure how this plays politically.

Does it help anyone?

If it's found constitutional, then we're screwed in the long run because the government has carte blanche to make us buy whatever it wants.

If it's overturned, does it then take the issue of the table for Romney and Obama in the 2012 election?

Posted by: Ben at November 14, 2011 06:09 AM (wuv1c)

9 Certiorare. Means they are taking the case for review.

Posted by: tommygun at November 14, 2011 06:09 AM (T2ydq)

off*

Posted by: Ben at November 14, 2011 06:10 AM (wuv1c)

11 Just remember, what the Supreme Court does or doesn't decide won't matter if we repeal Obamacare.

Posted by: Dave at November 14, 2011 06:10 AM (Xm1aB)

12 1 Obama at 50% approval in Rasmussen this morning. Posted by: Greg at November 14, 2011 10:05 AM (AixDW) I've been incredulously watching his numbers rise slightly for weeks. What the fuck? Are the Republican debates doing this much damage or is his nonstop lying and demagoguing working?

Posted by: Ms Choksondik at November 14, 2011 06:10 AM (fYOZx)

13 Call me worried, but I just think, and have ever since the obama admin decided to ask the Supreme Court to review this, that the fix was in. Other wise why ask for it to be reviewed BEFORE the election.

Posted by: nevergiveup at November 14, 2011 06:11 AM (i6RpT)

14 Obama at 50% approval in Rasmussen this morning.

Posted by: Greg at November 14, 2011 10:05 AM (AixDW)

Greg's licking of Obozo's ass at 100% this morning.

Posted by: TheQuietMan at November 14, 2011 06:12 AM (1Jaio)

15 Repeal or no repeal if this thing is upheld then there is quite literally no limit to what the 14th amendment allows... so yeah this matters a hell of a lot.

Kagan needs to be forced to recuse herself. Get Breitbart or someone on it to dig up the dirt and put the pressure on.

Posted by: Voluble at November 14, 2011 06:13 AM (JKX4x)

16 If the Court strikes it down, great, there's still some teeth in the Constitution. If it doesn't then repeal Obamacare and start impeachment proceedings against those voting to uphold the mandate based on their abdication of their proper roles as judges.

Posted by: Dave at November 14, 2011 06:13 AM (Xm1aB)

17 The next 12 months should be, ah, interesting.

May you live in interesting times.

Posted by: Chinese Curses at November 14, 2011 06:13 AM (71LDo)

18 So this all comes down to Kennedy am I right?

Posted by: nevergiveup at November 14, 2011 06:14 AM (i6RpT)

19 I'd rather Obama get to nominate 10 more Supreme Court Justices than to have a RINO as my nominee. It's better to starve than to accept anything less than a full loaf of bread. If the GOP gives us another RINO presidential candidate I'll be voting for Obama and I'll make it my life's work to remove every Republican from the Senate too. Cain-Gingrich, '12. We are the law!

Posted by: Totally Irrational Political Malcontent at November 14, 2011 06:15 AM (rJVPU)

20 @18 Who knows? Everyone thought Silberman on the D.C. Circuit was a conservative jurist.

Posted by: Dave at November 14, 2011 06:15 AM (Xm1aB)

21 I'd rather Obama get to nominate 10 more Supreme Court Justices than to have a RINO as my nominee. It's better to starve than to accept anything less than a full loaf of bread. If the GOP gives us another RINO presidential candidate I'll be voting for Obama and I'll make it my life's work to remove every Republican from the Senate too. Cain-Gingrich, '12. We are the law! Posted by: Totally Irrational Political Malcontent at November 14, 2011 10:15 AM (rJVPU) With "friends" like you, who needs enemies?

Posted by: nevergiveup at November 14, 2011 06:16 AM (i6RpT)

22 Well I'll be damned I thought they were going to find a way to weasel out of that!

Posted by: tasker at November 14, 2011 06:16 AM (14jKX)

23 Here's a god background article.

The DC Circuit decision last week really didn't help.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at November 14, 2011 06:17 AM (d16c4)

24 I've said all along that the public WANTS to like Obama (for whatever reason) and will give him the benefit of any doubt. So all it took was a little uptick in the economic numbers and his approval surges. Add in the awful GOP candidates and you have the perfect storm for a landslide next Nov. And don't forget that Obama is just incredibly lucky. He was only elected Senator because of the GOP sex scandal and now the economy is picking up at just the right time and will be rolling next summer.

Posted by: Greg at November 14, 2011 06:17 AM (AixDW)

25 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at November 14, 2011 06:17 AM (8y9MW)

26 So this all comes down to Kennedy am I right? Posted by: nevergiveup at November 14, 2011 10:14 AM **** Damn it.....hopefully they get the decision out well before his annual Euro Tour...gawd.

Posted by: tasker at November 14, 2011 06:18 AM (14jKX)

27 Blah, blah, blah, blah.

Posted by: Totally Irrational Political Malcontent at November 14, 2011 10:15 AM (rJVPU)

That makes it much more interesting and valuable.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at November 14, 2011 06:19 AM (ES+yV)

28 @24 Doubtful the economy will be "rolling" next summer. Even the optimistic forecasters linked to in the Doom thread think we're still going to be sucking on close to 9% unemployment next year.

Posted by: Dave at November 14, 2011 06:19 AM (Xm1aB)

29 Obamacare is to Healthcare what the Projects are to Housing. These things sound good in theory to the right(sympathetic) listener but in reality there are too many unforeseen consequences. The end result is a lot of money blown on a steaming pile of shit.

Obamacare : Healthcare
Projects : Housing

Posted by: Lemmiwinks at November 14, 2011 06:19 AM (pdRb1)

30 25 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure. Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at November 14, 2011 10:17 AM (8y9MW) Hey, we're no slouches either in that department pal.

Posted by: GOP at November 14, 2011 06:20 AM (fYOZx)

31 am I right?

Scared yet? _{Yes, you're right}

Posted by: laceyunderalls at November 14, 2011 06:20 AM (d16c4)

32 Cross your fingers everyone, and hope Justice Kennedy doesn't have gas that day!

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at November 14, 2011 06:20 AM (+inic)

33 If it's overturned, does it then take the issue of the table for Romney and Obama in the 2012 election?

The issue was already off the table if Romney was the nominee. Romney supported MassCare which includes an individual mandate. Romney said, "I like mandates; mandates work." Some of the advisers who helped craft MassCare helped craft ObamaCare.

Yodel all you want about "Federalism" and, "He wouldn't have done that at a national level," most people won't understand the difference, and those of us who do don't believe it.

On the other hand, if !Romney is the nominee, it's on the table no matter what happens.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at November 14, 2011 06:21 AM (8y9MW)

34 Posted by: Greg at November 14, 2011 10:17 AM (AixDW)

If you are going to troll, at least be interesting and try to use real, honest-to-goodness facts sometimes.

By the way, has your dad switched to the hypo-allergenic lube? It should help.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at November 14, 2011 06:21 AM (ES+yV)

I have much of the empathee for dees law.

Y tambien, we are out of the Lemon Pledge.

Posted by: Sonia Sotomayor at November 14, 2011 06:21 AM (uTkeF)

If the Supremes uphold this... then the Constitution is moot.... as the Contract AS WRITTEN has no meaning....

The Constitution is a contract between the People, States, and Federal Government.... but when you let ONE party of a contract, control the terms of the contract, eventualy the other parties to the contract will be scroomed (old term, combination screwed, and doomed)....

As the US Supreme Court, part of the FEDRAL Government, is the ONLY arbiter of what the Contract says? Is the ONLY group given power to ENFORCE said contract??? Of course the Federal Government will slowly but surely, over centuries, gain in power.

No conpiracy... just incremental change...

But... as I heard somewhere once.... 'When in the course of Human Events....'

Posted by: Romeo13 at November 14, 2011 06:21 AM (NtXW4)

37 So this all comes down to which side of the bed Kennedy gets out of, am I right?

FIFY

Posted by: dfbaskwill at November 14, 2011 06:21 AM (71LDo)

38 "Doubtful the economy will be "rolling" next summer. Even the optimistic forecasters linked to in the Doom thread think we're still going to be sucking on close to 9% unemployment next year." With the numbers as is, Obama is at 50% and would win re-election. Even if things aren't "rolling" but just improve a little bit, he'll be somewhere around 53-54 percent and a lock to win. I don't think there has ever been a President who the public WANTS to succeed like Obama. When Bush's numbers started to tank, they never came back.

Posted by: Greg at November 14, 2011 06:22 AM (AixDW)

39 If the mandate stands, then all is quite simply lost. There is no Constitution at that point. Revolution, the effective type--not camping in urine-soaked parks--will be in order.

Posted by: Dave at November 14, 2011 06:22 AM (Xm1aB)

40 Hide yo' kids, hide yo' wife. And hide yo' husband, cuz they raping errybody out here.

Posted by: Long-time Commenter, First-time Reader (Perry guy) at November 14, 2011 06:23 AM (Jbj03)

41 "If you are going to troll, at least be interesting and try to use real, honest-to-goodness facts sometimes." Like Obama being at 50% approval? Check Rasmussen yourself.

Posted by: Greg at November 14, 2011 06:23 AM (AixDW)

42 I've been incredulously watching his numbers rise slightly for weeks. What the fuck? Are the Republican debates doing this much damage or is his nonstop lying and demagoguing working?

No it means rassmussen continues to go full leftard. They have been doing it since they did poorly in a couple of states in the 2010 election. All of the polling firms tilt left, rassmussen is becoming an embarrassment even compared to the network pollers.

Posted by: robtr at November 14, 2011 06:24 AM (MtwBb)

43 But... as I heard somewhere once.... 'When in the course of Human Events....'

This. If the Supreme Court upholds ObamaCare, then somewhere, some big doomsday clock will start ticking down. I don't know how much time will be on it, but I can guarantee you that there will be blood in American streets at some point. Part of me says the sooner that were to happen the better, but an equal part of me says "Please spare me and my children." But, either way, it will happen unless the Federal Government realizes that our current government and culture will not long survive that kind of centralized, autocratic control.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at November 14, 2011 06:24 AM (8y9MW)

44 8 I'm not sure how this plays politically. Does it help anyone? If it's found constitutional, then we're screwed in the long run because the government has carte blanche to make us buy whatever it wants. If it's overturned, does it then take the issue of the table for Romney and Obama in the 2012 election? My guess is that the SCOTUS will kill the individual mandate. And that is all they will do. That in essence would cripple ObamaCare but still leave it on the table as a talking for the 2012 election. At this point Obama is probably begging to have the whole thing thrown out. He can blame it on SCOTUS and then push for another 4 years to revive ObamaCare and get another liberal on in the SCOTUS.

Posted by: izoneguy at November 14, 2011 06:25 AM (i6Neb)

45 If it doesn't then repeal Obamacare and start impeachment proceedings against those voting to uphold the mandate based on their abdication of their proper roles as judges.

Posted by: Dave at November 14, 2011 10:13 AM (Xm1aB)

In reality, there is no check on the power of the judiciary. Sure, individual corrupt judges can be removed, after an arduous process, but the judiciary can simply seize power for itself.

And they certainly are arrogant enough to think they are worthy of more power.

The legal profession in general and the judiciary in particular is a fundamentally anti-conservative institution. It is a system in which people seek an official to hand down a decision. Moreover, it's a decision that's assumed to unbiased and uncorrupted by wise experts.

Posted by: AmishDude at November 14, 2011 06:28 AM (T0NGe)

32Cross your fingers everyone, and hope Justice Kennedy doesn't have gas that day!

Gawd, he's the one I always worry about. Every court decision is a roll of the dice with him.

Every day I say a prayer for the health of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito and even Kennedy and Ruth Buzzi (cause Obozo would replace either with a Sotomayor or Kagan clone) through at least 1/20/2013.

And yes, I phrase it exactly that way.

Should I change it?

Posted by: Marybeth at November 14, 2011 06:28 AM (Ks0w4)

47 Like Obama being at 50% approval? Check Rasmussen yourself.

Posted by: Greg at November 14, 2011 10:23 AM (AixDW)

I think the trolls are being a little bit lazy.

Posted by: AmishDude at November 14, 2011 06:28 AM (T0NGe)

48 The timing on this is excellent however it comes out. If our side wins, Obama is forced to campaign on defense, with his "signature achievement" a stuttering clusterfuck of unconstitutional legislation (SCoUL).
Debates will focus on the dissenters (Kagan, WiseLatina^tm,Ginsberg, etc.) and whether America wants to give the SCoaMF four more years to appoint Supreme Court Justices who would find in the Constitution the power for our federal government to ram shit sandwiches like this down our collective throats.
On the other hand, if our side loses, we make our pitch to an electorate which hates Obamacare with a passion, hates the Justices for "blessing" it, and seeks to throw out the Dems who passed the monstrosity and who gave life tenure to jurists who let them get away with it.
I like our odds either way. (Assuming Gingrich gets the nomination. Romney will have little or no traction on this important issue.)

Posted by: Z as in Jersey at November 14, 2011 06:30 AM (jF5A4)

49 @46 Then what institution would you propose to effectuate, however imperfectly, the Rule of Law?

Posted by: Dave at November 14, 2011 06:30 AM (Xm1aB)

50 "All of the polling firms tilt left, rassmussen is becoming an embarrassment even compared to the network pollers." Good grief, now RASMUSSEN is liberal, lol. It's always the evil pollsters, huh? So I guess the old, "the only poll that matters on election day" cliche will be trotted out again, and when Obama destroys Romney next November, you guys will be surprised somehow.

Posted by: Greg at November 14, 2011 06:30 AM (AixDW)

51 Our future rests in the hands of Anthony Kennedy. You are FUCKED, America.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 14, 2011 06:30 AM (vzFJV)

52 @52 The entire problem is that our future rest with the decision of one, unelected judge. That is not the system the Founders envisioned. If we are ever going to effectively combat judicial activism, the only viable mechanism of which I am aware is impeachment.

Posted by: Dave at November 14, 2011 06:32 AM (Xm1aB)

53 Hey Gerg:
No president since FDR has been re-elected with unemployment over 7.5%. None.

Nobody in their right mind thinks that unemployment will be even under 8% by fall 2012, let alone under 7.5%.

I don't care how much "the public" your circle of liberal friends *wants* to like Obama. Everybody else sees: he's had 4 years to improve the economy and he decided instead to saddle it with a giant new entitlement while he goes out and plays some more golf.

Posted by: chemjeff at November 14, 2011 06:33 AM (OoiW1)

54 Good grief, now RASMUSSEN is liberal, lol. It's always the evil pollsters, huh? So I guess the old, "the only poll that matters on election day" cliche will be trotted out again, and when Obama destroys Romney next November, you guys will be surprised somehow.

Posted by: Greg at November 14, 2011 10:30 AM (AixDW)

Hey dumbass, go read real clear politics and you tell me. You have to love how rassmussen is all of a sudden the liberals favorite pollster.

Posted by: robtr at November 14, 2011 06:33 AM (MtwBb)

55 Pack the court! Pack the court!

Posted by: Cherry pi at November 14, 2011 06:34 AM (OhYCU)

56 23, so lacey - more reasons not to let Mittens be the nominee.

Posted by: Jean at November 14, 2011 06:34 AM (WkuV6)

57
With the numbers as is, Obama is at 50% and would win re-election.

Posted by: Greg at November 14, 2011 10:22 AM (AixDW)

He's at 45% in the average of all polls.

Posted by: Jon at November 14, 2011 06:34 AM (gkCyJ)

58 Oh, and the real reason why Obama's poll numbers are ticking up a little bit?

Because he has SHUT UP for a while.

No speeches, no big events. He hasn't been in the news.

When people don't have to listen to Obama, they seem to like him more. Funny that.

Posted by: chemjeff at November 14, 2011 06:35 AM (OoiW1)

59 Help wanted: Food tasters

Posted by: Cherry pi at November 14, 2011 06:36 AM (OhYCU)

60 Even the optimistic forecasters linked to in the Doom thread think we're still going to be sucking on close to 9% unemployment next year.

Posted by: Dave at November 14, 2011 10:19 AM (Xm1aB)

The U6 unemployment rate is comfortably above 16%. (For context, between the election of Bush and July 2008 it never got above 10.5%, it went up steadily until Nov. 2008 and skyrocketed after the election of Obama.)

There is no way you can get the U3 down without the U6 going down first. As I understand it also, the Obama administration has manipulated the numbers so as to keep the U3 rate artificially low, but those games can't be played with the U6.

In other words, there are a lot of underemployed people who are looking for the same jobs as unemployed people.

Posted by: AmishDude at November 14, 2011 06:36 AM (T0NGe)

61 Perhaps Herman Cain could invoke Moses and part the SCOTUS where it counts?

Posted by: Andrew Breitbart at November 14, 2011 06:37 AM (EL+OC)

62 50 @46

Then what institution would you propose to effectuate, however imperfectly, the Rule of Law?

Posted by: Dave at November 14, 2011 10:30 AM (Xm1aB)

I wrote a short story once... may have to pull it out and rewrite it... but... basic premise was that the Dept. of Justice, was renamed to Dept. of Law... and a ONE man Dept. was created, as the Justice Department...

One man, whose ONLY power was to SHOOT anyone he thought had bypassed Justice, through a legal loophole. He could be 'fired' by Congress and the President, but never Prosecuted for what he did...

What lawyers, and the Government Lawyers who write the Laws don't seem to understand anymore, is that Legal, and Just, are two different things...

Its LEGAL for Congresscritters to use inside knowledge to make trades on the market and make money.... however, with the rules they place on the rest of US, its not Just.... soooo... /BANG!

Posted by: Romeo13 at November 14, 2011 06:37 AM (NtXW4)

63 Will Gloria All-red be able to defend ObamaCare?

Posted by: Cherry pi at November 14, 2011 06:38 AM (OhYCU)

64 I don't think there has ever been a President who the public WANTS to succeed like Obama.

Why? Because they're racist?

Race-based noblesse oblige is racism. Possibly the most disgusting form that it takes.

Posted by: AmishDude at November 14, 2011 06:39 AM (T0NGe)

65 Will Gloria All-red be able to defend ObamaCare?

Posted by: Cherry pi at November 14, 2011 10:38 AM (OhYCU)

Speaking of witch (that's not a typo)......

Attention Whoring Attorney Gloria Allred To Hold Second Press Conference Today On Cain Sexual Harassment Claims, Will Feature Ex-Boyfriend of Sharon BialekÂ…

http://tinyurl.com/83hnlow

Posted by: Tami at November 14, 2011 06:41 AM (X6akg)

Heh, even the POLITICO poll out this morning only has Obama at 44% approval.

http://tinyurl.com/cmc4p7e

Posted by: robtr at November 14, 2011 06:42 AM (MtwBb)

67 that Sally Cohn is a handsome lad.

Posted by: garrett at November 14, 2011 06:47 AM (uTkeF)

68 With the numbers as is, Obama is at 50% and would win re-election. Posted by: Greg Do we need another remedial lesson in the role of the electoral college?

Posted by: Jean at November 14, 2011 06:48 AM (WkuV6)

69 50 @46

Then what institution would you propose to effectuate, however imperfectly, the Rule of Law?

Posted by: Dave at November 14, 2011 10:30 AM (Xm1aB)

Ultimately you can't. So you have to put checks in place to keep their power low. I have no problem with, for instance, single-payer for lawyers and salary maximums. The legal profession is the means by which rent-seeking takes place and is a creation of our government.

I would have ethical supervision over the legal profession from outsiders.

Other reforms could be put in place to provide a disincentive from judges ruling based on their own perceived "wisdom".

Posted by: AmishDude at November 14, 2011 06:49 AM (T0NGe)

70 Will Feature Ex-Boyfriend of Sharon BialekÂ…

Objection. Hearsay.

Posted by: AmishDude at November 14, 2011 06:50 AM (T0NGe)

71 The issue was already off the table if Romney was the nominee. Romney supported MassCare which includes an individual mandate. Romney said, "I like mandates; mandates work." Some of the advisers who helped craft MassCare helped craft ObamaCare

That's completely wrong. On a state's rights/10th Amendment basis, Romney is completely credible on this issue. Do you have credibility? Which loser candidate (who claimed Romneycare would sink Romney did you/do you support?

Posted by: ParisParamus at November 14, 2011 06:51 AM (bN5ZU)

72 Intrade odds of SCOTUS striking down individual mandate in 2012 are up 5% on this news, to 40%.

Posted by: Jon at November 14, 2011 06:52 AM (gkCyJ)

73 The Republicans have as much chance of repealing Obamacare as a Bono going from she to signing he.

Posted by: Dane Rather, Chief Correspondent, Currant TV at November 14, 2011 06:55 AM (KOQBP)

74 Whoever wins the GOP nomination, I'm voting for him (or her) in the general election. Because the alternative is unacceptable.

Posted by: Mike at November 14, 2011 07:03 AM (NH9Y5)

75 @70 Single-payer and salary maximums for lawyers? Doesn't sound very conservative to me. Ethical supervision by outsiders? I'd be okay with that as long as lawyer-haters like yourself were excluded from supervisory positions.

Posted by: Dave at November 14, 2011 07:06 AM (Xm1aB)

76 So how much is Kennedy going for these days?

Posted by: BHO at November 14, 2011 07:44 AM (zHl9z)

77 Don't get your hopes up.

Remember that this is the same SC that saw no problem with stealing private property not for a public purpose but to potentially increase tax revenues.

It also recently said that the People have no right to resist any police entity's illegal actions

They also said that Americans have no legal standing to question whether or not a politician meets the Constitutional requirements for office

Posted by: Mark E at November 14, 2011 08:09 AM (w5RwR)

78 Anthony Kennedy is the X-factor. I hope he remembers how furious with SCOAMF at the State of the Union address last year. Plus, Kagan MUST recuse - she has a direct and deep conflict of interest as the former solicitor general of the US, who was charged with preparing the defense of the law before the court. Of course, the MFM will try and re-lynch Clarence Thomas because of his wife. And then the DC circuit decision last week with a strongly conservative judge deciding in favor of the mandate. The tea leaves are not reading.....

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at November 14, 2011 08:11 AM (UlUS4)

79 Single-payer and salary maximums for lawyers? Doesn't sound very conservative to me.

Why? Lawyers do not provide a good or service that people choose voluntarily. They are an outgrowth of the government and are only able to make money because of the system we the people provide them to get rich off of. All government employees have maximum salaries.

Ethical supervision by outsiders? I'd be okay with that as long as lawyer-haters like yourself were excluded from supervisory positions.

Posted by: Dave at November 14, 2011 11:06 AM (Xm1aB)

Why not? Lawyers have supervision over the ethics of every other profession. And capitalist-hating lawyers are a large chunk of the mix.

Posted by: Luke Russert at November 14, 2011 08:22 AM (T0NGe)

80 Nepotism sock off.

Posted by: AmishDude at November 14, 2011 08:23 AM (T0NGe)

81 I am delighted to see that they have at least scheduled time to discuss the forgotten severance clause. It's theoretically possible they may vacate the whole thing, but I suspect Kennedy will take a wide stance.

Posted by: Bob Saget at November 14, 2011 08:23 AM (SDkq3)

82 Objection. Hearsay.

Not if the boyfriend was molested by Cain.

Posted by: Bob Saget at November 14, 2011 08:26 AM (SDkq3)

83 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: steevy at November 14, 2011 12:34 PM (7WJOC)

Then what institution would you propose to effectuate, however imperfectly, the Rule of Law?

Ahem

Posted by: Interposition, Nullification, and Secession, per Jefferson and Madison at November 14, 2011 07:21 PM (SYhX2)

85 Thank you for the good writeup. It in fact was a amusement account it. Look advanced to more added agreeable from you! download hulu ! hulu to ipad flv to dvd converter dvd creator
amv converter for mac

Posted by: nanonu at November 14, 2011 08:28 PM (xhx6G)

86 @80 People don't voluntarily choose to purchase services provided by lawyers? Really? Got news for you.

Posted by: Dave at November 15, 2011 07:17 AM (Xm1aB)

87 You really make it seem so uderstandable with your presentation but I find this topic before really hard to understand. It seems too complicated and very broad for me.

Posted by: Millionaire Teacher ePub at November 15, 2011 03:10 PM (f1A29)

88 Nice commentary. last thirty days I uncovered this internet site and desired to permit you be conscious that iÂ’ve been gratified, heading via your siteÂ’s posts. I should certainly be signing equally as much as the RSS feed and can wait around for another post.

Posted by: Kill Alex Cross iBooks at November 15, 2011 03:34 PM (n9GUx)

89 Thank you for the good writeup. It in fact was a amusement account it. Look advanced to more added agreeable from you! However, how could we communicate?

Posted by: Unequal Childhoods Audiobook at November 15, 2011 04:08 PM (wBV8S)

90 Wow this is soo helpful I have been trying to figure this out on my own for a long time now. Hopefully making this change will help encourage discussion on my blog.

Posted by: Imperfect Justice ePub at November 15, 2011 05:51 PM (5sfx4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

116kb generated in CPU 0.0403, elapsed 0.2199 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.1908 seconds, 218 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.