March 28, 2012
— Ace Here.
Trying to figure out which of the liberal justices I hate most. I think it's between Breyer and Kagan, though Sotomayor is really showing me something.
Kagan claims that the federal government's "offer of boatloads" of money is obviously not coercive -- they're "offering" "boatloads" of money.
When Clement objects that they're offering their own money back to states, the liberal justices chuckle.
They really do seem to believe in the concept of "free money." When Clement argues this money isn't free -- no money is -- they just can't wrap their minds around it.
Posted by: Ace at
12:36 PM
| Comments (198)
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: joncelli, heartless Con and all around unpleasant guy at March 28, 2012 12:37 PM (RD7QR)
"they just can't wrap their minds around it."
*
Because they don't pay taxes, only the little people do.
Posted by: kallisto at March 28, 2012 12:38 PM (jm/9g)
It's definitely Breyer. (Legal) History's Greatest Monster.
Posted by: Knemon at March 28, 2012 12:38 PM (u1+3w)
Posted by: tasker at March 28, 2012 12:39 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at March 28, 2012 12:39 PM (Af3Wg)
Posted by: Lauren at March 28, 2012 12:39 PM (32mdF)
Posted by: tasker at March 28, 2012 12:40 PM (r2PLg)
Do they seriously not know this?!
We're f*cked.
Posted by: Tami at March 28, 2012 12:41 PM (X6akg)
Posted by: Ed Schultz at March 28, 2012 12:41 PM (84pE9)
Her quote "So that really reduces to the question of why is a big gift from the Federal Government a matter of coercion?"
Good thing the R's didn't try to block this mental giant's confirmation. Imagine, this imbecile is on the Supreme court and Robert Bork isn't.
Posted by: Hedgehog at March 28, 2012 12:41 PM (3jGS1)
Posted by: Nanny Botox at March 28, 2012 12:42 PM (Y+DPZ)
Posted by: Lauren at March 28, 2012 12:42 PM (32mdF)
Posted by: tasker at March 28, 2012 12:43 PM (r2PLg)
"boatloads" is high-falutin Ivy League legal mumbo jumbo. You pedestrians wouldn't understand.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at March 28, 2012 12:43 PM (X3lox)
Posted by: nickless at March 28, 2012 12:44 PM (MMC8r)
Is "boatloads" some sort of legal/judicial term of art?
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at March 28, 2012 12:44 PM (ZKzrr)
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at March 28, 2012 12:45 PM (X3lox)
Posted by: I am the egg man, . . . at March 28, 2012 12:45 PM (a362c)
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at March 28, 2012 12:45 PM (ZKzrr)
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at March 28, 2012 04:44 PM (ZKzrr)
Yes, though it is interchangeable with "shit-tons." "Ceteris parabus, there will be shit-tons of implications." It's all pretty technical.
Posted by: joncelli, heartless Con and all around unpleasant guy at March 28, 2012 12:46 PM (RD7QR)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 28, 2012 12:46 PM (8y9MW)
Breyer is the one who got a taste of the Kelo ruling being used against him. ....When someone tried to use it to take his own house.
Let's hope that Kagan's obnoxiousness will help to push Kennedy over the line.
Posted by: wheatie at March 28, 2012 12:46 PM (dEMjC)
In technical terms, its 1/3 of a metric fuck ton.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 28, 2012 12:46 PM (+NVYG)
Posted by: joeindc44 also punches above his weight (which is bad for you cause I am jacked) at March 28, 2012 12:46 PM (QxSug)
Scalia doesn't even have to work to bitchslap Breyer anymore. I think he does it by reflex.
I agree with Ace, I really don't think these people have the intellectual capacity to grasp that There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
It's not that they disagree with it or that it doesn't matter to them, they just don't get the concept.
Posted by: AmishDude at March 28, 2012 12:46 PM (T0NGe)
Posted by: the hobbit fomerly known as Donna at March 28, 2012 12:47 PM (ZHge+)
Posted by: joeindc44 also punches above his weight (which is bad for you cause I am jacked) at March 28, 2012 12:47 PM (QxSug)
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at March 28, 2012 04:44 PM (ZKzrr)
Yes, it is $12 more than a jumping robot can jump over
Posted by: robtr at March 28, 2012 12:48 PM (MtwBb)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 28, 2012 12:48 PM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Judge Sotokaganator at March 28, 2012 12:49 PM (v+QvA)
Posted by: kbdabear at March 28, 2012 12:49 PM (Y+DPZ)
Posted by: the hobbit fomerly known as Donna at March 28, 2012 04:47 PM (ZHge+)
Yep. There's far too much stupid and anti-Americanism concentrated in the SCOTUS to rely on anything even partially rational coming from them.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at March 28, 2012 12:49 PM (X3lox)
It was a consequence of me falling asleep (literally, I think: I seriously don't remember hitting "post") while typing.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 28, 2012 12:50 PM (8y9MW)
Posted by: dlsada at March 28, 2012 12:50 PM (eZHq+)
Posted by: Kerry at March 28, 2012 12:50 PM (a/VXa)
I know Scalia can be abrasive, but if you care about your "legacy", do you really want to be known as being on the side of mental midgets like these three?
I think of the four of them Bader-Ginsburg is the only intelligent one, but I think it's just plain bile running through her veins.
Posted by: AmishDude at March 28, 2012 12:51 PM (T0NGe)
When Clement objects that they're offering their own money back to states, the liberal justices chuckle.
They really do seem to believe in the concept of "free money." When Clement argues this money isn't free -- no money is -- they just can't wrap their minds around it.
It's difficult to not think These justices are 9 year olds in adult robes.
Posted by: willow at March 28, 2012 12:51 PM (TomZ9)
Posted by: nickless at March 28, 2012 12:51 PM (MMC8r)
Is "boatloads" some sort of legal/judicial term of art?
***********
Holy shit snacks! She stole my legal argument!
Posted by: Pam Poovy at March 28, 2012 12:51 PM (ggRof)
Posted by: © Sponge at March 28, 2012 12:51 PM (UK9cE)
Posted by: willow at March 28, 2012 12:52 PM (TomZ9)
Posted by: tasker at March 28, 2012 12:52 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: ejo at March 28, 2012 12:52 PM (URqVp)
Posted by: Max Power at March 28, 2012 12:53 PM (q177U)
Why are they even discussing severability? Isn't the FACT that Congress removed it, an explict example of their intent? The only reason to override Congress and put it back, is if the Court want to legislate from the bench.
But I'm an Engineer who thinks logically, would NEVER make it as a lawyer.
Posted by: i'm the Honey Badger, BITCH! at March 28, 2012 12:54 PM (nyxv/)
until she comes up with the correct answer.. or not.
Posted by: willow at March 28, 2012 12:54 PM (TomZ9)
I blame my wife. She handed me a good book to read last night. Once I start, I often don't know how long I read.
Getting up at 4AM does not mix well with going to bed after midnight.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 28, 2012 12:54 PM (8y9MW)
Posted by: nevergiveup at March 28, 2012 12:54 PM (eCnLg)
Richard Lugar, Judd Gregg, Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe
She was also the Dean of Harvard Law School. Still with no comprehension of basic economics.
Posted by: Hedgehog at March 28, 2012 12:55 PM (3jGS1)
She might as well sit at home and eat Cheetos for the next few weeks for all the decidin' she'll have to do.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 28, 2012 12:55 PM (eHIJJ)
Wasn't Breyer put there by the Clintons to be Hillary's sockpuppet?
Posted by: kbdabear at March 28, 2012 12:55 PM (Y+DPZ)
" I think it's between Breyer and Kagan"
**
Sounds like another Liberal ice cream company. Has great packaging, taste great going down but makes you a fat, lasy, useless bastard.
Posted by: dananjcon at March 28, 2012 12:55 PM (8ieXv)
Posted by: joncelli, heartless Con and all around unpleasant guy at March 28, 2012 12:56 PM (RD7QR)
Posted by: nevergiveup at March 28, 2012 12:56 PM (eCnLg)
until she comes up with the correct answer.. or not.
Posted by: willow at March 28, 2012 04:54 PM (TomZ9)
The Gubmint of course. Not quite a boatload yet though.
Posted by: Justice Kagan at March 28, 2012 12:56 PM (3jGS1)
I hadn't heard until today that the severability clause had been specifically removed. My understanding was just that it was "left out" which might indicate something different.
As much as I agree with you ("It's not in there? Great. Not severable. Next."), I can see why you could argue- legally- that while the clause would indicate that the bill is specifically severable, its lack does not necessarily indicate that the bill is not severable. It's a convoluted argument, and it relies a great deal on sophistry- but so do many other legal arguments, unfortunately.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 28, 2012 12:57 PM (8y9MW)
No, sir. This isn't a gun to your head. It's a lead-propelled handle.
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] at March 28, 2012 12:57 PM (qOfw/)
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 28, 2012 04:55 PM (eHIJJ)
Sounds like Tuesday at Casa Kagan.
Posted by: joncelli, heartless Con and all around unpleasant guy at March 28, 2012 12:57 PM (RD7QR)
Posted by: i'm the Honey Badger, BITCH! at March 28, 2012 04:54 PM (nyxv/)
They just make shit up. Congress' CLEAR INTENTION was that the mandate was most definitely NOT A TAX. I don't know how many times we saw America-hating Congress-critters scream about hat until they were blue in the face while the bill was illegally being forced through. But this SCOTUS had the first day of hearing to determine whether the mandate was a tax or not - when there was NO QUESTION ABOUT CONGRESS' INTENTION ON THAT whatsoever.
Court is for retards. Anyone with a brain will go crazy listening to these idiots play with some weird toy they've named "logic". They are all disingenuous idiots.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at March 28, 2012 12:58 PM (X3lox)
So what's more a boat load (depending on the size of the boat) shit load, oodles, ass load, scads?
Posted by: YIKES! at March 28, 2012 12:58 PM (Fx8df)
I picture Breyer as Wesley Mooch from Atlas Shrugged.
Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at March 28, 2012 12:58 PM (uslQu)
----
They don't wait long to rewrite history.
I hope to see an ad with that obnoxious picture of Pelosi and her huge gavel and smug smile on the left side, split screen with the D/R vote numbers on the right side, with a big red stamp of Overturned by the Supreme Court as Unconstitutional diagonal across the page.
Posted by: Mayday at March 28, 2012 12:59 PM (orrLR)
But that's no reason we shouldn't run up more debt!!!!
Posted by: Jimmuy at March 28, 2012 12:59 PM (kSaUf)
Posted by: Captain Francesco Schettino at March 28, 2012 12:59 PM (4q5tP)
until she understands where money, 'boatloads of money' come from.
and then we will drag our children up to speak to the house, and they will say they have to eat top romein - mac and cheese now, because the govt takes too much money from the paychecks.
Posted by: willow at March 28, 2012 12:59 PM (TomZ9)
I swear that I heard someone on the radio today saying that if they didn't want it to be severed they would have put anti-severable language in it. Sounds like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube to me.
Posted by: Justice Kagan at March 28, 2012 12:59 PM (3jGS1)
Posted by: Justice Breyer at March 28, 2012 12:59 PM (qwK3S)
Posted by: nevergiveup at March 28, 2012 01:00 PM (eCnLg)
Breyer, for sure. The single most smarmy human being I can think of.
Posted by: indigo child at March 28, 2012 01:00 PM (xXhWA)
So far, stunned silence on my two attempts to get them over that failure of imagination.
Posted by: PJ at March 28, 2012 01:00 PM (DQHjw)
@11Do they seriously not know this?!
No.
They really and truly just do not fundamentally understand this. I think it's why they are liberals and not conservatives. Math and problem-solving are not prerequisites for law school, and I'm beginning to think that analysis is not taught in law school, either.
I'm hoping that Thomas can explain this to Kagan - I really do think that she is one of the ones who can be reasoned with (I know I'm in the minority here). But if anyone can help her to understand the fallacy of her reasoning, it's Thomas.
I still think that she is going to end up surprising everyone as time goes on.
Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at March 28, 2012 01:01 PM (0xqzf)
Posted by: willow at March 28, 2012 01:01 PM (TomZ9)
What I would like to do right about now is take that giant gavel of hers and shove it up where the sun don't shine...
Posted by: the hobbit fomerly known as Donna at March 28, 2012 01:01 PM (ZHge+)
Posted by: nevergiveup at March 28, 2012 01:02 PM (eCnLg)
Or maybe that's just shit made up. You know, it is the internet.
Posted by: Jimmuy at March 28, 2012 01:03 PM (kSaUf)
I remember that the lack of a severability clause was noted at the time of passage, and several law-types (even conservative ones) pointed to previous decisions where the Court had judged something severable without a severability clause.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 28, 2012 01:03 PM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Liberals at March 28, 2012 01:03 PM (A2+pr)
Posted by: nevergiveup at March 28, 2012 01:03 PM (eCnLg)
Posted by: Jimmah at March 28, 2012 01:03 PM (UpwlP)
Posted by: willow at March 28, 2012 01:04 PM (TomZ9)
Remember this: "Ya gotta pass it to find out what's inside"?
Considering my testimony, I thought you would have already figured that out.
Posted by: Sandra Fluke at March 28, 2012 01:04 PM (DrWcr)
Posted by: dr kill at March 28, 2012 01:04 PM (0TdUk)
Not to gild the lily of concepts that should be obvious but aren't, the severability is a known legislative mechanism. For the court to reinsert it into the bill is a clear breech of the division of powers.
Is there anything Congress can do in instances of the court overstepping its charge? I can't think of anything.
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] at March 28, 2012 01:04 PM (qOfw/)
My husband went through law school, many moons ago, and he gets it.
No, there has to be another explanation. Retardation.
Posted by: Tami at March 28, 2012 01:04 PM (X6akg)
I hope you're right (I think you're wrong, though). That said- if she really can be reasoned with and can learn a little freaking common sense, she could be come a swing vote (or even a somewhat conservative vote). That would be sweet, sweet justice.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 28, 2012 01:04 PM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Sandy Fluck at March 28, 2012 01:04 PM (LQIyD)
No surprise. They tried to sell Crap+Trade as "competition" - "Why do you hate competition?"
They also tried to sell the public option with the same idiotic "competition" argument ... if anyone recalls, they mad the case that there needs to be competition by the government against the private sector - YES, they really did make that exact argument ... for months.
As to this new thing and trying to hang their cop-car feces on the GOP ... that'll probably work, since the GOP is too scared to deny anything. The crybaby idiot and Bitch McConnell will probably come out and apologize for the mandate, the stupid ...
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at March 28, 2012 01:05 PM (X3lox)
Posted by: nevergiveup at March 28, 2012 01:05 PM (eCnLg)
Posted by: natasha at March 28, 2012 01:06 PM (pyYXJ)
What I would like to do right about now is take that giant gavel of hers and shove it up where the sun don't shine...
***********
C'mon, I finally just recovered from passing a 2,700-page bill....
Posted by: Nancy Pelosi's bowels at March 28, 2012 01:06 PM (ggRof)
Posted by: nevergiveup at March 28, 2012 01:06 PM (eCnLg)
The crazy thing about Kagan?
She was the previous Solicitor General (she took that office in March of 2009).
So it is her replacement who is arguing the case for Obamacare to her.
I can't believe that she isn't recusing herself. Outrageous.
Posted by: dan-O at March 28, 2012 01:06 PM (sWycd)
Astonishing!
Posted by: McLovin at March 28, 2012 01:07 PM (j0IcY)
***********
C'mon, I finally just recovered from passing a 2,700-page bill....
Posted by: Nancy Pelosi's bowels at March 28, 2012 05:06 PM (ggRof)
Than that gavel shouldn't be much of a stretch.
Posted by: Insomniac at March 28, 2012 01:07 PM (DrWcr)
Posted by: nevergiveup at March 28, 2012 01:07 PM (eCnLg)
has anyone actually read the bill?
Posted by: willow at March 28, 2012 01:08 PM (TomZ9)
that she is one of the ones who can be reasoned with
Except she worked for Obama pimping the damn thing. Might be able to explain some logic/principles to her so she can understand, but it's not an abstraction--it's her work. She's invested in it.
[misogynist profanity]
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at March 28, 2012 01:08 PM (ZKzrr)
We went offline for the discussion. Good day to you, sir.
Posted by: kagan at March 28, 2012 01:08 PM (GTbGH)
Posted by: Miss80sBaby at March 28, 2012 01:08 PM (d6QMz)
Yes they did. Recall the big fear of the time was the political one of being blamed for raising taxes before the mid-terms. Democrats soooo didn't want that along with the debt crisis that they lied however expediently necessary to avoid short term pain.
Obamacare has always been a deception. ALWAYS! In fact the goal is to actually have the ACA fail (not in enactment but in practice) as soon as possible so that single-payer, socialized medicine can replace it. ACA is a mere stepping stone in Cass Sunstein's nudge theory of modifying behavior. Progressivism is exactly what it says it is; it just doesn't have a hammer and sickle associated with it yet.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 28, 2012 01:08 PM (eHIJJ)
Posted by: Schwalbe: The Me-262© at March 28, 2012 01:08 PM (UU0OF)
The Obama administration is now referring to Obamacare as a “bi-partisan bill” and calling the unpopular individual mandate “a Republican idea,” following three days of tough questioning by the Supreme Court.
“The Affordable Care Act is a bipartisan plan and one that we think is constitutional,” Deputy White House press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters on Wednesday afternoon.
No Republican voted for the Affordable Care Act on final passage.
He also referred to the individual mandate as the “individual responsibility” clause of the bill, in an attempt to distance the administration from the term individual mandate.
http://tinyurl.com/82baar6
Unfuckingbelievable.
Posted by: Cast Iron at March 28, 2012 01:09 PM (EL+OC)
Posted by: Jimmah at March 28, 2012 01:10 PM (UpwlP)
Posted by: Schwalbe: The Me-262© at March 28, 2012 05:08 PM (UU0OF)
Taking care of oneself is a dangerous, radical, anti-government stance. You're now on the watchlist as a potential terrorist.
Posted by: Janet Napolitano at March 28, 2012 01:10 PM (DrWcr)
What "layers of editors" propaganda machine did you paste that from? I can't tell if it's a bad transcript, an hilarious Freudian typo, or a really stupid scrunt trying to sound smart.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at March 28, 2012 01:10 PM (ZKzrr)
Posted by: Schwalbe: The Me-262© at March 28, 2012 05:08 PM (UU0OF)
*********
I take care of myself all the time. Do you know how expensive birth control is?
Posted by: Sandra Fluke at March 28, 2012 01:10 PM (ggRof)
Find someone else. Kagan is a perjuring idiot, wed to leftism.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at March 28, 2012 01:10 PM (X3lox)
Posted by: RomneyBot Since 2007 at March 28, 2012 01:11 PM (BB0/w)
The President spoke from his heart on this, it was trying to emphasize with some parents who had just lost a child
So teleprompter = heart now?
Posted by: Insomniac at March 28, 2012 01:11 PM (DrWcr)
Posted by: nevergiveup at March 28, 2012 01:12 PM (eCnLg)
Posted by: joeindc44 also punches above his weight (which is bad for you cause I am jacked) at March 28, 2012 01:12 PM (QxSug)
JUSTICE SCALIA: And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to — to give this function to our law clerks?
Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?
MR. KNEEDLER: Well -
Scalia should have printed the entire thing, pulled it out from under his robe and said "I'll tell you what, you go through this monstrosity and tell us the parts we should keep and why." Then thrown it at him and said "see you after lunch."
Posted by: Hedgehog at March 28, 2012 01:12 PM (3jGS1)
Posted by: Liberals at March 28, 2012 01:12 PM (A2+pr)
Do they think the whole country has suddenly come down with amnesia?
Posted by: Mayday at March 28, 2012 01:13 PM (orrLR)
i even remember lights being shut off by the kind old lady (Pelosi)
imagine if we hadn't gotten a majority in congress, 2010.
we'd be so far down the tubes..
ok, we're halfway down and sliding quickly , still maybe we have a chance.
Posted by: willow at March 28, 2012 01:13 PM (TomZ9)
Posted by: nevergiveup at March 28, 2012 01:13 PM (eCnLg)
Posted by: willow at March 28, 2012 05:08 PM (TomZ9)
Nope. That's why they don't know that on page 1539, in section 5 (A) ii (a), the text reads "Nanu, nanu" because the bored staffer writing the damn thing was high as a kite.
Posted by: joncelli, heartless Con and all around unpleasant guy at March 28, 2012 01:13 PM (RD7QR)
Posted by: RomneyBot Since 2007 at March 28, 2012 01:13 PM (BB0/w)
I'm hoping that Thomas can explain this to Kagan - I really do think that she is one of the ones who can be reasoned with (I know I'm in the minority here). But if anyone canhelp her to understand the fallacy of her reasoning, it's Thomas.
I still think that she is going to end up surprising everyone as time goes on.
Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at March 28, 2012 05:01 PM (0xqzf)
----------------------------------------
Pardon my judicial ignorance, but are the justices allowed to consult with one another after an arguement is heard?
Posted by: Soona at March 28, 2012 01:14 PM (+QHB8)
Posted by: joeindc44 would also like to thank Dr. Pepper for his tasty contribution to mankind at March 28, 2012 01:14 PM (QxSug)
Kind of proves they got their positions through nepotism and networking than skill and brains
Posted by: kbdabear at March 28, 2012 01:15 PM (Y+DPZ)
Posted by: Liberals at March 28, 2012 05:12 PM (A2+pr)
Not just rule on it, but seriously entertain the idea of introducing severability themselves and refashioning the law all on their own ... all without reading it.
America ...
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at March 28, 2012 01:15 PM (X3lox)
Posted by: willow at March 28, 2012 05:08 PM (TomZ9)
I've read about 1/2 at different sittings. It's a pile of shit that gives ENORMOUS power to the secretary of HHS to determine whatever the rules mean.
Posted by: Hedgehog at March 28, 2012 01:15 PM (3jGS1)
@119 “The Affordable Care Act is a bipartisan plan and one that we think is constitutional,” Deputy White House press Secretary Josh Earnest told
reporters on Wednesday afternoon.
Perhaps Mr. Earnest wasn't around when the Democrats locked the doors and stood guard outside while they were drafting this abomination?
Because I CLEARLY remember that happening.
And Republican amendments weren't given the time of day.
Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at March 28, 2012 01:15 PM (0xqzf)
Posted by: MJ at March 28, 2012 01:15 PM (/x4oj)
I can't believe that she isn't recusing herself. Outrageous.
Posted by: dan-O at March 28, 2012 05:06 PM (sWycd)
I thought I read somewhere that Chief Justice Roberts said she did not need to.
Posted by: © Sponge at March 28, 2012 01:15 PM (UK9cE)
They really do seem to believe in the concept of "free money." When Clement argues this money isn't free -- no money is -- they just can't wrap their minds around it.
This is why I fear for the future: really smart people who have no fucking clue about reality. It's all scholarships, fellowships, public interest jobs, government work, interspersed with six month stints at Goldman where they "earn" &10 million and move to Georgetown. The losers just sell secrets or influence to the Chinese and live in McClean.
Posted by: MTF at March 28, 2012 01:15 PM (B5y+v)
Posted by: joeindc44 would also like to thank Dr. Pepper for his tasty contribution to mankind at March 28, 2012 01:16 PM (QxSug)
"People have to stop politicizing it," she added. "It's no surprise that some of our Republican opponents are trying to make an issue with this. But the President spoke from the heart and we need to let the investigation take its course."
meanwhile, anyone wanna buy an Obama hoodie?
Posted by: willow at March 28, 2012 01:16 PM (TomZ9)
Posted by: Soona at March 28, 2012 05:14 PM (+QHB
Who would stop them?
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at March 28, 2012 01:16 PM (X3lox)
Posted by: Hedgehog at March 28, 2012 05:15 PM (3jGS1)
we're screwed then
Posted by: willow at March 28, 2012 01:17 PM (TomZ9)
We're not even fucking supposed to have "ruling elite."
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at March 28, 2012 01:17 PM (ZKzrr)
Sotomayor is a fucking ignoramus. A fourth grader can rip the car insurance analogy to shreds.
Posted by: Hedgehog at March 28, 2012 01:17 PM (3jGS1)
We're not even fucking supposed to have "ruling elite."
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at March 28, 2012 05:17 PM (ZKzrr)
^This times eleventy-million.
Posted by: Insomniac at March 28, 2012 01:18 PM (DrWcr)
that some of our Republican opponents are trying to make an issue with
this. But the President spoke from the heart and we need to let the
investigation take its course."
meanwhile, anyone wanna buy an Obama hoodie?
Posted by: willow at March 28, 2012 05:16 PM (TomZ9)
and later, how about those Parents in the house? you know grieving parents used by the left for their power?
Posted by: willow at March 28, 2012 01:18 PM (TomZ9)
Posted by: naturalfake at March 28, 2012 01:18 PM (XBdI0)
Posted by: Stevadoor at March 28, 2012 01:18 PM (axc/z)
Posted by: RomneyBot Since 2007 at March 28, 2012 01:19 PM (BB0/w)
Posted by: joncelli, heartless Con and all around unpleasant guy at March 28, 2012 05:13 PM (RD7QR)
fgs you Are kidding, ??
Posted by: willow at March 28, 2012 01:19 PM (TomZ9)
If the whole fucking thing ain't thrown out we are.
Posted by: Hedgehog at March 28, 2012 01:20 PM (3jGS1)
Posted by: nevergiveup at March 28, 2012 01:21 PM (eCnLg)
Posted by: Damiano at March 28, 2012 01:21 PM (A2+pr)
this really is astounding. are the Justices going to adress it, and the Waivers?
Posted by: willow at March 28, 2012 01:21 PM (TomZ9)
If o-care gets tossed out, Zero has just put his name front and center on a big huge failure. It'll be Obamacare that got thrown out, not the Affordable Care Act. Stupid timing, little downside to waiting a few days.
Reminds me of the time they were so certain they would win the Olympics for Chicago that they put themselves in the position of suffering a huge public failure. These people don't learn.
Posted by: Mayday at March 28, 2012 01:22 PM (orrLR)
Posted by: willow at March 28, 2012 01:23 PM (TomZ9)
Posted by: ktgreat at March 28, 2012 01:23 PM (TCTPY)
Posted by: Hedgehog at March 28, 2012 01:24 PM (3jGS1)
Posted by: RomneyBot Since 2007 at March 28, 2012 01:25 PM (BB0/w)
Posted by: Damiano at March 28, 2012 01:26 PM (A2+pr)
Posted by: nevergiveup at March 28, 2012 05:21 PM (eCnLg)
I guess Roberts thinks that Kagan perjuring her way onto the SCOTUS was 'the right thing".
These people have no respect for anything but each other, and most of them are deserving of nothing but scorn.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at March 28, 2012 01:26 PM (X3lox)
Posted by: Mayday at March 28, 2012 01:27 PM (orrLR)
Posted by: Soona at March 28, 2012 01:27 PM (+QHB8)
Were they to address all of the legislation's failings, they'd be there through Christmas. They're really going after the worst of the worst where if just one issue can kill it en toto, then there's no need to address the other stuff. The Court really doesn't want to go through it all. It wants a narrow ruling if possible even though there's loads of big issues that we'd sure like to see reigned in.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 28, 2012 01:27 PM (eHIJJ)
‘‘SEC. 2793. HEALTH INSURANCE CONSUMER INFORMATION.
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall award grants to States
to enable such States (or the Exchanges operating in such States)
to establish, expand, or provide support for—
‘‘(1) offices of health insurance consumer
Another
IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish a minimum
interval between the date on which a recommendation described
in subsection (a)(1) or (a)(2) or a guideline under subsection
(a)(3) is issued and the plan year with respect to which the
requirement described in subsection (a) is effective with respect
to the service described in such recommendation or guideline.
‘‘(2) MINIMUM.—The interval described in paragraph (1)
shall not be less than 1 year.
‘‘(c) VALUE-BASED INSURANCE DESIGN.—The Secretary may
develop guidelines to permit a group health plan and a health
insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage
to utilize value-based insurance designs
That's the whole fucking thing.
Posted by: Hedgehog at March 28, 2012 01:29 PM (3jGS1)
Posted by: joeindc44 would also like to thank Dr. Pepper for his tasty contribution to mankind at March 28, 2012 01:29 PM (QxSug)
Posted by: Damiano at March 28, 2012 01:30 PM (A2+pr)
Posted by: joeindc44 would also like to thank Dr. Pepper for his tasty contribution to mankind at March 28, 2012 05:29 PM (QxSug)'
If you can buy it, it's not a right. (credit to some moron from the other day)
Posted by: Hedgehog at March 28, 2012 01:30 PM (3jGS1)
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 28, 2012 05:27 PM (eHIJJ)
can kill it en toto, then there's no need to
address the other stuff.
I see. thanks for that answer.
Posted by: willow at March 28, 2012 01:30 PM (TomZ9)
Even shorter clause for HHS:
IN GENERAL.- The Secretary will do whatever the fuck the Secretary wants. The Secretary's decisions are final.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 28, 2012 01:32 PM (eHIJJ)
Per Wikipedia, none have ever been removed from office. Samuel Chase was impeached but it resulted in acquittal.
Posted by: Heorot at March 28, 2012 01:32 PM (Nq/UF)
Posted by: Dire Straits at March 28, 2012 01:36 PM (0egZ1)
There's a current Congress-critter, Alcee Hastings, who was impeached and tossed out of his federal judgeship (for bribery, I think). The dems tried to make him chair of the House Intelligence Committee, but couldn't quite swing that. He STILL sits on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
What can you say to this sort of shit? It's mind-boggling, really.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at March 28, 2012 01:38 PM (X3lox)
Great quote from a woman being interviewed in front of the Supreme Court building. God Love Her!
From an interview by Benny Johnson at "The Blaze."
Posted by: Jay at March 28, 2012 01:43 PM (nojhZ)
One thing the founders may have missed in setting up the 3 branches with their separation of powers and the checks and balances between them, is what happens when they collude against the people. Right now we can't be sure any of them will defend the constitution or our rights.
Posted by: Mayday at March 28, 2012 01:51 PM (orrLR)
Posted by: Daybrother at March 28, 2012 01:59 PM (WCuHB)
Is "boatloads" some sort of legal/judicial term of art?
In Constitutional Law speak, that's somewhere between assload and shitload
Posted by: Satan's Barbed WeeWee at March 28, 2012 02:03 PM (Jls4P)
Posted by: steevy at March 28, 2012 02:03 PM (7W3wI)
Posted by: Random at March 28, 2012 02:14 PM (EnR4l)
Posted by: Random at March 28, 2012 02:24 PM (EnR4l)
Posted by: Y-not at March 28, 2012 02:24 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: mama winger at March 28, 2012 02:30 PM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: Rich at March 28, 2012 02:43 PM (3lAjR)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 28, 2012 04:57 PM (8y9MW)
Kind of like the "These aren't my pants!" arguement.
There's a very special place in hell for lawyers. With no pants to be worn anywhere.
Posted by: Minuteman at March 28, 2012 02:46 PM (Rs/l4)
So let me just address Breyer's "college" arguments related to Title IX.
Read your Dole decision moron. The Court said "that in some circumstances the financial inducement offered by Congress might be so coercive as to pass the point at which "pressure turns into compulsion."
Let me highlight the pertinent part, here, big guy. "in some circumstances the FINANCIAL INDUCEMENT..." In other words, the amount of money being threatened against the States.
So what do you do, you bring up a situation that involves college funding, an extremely small amount of money that a State receives from the Federal Government. Your own fucking case makes clear that the coercion results from the extreme amount of money, not just the situation. So, no, Justice Breyer, the federal government threatining to withhold state funding for colleges would not be coercive because the amount of money is quite small. Which is exactly the opposite of what you are dealing with in this case.
Posted by: Rich at March 28, 2012 02:51 PM (3lAjR)
Posted by: Rich at March 28, 2012 02:56 PM (3lAjR)
And furthermore, to pile on Ace's point, these Justices are idiots.
So the Federal Government takes 100% of a peron's income. THey then go to a state and say "Hey, state, we will give X amount of dollars if you just do this and this and this." The State does it. Later, the Federal Government comes back and says "Hey, state, we will give eve more dollars if you jsut do these extra things. But if you don't, not only will we not give you the new dollars, we will take the old ones."
The state thinks on this, and says to itself "you know, I'd rather not take that extra money, and if the Federal government wants to take all of the money away because of that, so be it, I'll stand on my own." BUT WAIT A FUCKING MINUTE!! THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS ALREADY TAKEN ALL OF THE MONEY FOM THE CITIZENRY SO THE STATE CANT DO IT ON ITS FUCKING ON NOW CAN THEY??!?!!?
Right over Kagan's head. Right over Sotomayor's head. Right over Breyer's head. These brilliant minds seemingly miss things so easily seen by everyone else.
Posted by: Rich at March 28, 2012 03:05 PM (3lAjR)
Posted by: Rich at March 28, 2012 03:19 PM (3lAjR)
Posted by: Bud Norton at March 28, 2012 04:38 PM (mXmRo)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2168 seconds, 326 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: Brainpimp at March 28, 2012 12:37 PM (mwlsF)