June 28, 2012
— Ace Via @MStevensG8r. Just funny, had to share.
Posted by: Ace at
07:14 AM
| Comments (51)
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: William Amos at June 28, 2012 07:16 AM (UgnFs)
Posted by: LIGuy at June 28, 2012 07:16 AM (+usC4)
Posted by: Laughing in Texas at June 28, 2012 07:16 AM (dL9LY)
Posted by: Alamo at June 28, 2012 07:17 AM (m/tN9)
1) Can we start discussing the actual probabilities that this will actually get overturned if Mitt wins?
2) Is it in bounds to bring up Mitts court picks during his time in elected office and how they might give insight into his picks if POTUS?
3) Can we discuss these things without getting labeled lefty trolls or concern trolls?
Because it's pretty fucking pertinent to the topic at hand since we're just magically assuming #1 and #2 are going to be favorable to the Constitution.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 28, 2012 07:17 AM (rX1N2)
Posted by: chief justice dunsel at June 28, 2012 07:18 AM (nrW1y)
Posted by: SoCalMe at June 28, 2012 07:20 AM (s72/N)
CJ Roberts Opinion, pg 6:
"It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."
Posted by: William Amos at June 28, 2012 07:21 AM (UgnFs)
Posted by: steevy at June 28, 2012 07:21 AM (Xb3hu)
Posted by: King and Ruler Supreme Barack Obama at June 28, 2012 07:23 AM (gmeXX)
Posted by: soothsayer at June 28, 2012 07:24 AM (jlW3q)
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at June 28, 2012 07:25 AM (famk3)
Posted by: Zombie Adolf Hitler goes Godwin at June 28, 2012 07:26 AM (VzYy6)
"It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."
Johnny, it's your damn job to keep the structural restrictions on legislative overreach contained in the Constitution that you just pissed all over in place.
You are a disgrace to the bench, the Founders, and the country. You have failed your oath.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at June 28, 2012 07:27 AM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: Eric Holder at June 28, 2012 07:27 AM (QxDuX)
Posted by: Virginia SoCon at June 28, 2012 07:27 AM (+/C3g)
Posted by: SH at June 28, 2012 07:27 AM (gmeXX)
True, that.
The 2012 House and Senate elections will not be pretty for Dem incumbents ...
"Congressman Taxemhigh voted for the biggest tax increase in US history ..."
The most important reaction to the ruling will come from the USCCB. Catholic schools, hospitals, food banks, charities, -everything- now stand in the balance.
Posted by: mrp at June 28, 2012 07:27 AM (HjPtV)
Posted by: Adc at June 28, 2012 07:27 AM (JJJ5P)
Posted by: soothsayer at June 28, 2012 07:28 AM (xrrIr)
I see no limits at all. Congress can make me buy a product, take away my property, tell me what kind of toilet I can have, tell me I can't fill in a puddle on my farm, send my money to Egypt, log my cellphone usage, monitor my emails, stop me anytime...
Posted by: Jones in CO at June 28, 2012 07:29 AM (8sCoq)
The first point of the decision says the Anti-Injunction Act didn't bar the court challenge because the bill is.not.a.tax!
'Splain me, Lucy...
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at June 28, 2012 07:30 AM (famk3)
Posted by: soothsayer at June 28, 2012 07:30 AM (x8us2)
Posted by: Jones in CO at June 28, 2012 07:31 AM (8sCoq)
Posted by: The Political Hat at June 28, 2012 07:32 AM (XYqoq)
Isn't the better strategic approach for the House right now to have a repeal vote on the mandate tax? We all prefer full repeal, and we may not want to water down that argument. As I type this, I think I am answering my own question.
Posted by: SH at June 28, 2012 07:33 AM (gmeXX)
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at June 28, 2012 07:35 AM (d0Tfm)
a “tax” for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Affordable Care
Act describes the payment as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label
cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Con-
stitution, but it does determine the application of the Anti-Injunction
Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not bar this suit."
The fuck?
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at June 28, 2012 07:35 AM (famk3)
Posted by: Fritz at June 28, 2012 07:36 AM (/ZZCn)
Posted by: ADK46er at June 28, 2012 07:37 AM (tkY5j)
Maybe Arizona should impose a tax on illegal aliens? A tax on hiring illegal aliens? Brocoli tax? Be sure to fill out your Form 10666 and include the receipt to show proof of purchase. Don't forget to sign the "I really ate it" form under penalty of perjury. And don't be late!
This justification on the taxing power demands mocking. 24/7. Forever. Show Roberts how this "legitimacy of the Court" thing is working out.
Posted by: The Poster Formerly Known as Mr. Barky at June 28, 2012 07:42 AM (qwK3S)
Unfortunately, my Photoshop-fu is weak.
Posted by: RightWingProf at June 28, 2012 07:58 AM (IC6Er)
The first point of the decision says the Anti-Injunction Act didn't bar the court challenge because the bill is.not.a.tax!
'Splain me, Lucy...
Posted by: weft cut-loop at June 28, 2012 11:30 AM (famk3)
In the Dred Scott decision, the court said Dred was not a citizen, so could not sue, but ruled the Republican political platform illegal anyway.
It is a rich tradition.
Posted by: Oldcat at June 28, 2012 08:09 AM (rzSn3)
Posted by: Can of Raid at June 28, 2012 08:29 AM (mLZe7)
Posted by: JS at June 28, 2012 09:01 AM (/dsDz)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2154 seconds, 179 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: Hal Burton at June 28, 2012 07:15 AM (iYvMQ)