June 25, 2012
— Ace Allah's reading some tea leaves.
This leaf... this leaf I don't like so much.
Sean Trende, though, made an interesting observation on Twitter today: In the past, Scalia’s dissents in other cases have been grumpier than usual when he ended up losing on the big case of the term — not unlike today’s Arizona dissent, in fact. And that’s not just Trende saying that; that’s a former Scalia clerk whom Trende knows. (Guy Benson noted this also.) That’s weak, weak evidence of what Thursday will bring, but like I said, we’ve got 60 hours to kill. Weak evidence is better than none.
So, this reasoning goes: Scalia shows some grumpiness via hisstinging dissent in the Arizona case. He has previously gotten grumpier as bad terms (for him) wore on, so we should expect he's grumpy now because he lost The Big One.
I don't like that tea leaf at all. Bring some other tea leaves.
One tea leaf (for me) is my general belief that things rarely go the way you wish they should go (or they should go), so... I guess I should be more pessimistic about this.
Posted by: Ace at
01:18 PM
| Comments (193)
Post contains 199 words, total size 1 kb.
maybe not a true 2x4 but what the hell.
Now, where's the fucking post skewering Obama and Hillary for the mess in Egypt?
Posted by: garrett at June 25, 2012 01:20 PM (X+WXU)
Depressing, but extremely good news for Romney in November.
Posted by: Jeff B. at June 25, 2012 01:20 PM (FCfv5)
I can't begin to think of all the ball spiking that douchetastic Pelosi will do if it stands. She said no doubt it was constitutional and it was standing 6-3
Posted by: GW McLintock at June 25, 2012 01:20 PM (GUDUi)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 25, 2012 01:21 PM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Jollyroger at June 25, 2012 01:21 PM (t06LC)
Posted by: Dr Spank at June 25, 2012 01:21 PM (I/Xad)
Posted by: Avi at June 25, 2012 01:21 PM (51xVX)
Posted by: toby928© at June 25, 2012 01:22 PM (QupBk)
F That. I don't care about "good news for Romney in November." I care about the fact a tyrannical government will be in charge of my health care- and therefore every facet of my G D Life in perpetuity.
Unless you really expect me to believe that Obamacare is going to be repealed in its entirety (hint: it won't)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 25, 2012 01:22 PM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Steve Martin at June 25, 2012 01:23 PM (YdQQY)
Heh. I post a song, Ace posts a new thread immediately afterwards.
It's as sure as the sun rising every morning.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at June 25, 2012 01:23 PM (d0Tfm)
I really hate being governed by unelected people in black robes.
This is not what our Founding Fathers had in mind for us.
Posted by: wheatie at June 25, 2012 01:23 PM (0T8H7)
Eh, or he felt the Arizona case was a huge case for the Court.
Consider if the mandate is easy pickings (The commerce clause doesn't go that far.) then Scalia may not find that very important overall. But the AZ case was riddled with crazy legalistic stuff to go after. The intersection of fedaral and state, changing focus of law enforcement, etc. He may have felt that was more important than the open and shut case of the mandate.
I'm just grasping at straws here, but it's not much different than randomly reading tea leaves.
Posted by: tsrblke at June 25, 2012 01:23 PM (22rSN)
Posted by: toby928© at June 25, 2012 01:23 PM (QupBk)
Posted by: BuddyPC at June 25, 2012 01:24 PM (KCuY9)
Posted by: Velvet Ambition at June 25, 2012 01:24 PM (mFxQX)
Posted by: Dr Spank at June 25, 2012 01:24 PM (I/Xad)
Tea Leaves:
For: Scalia Grumpy
Against: Roberts writing, public opinion against (Justices notice), oral arguments, White House floating insider trial ballons bracing for impact, oral arguments, Kennedy got a bj last week (I'm guessing the last one), Ginsburg's strange interview
Truth is tea leaves don't mean much
Posted by: Jollyroger at June 25, 2012 01:24 PM (t06LC)
Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2012 01:24 PM (Xb3hu)
Posted by: Jaws at June 25, 2012 01:24 PM (4I3Uo)
Posted by: SpongeBob Saget at June 25, 2012 01:25 PM (SDkq3)
Posted by: cajun carrot at June 25, 2012 01:25 PM (UZQM8)
Is he being a grump or a codger? He probably isn't getting laid as much anymore, and if you had to go into work every day and see Sotomayor, Kagan, and Ferschnitzle, you'd be a bit grouchy too.
Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at June 25, 2012 01:25 PM (Ec6wH)
Posted by: rockmom at June 25, 2012 01:25 PM (pm/oS)
Posted by: maddogg at June 25, 2012 01:25 PM (OlN4e)
Posted by: IdowhatIwant at June 25, 2012 01:26 PM (lHn6+)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 25, 2012 01:26 PM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Average Joe at June 25, 2012 01:26 PM (bN5ZU)
Posted by: Avi at June 25, 2012 01:26 PM (51xVX)
Posted by: Lady in Black at June 25, 2012 01:26 PM (vOMX+)
Posted by: cajun carrot at June 25, 2012 01:26 PM (UZQM8)
Posted by: Nino Scalia at June 25, 2012 01:27 PM (QupBk)
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at June 25, 2012 01:27 PM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Lite! 98% Anger Free! at June 25, 2012 01:27 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at June 25, 2012 01:28 PM (qx7YW)
Posted by: Bouncing Beatnik at June 25, 2012 01:28 PM (zS9LP)
Posted by: rockmom at June 25, 2012 05:25 PM (pm/oS)
He had his chance for that on the medical marijuana case but he used it to say the feds had jurisdiction of marijuana in CA.
He is an "outcomist" just like the liberals, he just goes in the other direction.
Posted by: Vic at June 25, 2012 01:28 PM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Joe Mama at June 25, 2012 01:28 PM (TLHj1)
Scalia is grumpy because he lost this one, which IS HUGE.
The question to Scalia is Are States Sovereign as the founders intended??? ie a group of United STATES? Like our NAME SAYS?
or, is the Federal Government all powerfull.
We now have Federal POLICY, trumping both Federal and STATE Law, about issues of Sovereignity... ie who are citizens, and who shall remain here.
Posted by: Romeo13 at June 25, 2012 01:28 PM (lZBBB)
Posted by: kallisto at June 25, 2012 01:28 PM (jm/9g)
Posted by: Jollyroger at June 25, 2012 05:24 PM (t06LC)
And neither does Allah
Posted by: Velvet Ambition at June 25, 2012 01:29 PM (mFxQX)
Posted by: Soona at June 25, 2012 01:29 PM (AdWAw)
Scalia didn't seem that grumpy. Lets face it, most of us would love to tell Obama how its going to be. Scalia just so happens to be able to.Like a Boss.
Posted by: Jollyroger at June 25, 2012 01:29 PM (t06LC)
My painful rectal itch arrived at the bottom of the hour and not the top of the hour. I always use my starboard hand at the bottom... hey, pleased to meet you!
Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at June 25, 2012 01:29 PM (Ec6wH)
Posted by: Bill Mitchell at June 25, 2012 01:29 PM (hlUJY)
Posted by: Average Joe at June 25, 2012 01:30 PM (bN5ZU)
He's just sick of being cooped up in the SC during a DC summer with those slowly rotting corpses, Ginsberg and Breyer.
It could be the smell of the constituents. It's terrible this time of year.
Posted by: Harry Reid at June 25, 2012 01:30 PM (X+WXU)
Posted by: garrett at June 25, 2012 01:31 PM (X+WXU)
Grumpy?
I'll show you grumpy. ....It's 101 here, and the central air has gone out in my house. Everyone I've called to fix it, says...."take a number and get in line".
Couple more days of this, you may read about me in the news...."Grumpy Naked Woman seen checking into Hotel, growling at onlookers".
Posted by: wheatie, melting in the heat at June 25, 2012 01:31 PM (0T8H7)
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at June 25, 2012 01:31 PM (caAEA)
No any political upside to having O-Care upheld is far outweighed by the downside of essentially eviscerating Article 1, Section 8.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Lite! 98% Anger Free! at June 25, 2012 01:32 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Willy in Williamsburg at June 25, 2012 05:30 PM (Dll6b)
Facts not in evidence... we don't know who is writing the opinion yet... could be Roberts... heck... could even be Scalia....
Posted by: Romeo13 at June 25, 2012 01:32 PM (lZBBB)
Posted by: Antonin Scalia, Sex Machine at June 25, 2012 01:32 PM (I/Xad)
Posted by: kallisto at June 25, 2012 05:28 PM (jm/9g)
---------------------------------------------
Or another episode of "Ghost Hunters".
Posted by: Soona at June 25, 2012 01:32 PM (AdWAw)
Okay, that would suck. I like the heat, but only if I also have a place to escape it.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 25, 2012 01:32 PM (8y9MW)
Posted by: nickless at June 25, 2012 01:33 PM (MMC8r)
Posted by: Kal Penn - Phrenologist at June 25, 2012 01:33 PM (X+WXU)
Posted by: Cicero at June 25, 2012 01:33 PM (QKKT0)
Posted by: Serious Cat at June 25, 2012 01:33 PM (zrpqj)
Posted by: Joejm65 at June 25, 2012 01:33 PM (UZuc4)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 25, 2012 01:33 PM (8y9MW)
Shit, we'd be better off with friggin' Allen Ginsburg. At least when the sumbitch wrote a decision, it would be mildly entertaining and essentially incomprehensible.
In short, it'd be like Ace snitching shit from Tepid Air. They have an always-looking-for-compromises squish and a pot-stirrer over there, both of whom are so busy linking to other Interwebz Personages that they can't be bothered to form an actual opinion. The second string (from the Groan Room) are, at best, dull, but usually pale copies of "the Captain."
In short, none can hold a candle to the most occasional cob-loggers here, much less Ace his own self.
Wish you'd spend more time writing about what you think, Ace, and less snitching from the Reader's Digest of the 21st Century.
Posted by: MrScribbler at June 25, 2012 01:33 PM (MQc8e)
Posted by: A Reasonable Man at June 25, 2012 01:34 PM (/g5vp)
Today's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a victory for the rule of law. It is also a victory for the 10th Amendment and all Americans who believe in the inherent right and responsibility of states to defend their citizens. After more than two years of legal challenges, the heart of SB 1070 can now be implemented in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.
Posted by: Vic at June 25, 2012 01:34 PM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Mitt Romney at June 25, 2012 01:34 PM (r2PLg)
People's insurance premiums went UP, not down like Obama promised. I can quote you numerous anecdotes about wait times for procedures already instituted, including my frien's husband who had to wait TWO WEEKS for a replacement for a defribilator due to new federal regulations. (I surmise this is their solution to the Social Security problem by letting people die, but I digress.)
People with pre-existing conditions (like moi, for example) cannot get insurance despite what Obama said. THAT part of the law doesn't go into effect until I reach Medicare age in 2 years.
So no one likes this crappy law and if it is not overturned by the Supreme Court, I am positive that people will be out in the streets demonstrating against it. If Romney promises with a blood oath to scrap the thing, I am pretty sure that right there will win the election.
And if only parts of it are thrown out, we can make fun of Mr. Constitutional Lawyer's lack of knowledge.
I refuse to get upset, one way or the other. This is a hard campaign and we cannot get discouraged, but rather press on.
Posted by: Miss Marple at June 25, 2012 01:34 PM (GoIUi)
Posted by: nickless at June 25, 2012 01:35 PM (MMC8r)
Willy in BBurg-is that NY, in which case screw you, or VA, in which case goodaseeya.
Posted by: pep at June 25, 2012 01:35 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at June 25, 2012 01:35 PM (caAEA)
I think he is just mad that the case was decidely correctly, that states couldn't make up their own punishments for crimes it is constitutional for the federal government to uphold, but the federal government has no intention of upholding that law.
People are complaining about separation of powers, but this it right here. If the SC were legislating from the bench, they would have upheld the law in favor of Arizona knowing that Arizona is the only one willing to enforce it.
Posted by: sgmstv at June 25, 2012 01:35 PM (Owwmo)
Posted by: spongeworthy at June 25, 2012 01:36 PM (r5w1L)
Posted by: grease monkey at June 25, 2012 01:36 PM (VSWPU)
Posted by: wth at June 25, 2012 01:36 PM (wAQA5)
In a world where the spirit of the law meant something, I'd agree with Allah - Scalia should have kept his mouth shut because Justices shouldn't publicly speak on political issues (despite the fact that we all know they have their own views). It's bad form, and undermines the legitimacy of the court.
We aren't in that world. We're in Bizzarro world where Sotomoyor gets to hear cases as a Justice that directly tie into her own previous decisions on the bench and a gay federal judge in CA can marry his partner immediately after he finds that he and his partner have a Constitutional right to do so regardless of repeated votes to the contrary by a large majority of Californians - while the hue and cry of the Right regarding recusal is simply ignored.
As noted by a panel of letter-writing usual suspect Lefty law profs last year
"Justices of the United States Supreme Court have not adopted and are not subject to a comprehensive code of judicial ethics. Nor are denials of motions to recuse by individual justices required to be in writing or subject to review. "
So let the Left scream about recusal all they want. Scalia should give his detractors the same deference that Vaughn Walker did - none whatsoever.
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at June 25, 2012 01:36 PM (yK8YH)
Posted by: Jean at June 25, 2012 01:36 PM (Pvjul)
Posted by: Joejm65 at June 25, 2012 01:37 PM (UZuc4)
Posted by: polynikes at June 25, 2012 01:37 PM (U7Ivf)
Romney can really do nothing about it. And we will not have 60 votes in the Senate. The SC is the only chance.
Posted by: Vic at June 25, 2012 01:37 PM (YdQQY)
Opinion of SCALIA, J." http://tinyurl.com/7dcjsjs
It's worth reading the entire opinion but if you can only read Scalia's scroll down.
"Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty—not incontradiction of federal law, but in complete compliancewith it. The laws under challenge here do not extend orrevise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territoryin this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State. I dissent"
I'm a huge Scalia fan.
Posted by: food tester at June 25, 2012 01:37 PM (oZfic)
Posted by: that's not Rush's tea, for sure at June 25, 2012 01:37 PM (HOOye)
I am not an attorney and have never aspired to be one, but, as a woman, it gripes me that the three women who serve on the SCOTUS are these three. I don't miss squishy Sandra Day O'Connor either.
Posted by: Will Not Assimilate For Food at June 25, 2012 01:37 PM (kXoT0)
...Moochelle is going to find a way to mooch a taxpayer funded a vacation out of this for sure...
Posted by: jeremiah Gosh Darn Amerikkka Wright at June 25, 2012 01:38 PM (ovpNn)
Please, for the love of God, never mention those two in the same sentence with boobs again. It conjures mental images that cannot be unconjured, even while chanting "Kate Upton" for hours.
Posted by: pep at June 25, 2012 01:38 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: model_1066 at June 25, 2012 01:38 PM (YbQJm)
The memo, from the House Congressional Democratic Leadership operation, advises members to be on the alert Thursday morning to "quickly and effectively" communicate with media and constitutients "as soon as the decision is announced."
The memo outlined a game plan to use traditional media--plus FaceBook and Twitter to "serve as a way to inform your followers of the Court's decision while adding your voice to the conversation. Members should be prepared to have a concise message to send through these accounts once the decision is released."
Of course, there is also the usual press release: "Members should be prepared to have a statement written quickly, once the decision is released, to send to press and post on his or her Congressional website."
After the first wave of comments, House Democrats next are advised to hold a telephone town hall Thursday and through the week.
Posted by: Robert Downey Jr. at June 25, 2012 01:39 PM (e8kgV)
Posted by: Otis Criblecoblis at June 25, 2012 01:39 PM (IlZPo)
Ahhh, I haven't been called a single-digit bagger in years.
Posted by: Ruth Bader-Ginsburg at June 25, 2012 01:39 PM (QKKT0)
To be honest, the prospect of Ginsberg quitting before the end of O's term keeps me up at nights.
Posted by: pep at June 25, 2012 01:39 PM (6TB1Z)
Keyrist that man could make Mary Poppins want to hang herself.
Posted by: mpfs at June 25, 2012 01:40 PM (iYbLN)
Posted by: Otis Criblecoblis at June 25, 2012 01:40 PM (IlZPo)
Posted by: What Scalia Might Have Said at June 25, 2012 01:40 PM (vhwRj)
Posted by: Grumpy Scalia at June 25, 2012 05:39 PM (yn6XZ)
Who you callin' cracker, Jack?
Posted by: model_1066 at June 25, 2012 01:40 PM (YbQJm)
Long ago and far, far away . . . .
OK, actually it was last week in D.C., the Won said he couldn't turn over the subpoenaed Fast and Furious documents because it would impair border security. How does for border security not get impaired if DHS refuses to cooperate with AZ?
Posted by: WalrusRex at June 25, 2012 01:41 PM (jUZRg)
@42 "How is it we bitter clingers can understand the meaning of the Constitution, and the SCOTUS can't? "
You only *think* you understand it, wingnut. The truth is that you most likely have not been born of sufficient stock, attended the correct law schools, attended the "in" parties, and chugged just the right cock to have the truly "nuanced" understanding of the Constitution.
I mean, once you realize how that awful, outdated charter of negative liberties limits our ability to truly fabricate our brave new world, you'll quickly conclude that the best understanding of the Constitution is the one that most efficiently allows you circumvent it. Now get back to work, prole.
Posted by: Jaws at June 25, 2012 01:41 PM (4I3Uo)
Posted by: Walter Freeman at June 25, 2012 01:42 PM (kqGWM)
Linking to Hot Air empussens the noblest man.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 25, 2012 01:42 PM (4ZNCv)
Posted by: Joejm65 at June 25, 2012 01:42 PM (UZuc4)
Saturday it was a runny and yellow-ish ( which was why most of AZ was tossed )
Posted by: Chauncy in Chancellorsville at June 25, 2012 01:42 PM (Dll6b)
To be fair, he never read past the cover sheet.
Gonna take my time machine back to Philadelphia 1789 and edit the impeachment section to include "signing bills without reading them first."
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at June 25, 2012 01:42 PM (/kI1Q)
Posted by: rockmom at June 25, 2012 05:25 PM (pm/oS)
Hate to disavow you of this, but I went to an event for Scalia a few months ago hosted by the Fed Soc. During a Q & A, someone asked him about the possibility of overturning Wickard, and he stated that it was stare decisis at this point. Which was probably not the answer the crowd was hoping for.
Posted by: La Mauvaise New Yorkaise at June 25, 2012 01:42 PM (mq8ex)
Posted by: food tester at June 25, 2012 01:43 PM (oZfic)
*shrug*
Posted by: Walter Freeman at June 25, 2012 05:42 PM (kqGWM)
So we'll see some glad-grabbing from the ass-handing O'bumbles is getting then?
Posted by: model_1066 at June 25, 2012 01:43 PM (YbQJm)
Posted by: Captain Hate (dagny solidarity) at June 25, 2012 01:43 PM (EiwOi)
It's been over four decades since Cracker Jack came with a decent prize. Move on, man!
Posted by: Otis Criblecoblis at June 25, 2012 01:43 PM (IlZPo)
I'm betting rockmom's right on this one.
Same here. They'll find the mandate unconstitutional but only because they're forcing people to purchase a product from a private entity. They'll allow the rest of the law to stand and tell Congress that they need to find some other way to fund it, which means that all of the really onerous stuff will still be there. It will be akin to chopping off the zombie's arms: even though you've stopped it from grabbing hold of you it's not going to stop it, and when you get tired of running it will catch you and finish you off.
Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at June 25, 2012 01:43 PM (JxMoP)
Posted by: polynikes at June 25, 2012 01:43 PM (EYfcP)
Nothing we can do about it then, either.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at June 25, 2012 01:44 PM (/kI1Q)
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at June 25, 2012 01:45 PM (B9nls)
It keeps a lot of us up nights, but, she has said over and over again that she is not retiring. So it is tits up or nothing, or dried leather bags up, or whatever....please note that in deference to #103, I did not use the treasured term, boobs, in relation to ruthie.
Posted by: Will Not Assimilate For Food at June 25, 2012 01:45 PM (kXoT0)
@42 "How is it we bitter clingers can understand the meaning of the Constitution, and the SCOTUS can't? "
You just think you do. That is the false consciousness of the proletariat.
Posted by: Jackass Marxist who doesn't feel like engaging with you because he knows he'll lose at June 25, 2012 01:45 PM (6TB1Z)
Second, I am not so sure we won't get close to 60 in the Senate, and if we are close dem senators can be pressured by their constituents. And pressured they will be.
Third, another bill can be introduced which would be a substitute and revision of the current legislation. I think some sort of legislation might pass.
I refuse to be glum. I am not allowing the government to control my mood.
Posted by: Miss Marple at June 25, 2012 01:46 PM (GoIUi)
Posted by: tasker at June 25, 2012 01:46 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: Vic at June 25, 2012 05:37 PM (YdQQY)
Are 60 votes necessary to overturn it? What about reconciliation? It's been 2 years and I can't remember every detail about how this was passed, but I seem to remember that 51 votes could either kill or do some damage to this bill.
Posted by: Joejm65 at June 25, 2012 05:42 PM (UZuc4)
I don't think you should sell Romney short on overturning it. The way he's made his money over the years has been one of the most difficult ways to earn an income. I'm guessing he's a mighty persuasive guy when he puts his mind to it, that being said, he may not really want it overturned as he did help implement it when he was governor of MA. I think the fact that so many people don't trust him to overturn the law will influence the election.
Posted by: food tester at June 25, 2012 01:46 PM (oZfic)
Posted by: wheatie, melting in the heat at June 25, 2012 05:31 PM (0T8H7)
--
Ouch. I had my AC blower fan lose a blade this time last year. System down two hours, and seven hours to get the house back to a bearable temp.
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at June 25, 2012 01:48 PM (qx7YW)
Posted by: Soona at June 25, 2012 01:48 PM (AdWAw)
Posted by: Miss Marple
Good on ya.
he may not really want it overturned
Christ on a crutch, the guy has completely boxed himself in. Even if he wanted to keep it, he can't, or he'll suffer the same fate as "Read my lips".
Posted by: pep at June 25, 2012 01:49 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 25, 2012 01:49 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: Joejm65 at June 25, 2012 05:42 PM (UZuc4)
60 votes will be needed to pass any significant legislation over the Democrat block. And unless you go for the nuclear option, you can get around that block. Republicans will not do that despite the fact that the Dems have done it since they lost their 60 vote majority in the Senate. .
Posted by: Vic at June 25, 2012 01:49 PM (YdQQY)
IOW we would be fracked.
Posted by: Jim Sonweed at June 25, 2012 01:50 PM (pJbuO)
Nice Constitution ya gots 'dere. Be a shame if something were t' happen to it. Oooooppps! I did it again!
Barry "Chicago Skinny" Obama.
Posted by: Count de Monet at June 25, 2012 01:51 PM (BAS5M)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 25, 2012 01:51 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: mpfs at June 25, 2012 01:51 PM (iYbLN)
Posted by: Infidel at June 25, 2012 01:51 PM (O/fK8)
Posted by: nickless at June 25, 2012 01:51 PM (MMC8r)
Posted by: tasker at June 25, 2012 01:52 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: real joe at June 25, 2012 01:52 PM (PD2ad)
Posted by: mpfs at June 25, 2012 05:51 PM
You sure his body hasn't been taken over by the Ghost of Andy Rooney?
Posted by: MrScribbler at June 25, 2012 01:52 PM (MQc8e)
Posted by: Fritz at June 25, 2012 01:52 PM (ZN5qR)
Posted by: toby928© at June 25, 2012 01:53 PM (QupBk)
That means Kennedy would be the swing vote, implying that it'll be a split decision that kinda sorta rules against Obamacare without really setting a Constitutional precedent or fully striking it down.
My guess? Kennedy somehow finds a way to rule against the individual mandate in such a way that doesn't invalidate Obamacare.
Because he's a giant pussy.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at June 25, 2012 01:54 PM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at June 25, 2012 01:54 PM (yK8YH)
That's why I wear them inside out.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at June 25, 2012 01:55 PM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: Miss80sBaby at June 25, 2012 01:55 PM (d6QMz)
Posted by: SpongeBob Saget at June 25, 2012 05:25 PM (SDkq3)
The only way to make Democrats fall out of love with an ever-expanding gov't is to make it bite them on the ass. I admit I don't have the answer on how to do that - I am a 'leave me alone' kind of person, just thinking in terms of how to use gov't power to screw with other people is foreign to me. But if this POS gets upheld, we must not panic, because it means Romney wins. If it's upheld, pass laws mandating things that will be obnoxious to liberals, using this as precedent, until they cry Uncle and lose their taste for 'mandates'.
Posted by: barbed wire fence fixer at June 25, 2012 01:56 PM (tXSl0)
Posted by: The Kardashian Sisters at June 25, 2012 01:56 PM (AbmsP)
Posted by: tasker at June 25, 2012 01:56 PM (r2PLg)
142 - I agree. I've said before that Romney's safe for Conservatives on OCare because he can't afford to waffle - we'll crucify him politically for the remainder of his one term in office if that happens.
I'm more worried about Congress already going squishy on it. They're the first line of defense against Romney tacking left post-election.
Frankly, I'd rather see a stronger right wing in the Congress and lose the presidency than vice-versa.
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at June 25, 2012 01:58 PM (yK8YH)
Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at June 25, 2012 01:59 PM (QxSug)
This is one happy fella, a celebration! I'm telling ya, he's got some psychic in his corner, he celebrating already.
Posted by: food tester at June 25, 2012 01:59 PM (oZfic)
Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at June 25, 2012 02:01 PM (QxSug)
That ship sailed decades ago.
A federal government that can regulate how much wheat you grow in your back yard for your own personal use because it's judged "interstate commerce" can do almost anything.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at June 25, 2012 02:02 PM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: nickless at June 25, 2012 05:35 PM (MMC8r)
It just occurred to me that Scalia would probably make an excellent Moron. Perhaps an honorary induction?
Posted by: baldilocks at June 25, 2012 02:03 PM (6kWFm)
Screw Scalia's mood. Using sun spots and chicken guts, I predict the whole act will be struck down.
Posted by: The Auger at June 25, 2012 02:04 PM (7+pP9)
>> I'm more worried about Congress already going squishy on it. They're the first line of defense against Romney tacking left post-election.
It's coming, believe it.
They'll say "we got rid of Obamacare!" and produce some other government healthcare monstrosity instead. Congress loves to exercise power.
We need to be very vigilant, and be ready to back primary challengers against big-government Republicans, even if it means losing the seat.
Posted by: sandy burger at June 25, 2012 02:07 PM (y15sM)
Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo-intellectual at June 25, 2012 02:08 PM (dwuBu)
Don't look now but they already did that with Filburn in in 1942 with the FDR court.
Posted by: Vic at June 25, 2012 02:13 PM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Y-not at June 25, 2012 02:13 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: macintx at June 25, 2012 02:13 PM (ucs8Y)
Posted by: Bar Rock? Oh Mama! at June 25, 2012 02:16 PM (Ld6wA)
Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at June 25, 2012 02:17 PM (QxSug)
I agree with Baldilocks that Scalia would indeed make a fine moron.
Posted by: dogfish at June 25, 2012 02:18 PM (NuPNl)
Damn I wanted a bull shit flag thrown but he wussed out.
Posted by: Vic at June 25, 2012 02:23 PM (YdQQY)
**********
You can argue that, but given the sharp questioning in oral argument about "a limiting principle" marking where the Commerce Clause cannot be used to justify legislation, allowing the mandate would be the final nail in the coffin.
Posted by: Jim Sonweed at June 25, 2012 02:23 PM (pJbuO)
Posted by: alans4 at June 25, 2012 02:25 PM (bBBdT)
Posted by: Swanny at June 25, 2012 02:33 PM (nOOeI)
Posted by: food tester at June 25, 2012 02:39 PM (oZfic)
That's why I wear them inside out.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at June 25, 2012 05:55 PM (SY2Kh)
If I weren't a bachelor and got laid all the time, I'd take that as good advice.
Posted by: ErikW at June 25, 2012 02:42 PM (EEM3d)
http://tinyurl.com/7gdnu32
Posted by: food tester at June 25, 2012 02:43 PM (oZfic)
Posted by: IdowhatIwant at June 25, 2012 02:46 PM (a4CUi)
Posted by: Kensington at June 25, 2012 02:51 PM (MBmtt)
Posted by: Barack Obama's Secret Gay Boyfriend at June 25, 2012 03:17 PM (XvHmy)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2509 seconds, 321 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: 2 x 4 at June 25, 2012 01:19 PM (X+WXU)