June 30, 2012
— rdbrewer Laura Ingraham had a great interview with two constitutional scholars last night, Michael Carvin, the attorney who argued the case before the Supreme Court and law professor John Eastman. She started with a quote from Ann Coulter from 2005, "We don't know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever." Carvin said that Roberts deliberately ignored the law and called a ball a strike. Eastman said Roberts should resign. From Mediate's report:
Ingraham asked her guests if conservatives are right to feel “mortified” about Roberts being a turncoat. Michael Carvin, a constitutional lawyer opposed to Obamacare who argued before the Supreme Court on this case, boiled Roberts’ decision down to “What Congress did… was unconstitutional, so I’m gonna pretend they did something different and make it constitutional.” He credited Roberts for being “a terrific lawyer who understands the rule of law,” but admitted that unlike Coulter, he did not see a ruling like this coming.Law professor John Eastman also found the ruling somewhat questionable, stating that the role of the Supreme Court is to tell Congress whether they have or don’t have the authority to do something. And for Roberts to do what he did and find and alternative way to keep it constitutional, Eastman concluded that the chief justice needs to resign.
At the Weekly Standard, Jay Cost makes the case for John Roberts, saying that there is a counterintuitive case to be made that Roberts' decision is a victory for conservatives.
This points to the gravest danger of Obamacare. Much like the progressives of the 1910s, the New Dealers of the 1930s, and the liberals of the 1960s, Obama and his allies assured us that this law was entirely consistent with what had been offered in the past. Nothing new to see here; move along! But that was not at all true. In fact, Obamacare represents the single greatest qualitative expansion of federal power in 80 years.But, in a subtle way, Chief Justice Roberts did away with much of that. Where he could justify Obamacare on existing federal authority, like the taxing power, he let it stand. Though his factual argument here was admittedly strained, his legal reasoning seems to have created no qualitative expansion of the federal taxing power, which is very broad to begin with (and has been for centuries). But where there was no extant power to back up the bill, he struck it down. In so doing, Roberts actually secured two, hugely important consitutional victories (if not policy ones) for conservatives. He lmited the scope of the Commerce Clause in a meaningful way, spoiling the liberal hope that it confers upon the Congress a general police power. He also won a significant victory for supporters of our dual sovereignty system; by striking down portions of the Medicaid expansion, he sent a clear message that there are limits to how the federal government can use money to boss the states around. These are two enormous triumphs in the century-long war over the principle that the Constitution forbids unlimited federal power.
Cost goes on to point out that there are many who are made worse off by the bill, including "seniors who lose their Medicare Advantage, employees who get dropped from their employersÂ’ plans, families who will see their premiums increase, businesses that have to endure the employer mandate, the taxpayers who have to foot the bill for the whole thing." In other words, the bill is politically unpalatable, and, in Cost's opinion, conservatives can more easily deal with policy problems at the ballot box than they can stealth the constitutional innovations.
It just seems that Roberts could have done both while siding with the four who dissented. Roberts needed no "political space," in my opinion. He could have just done his job. But heaven forbid we inflame the hard left--the same people who would never expect the liberals on the court to side with the constitutional conservatives in order to protect the integrity of the court.
Video of the Ingraham interview below the fold.
Posted by: rdbrewer at
08:03 AM
| Comments (386)
Post contains 705 words, total size 5 kb.
Posted by: phreshone at June 30, 2012 08:08 AM (Bxm/r)
Posted by: Reggie1971 at June 30, 2012 08:08 AM (c9PA0)
The problem with Roberts’ “independent” Opinion is the basis on which he based it on… that the Court should give the Congress the benefit of the doubt and not invalidate a law… NO... The Court is the last stand to uphold the Constitution and protect the States and their citizens from the Congress and the Executive Branch. He had the opportunity to protect the Rights of the People and strike down a 2700 page leviathan (basically 100 normal bills, considering Glass-Stegal was 37 pages and it was the basis for successful bank regulation for over 60 years)
Could not his nuanced lesson/message still have been delivered within an Opinion which still provided a full repudiation of the Act? Or is the age and composition of the Court and the lawlessness of Barack Obama and his administration placed the Republic in such a precarious state that it will not survive without a complete uprising of the People, providing a mandate to reign in the Federal Government at every turn?
Time will tell if his contortions will be seen as 3 dimensional chess or if he just lost a game of tic-tac-toe to the chicken in Chinatown.
Posted by: phreshone at June 30, 2012 08:12 AM (Bxm/r)
Posted by: 8) at June 30, 2012 08:12 AM (hNLFW)
Posted by: phreshone at June 30, 2012 08:13 AM (Bxm/r)
Since you don't want to hear anything good, however, I will just head to another site for a while.
Posted by: Miss Marple at June 30, 2012 08:15 AM (GoIUi)
Posted by: Scobface at June 30, 2012 08:15 AM (IoNBC)
Strictly speaking, the 5-Justice "ruling" on the Commerce Clause is what lawyers call "obiter dictum" - a very fine discussion, but one not necessary to the result of the case, and - therefore - "it doesn't count". It's not binding in future rulings by either SCOTUS or, in fact, any of the lower courts.
The bottom line in the case was that the law was valid on almost all counts (except the Medicaid bit - a tremendously important "bit", but not a Commerce Clause issue). Obviously, therefore, that mighty fine discussion of the Commerce Clause was not necessary to the result.
As Roberts says: all you have to do is read the statute as a tax, and - Shazam - it's constitutional. End of actual holding in the case.
So put that mighty fine Commerce Clause discussion in the Smithsonian, so your grandkids can go look at it. Ain't worth a fart in a windstorm.
Posted by: A One-Eyed Cat Peepin' in the Seafood Store at June 30, 2012 08:15 AM (eMtQ2)
Posted by: Kanye at June 30, 2012 08:16 AM (kEOQs)
Posted by: dantesed at June 30, 2012 08:16 AM (MsxAm)
at June 30, 2012 12:12 PM (hNLFW)What's wrong? You don't like your shit sandwich on a beautiful plate with great looking garnishes?
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 30, 2012 08:17 AM (nEUpB)
From FactCheck.org:
The law prohibits the IRS from seeking to put anybody in jail or seizing their property for simple refusal to pay the tax. The law says specifically that taxpayers “shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty” for failure to pay, and also that the IRS cannot file a tax lien (a legal claim against such things as homes, cars, wages and bank accounts) or a “levy” (seizure of property or bank accounts).
What happens if you refuse to pay only that TAX amount?
Will the IRS sue for the relatively small amount of the TAX if they can't collect a penalty? Or threaten criminal sanctions?
Here is the language from the law according to Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation's most recent language, March 16, 2012 (with added bold highlights):
C. Excise Tax on Individuals Without Essential Health Benefits Coverage (sec. 1501 of the Senate amendment and new sec. 5000A of the Code)
On page 33, the first full paragraph should be deleted and replaced with the following description of the limitations on administration and procedure of section 5000A as enacted:
1 The penalty applies to any period the individual does not maintain minimum essential coverage and is determined monthly. The penalty is an excise tax that is assessed in the same manner as an assessable penalty under the enforcement provisions of subtitle F of the Code.
2 As a result, it is assessable without regard to the restrictions of section 6213(b). Although assessable and collectible under the Code, the IRS authority to use certain collection methods is limited.
Specifically, the filing of notices of liens and levies otherwise authorized for collection of taxes does not apply to the collection of this penalty. In addition, the statute waives criminal penalties for non-compliance with the requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage. However, the authority to offset refunds or credits is not limited by this provision.
If you don't want to pay the penalty tax or the tax penalty – It looks like you could limit your withholding.
Posted by: infoman at June 30, 2012 08:17 AM (8QbmU)
Posted by: ryukyu at June 30, 2012 08:17 AM (MOHSR)
Posted by: Conservative Crank at June 30, 2012 08:17 AM (1zwZo)
Posted by: Chilling the most at June 30, 2012 08:18 AM (6IV8T)
Actually, there was no decision of the court on the Commerce Clause issue. That was Roberts alone.
Posted by: rdbrewer at June 30, 2012 08:19 AM (Iyg03)
I claim it was self defense, so that it would be legal.
Nuremberg , you're welcome.
Posted by: Justass Roberts at June 30, 2012 08:19 AM (AWmfW)
Posted by: A One-Eyed Cat Peepin' in the Seafood Store at June 30, 2012 12:15 PM (eMtQ2)
Yup. I think a lot this mad search for a silver lining is motivated by an unwillingness to express buyer's remorse. A hell of a lot of conservatives (myself included) were very enthusiastic about the Roberts nomination. We thought we'd found an exceptionally intelligent originalist that would be a stalwart defender of the Constitution for decades. Apparently we were wrong. I'm willing to admit that I WAS WRONG ABOUT ROBERTS.
Posted by: Reggie1971 at June 30, 2012 08:20 AM (c9PA0)
So the Dem's codified that creating a tax-refund is bad method for building household savings ...
Posted by: Bill from Chappaqua at June 30, 2012 08:21 AM (Bxm/r)
Under the constitution taxation is enumerated to the legislative branch, not the judiciary.
Posted by: willy at June 30, 2012 08:21 AM (kUCQ4)
Posted by: Conservative Crank at June 30, 2012 08:21 AM (1zwZo)
Posted by: BurtTC at June 30, 2012 08:21 AM (2pG7H)
Killing that shit off is the only good part of Obamacare.
Posted by: Mary Jane Rottencrotch at June 30, 2012 08:21 AM (deJfP)
Posted by: rdbrewer at June 30, 2012 12:19 PM (Iyg03)
=================
The Kennedy dissenting opinion (with four justices joining) make up the five I refer to.
Posted by: A One-Eyed Cat Peepin' in the Seafood Store at June 30, 2012 08:21 AM (eMtQ2)
Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2012 08:22 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Tic-tac-toe Playing Chicken in Chinatown at June 30, 2012 08:22 AM (G9qZk)
Posted by: Scobface at June 30, 2012 08:23 AM (IoNBC)
They didn't join with Roberts on anything.
Posted by: rdbrewer at June 30, 2012 08:23 AM (Iyg03)
Posted by: real joe at June 30, 2012 08:23 AM (omojD)
If it's a tax then the SCOTUS shouldn't have been able to rule on it.
Can't they now go back and claim that that ruling is null because they ruled on a tax?
As to the so called precedent and stuff; if O gets reelected does anyone think that 5 or 7 liberals will worry about precedent in zipping right past this ruling?
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at June 30, 2012 08:24 AM (CP+yl)
Posted by: rdbrewer at June 30, 2012 08:24 AM (Iyg03)
The pundits trying to polish this turd of a decision are tying themselves into knots almost as much as Robbertz twisted the Constitution to reach his vile, putrid ruling.
Almost.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at June 30, 2012 08:24 AM (d0Tfm)
Conservative Crank,
Once again, it DOES NOT limit the commerce clause. Roberts discussion on that point was not joined by the majority, it holds no water and appeals courts from now forward have to ignore what he said regarding the commerce clause.
And all the "conservatives" like Kraut and George Will and those people who have tingly legs for Romneycare can go to hell as they try to make this sound like a victory for conservatism.
What it is simply is a victory for big government technocrats whether they are Democrats or Republicans.
It's a victory for Romney, not because he is more likely to be elected (he isn't), but because he gets his precious mandate now so that if he does get elected he has cover for mandating all sorts of crap unto us.
Posted by: doug at June 30, 2012 08:24 AM (gUGI6)
I saw this last night. ....Thanks rdbrewer, for posting it.
Laura Ingraham clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas.
That's why I tuned in to see what she would be saying about this.
Michael Carvin ripped up The Dread Justice Roberts....and ripped him good.
It was gratifying to watch.
Posted by: wheatie at June 30, 2012 08:24 AM (jPxSq)
Posted by: NotALibertarian at June 30, 2012 08:25 AM (Ym6ye)
34
There really was something to Buckley's statement that he would rather be governed by the first 1,000 people in the Boston telephone book than the faculty of Harvard. These so-called elites don't have a damn bit of common sense.
Posted by: Reggie1971 at June 30, 2012 08:25 AM (c9PA0)
Posted by: Miss80sBaby at June 30, 2012 08:26 AM (d6QMz)
"Obama did it! Ain't nothing stoppin' him now!"
I hope the idiot trips on a train track, hits his head, and wakes up just in time to see his ass about to get run over.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2012 08:26 AM (UOM48)
I posted this yesterday but worth repeating, imho:
Mark Levin email to The Corner:
"But respecting Part III- A, the commerce clause and necessary and proper section, the decision notes that Roberts is writing for himself, not for a majority. Furthermore, the Dissent is labeled as: “Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito, dissenting.” It is not labeled as “dissenting in the judgment, concurring in part” or some permutation.
You cannot say it was the “opinion of the court” that the mandate violated the commerce clause. You have to cobble together sections where Roberts is writing for himself and the dissent (which did not formally join with Roberts), is writing for itself."
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at June 30, 2012 08:26 AM (famk3)
They didn't join with Roberts on anything.
Posted by: rdbrewer at June 30, 2012 12:23 PM (Iyg03)
---------------------------
No - but their opinion held the Commerce Clause did not provide authority for the ACA. Same result (said differently) Roberts reaches about the Commerce Clause. Bottom line: five justices said Commerce Clause is not Constitutional authority for the law - BUT not necessary to the ruling, even though five justices agree on the point (saying it differently).
Posted by: A One-Eyed Cat Peepin' in the Seafood Store at June 30, 2012 08:26 AM (eMtQ2)
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at June 30, 2012 08:27 AM (Y5I9o)
He's a thin lipped puss faced little wanker and he's been waiting for years to apply his true self to a ruling. This was his chance and he took it.
He's a liar, he's a fraud. (unless of course GW who's no conservative knew this when he nominated him.)
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at June 30, 2012 08:27 AM (CP+yl)
Jay Cost is wrong, Roberst did expand the taxing power of congress. Since Bailey V Drexall Furniture the congress has been prohibited from using its taxing power as a penalty. They get around it by using the taxing power as an enticement such as the home mortgage deduction but they have never been allowed to use that power as a penalty. Such as if you don't buy a house you get taxed.
I don't know where Cost is coming from on this. Roberts just gave them a huge increase in taxing power.
Posted by: robtr at June 30, 2012 08:27 AM (MtwBb)
Posted by: The Reverend Al at June 30, 2012 08:27 AM (bAGA/)
Posted by: rdbrewer at June 30, 2012 08:28 AM (Iyg03)
So why do I feel that there's a funny taste in my mouth when they insist it isn't there?
Posted by: Dave C at June 30, 2012 08:28 AM (bNK+3)
Posted by: Bill from Chappaqua at June 30, 2012 08:28 AM (Bxm/r)
Posted by: real joe at June 30, 2012 08:29 AM (omojD)
Posted by: Thin Lipped Puss Faced Little Wanker Union Local 710 at June 30, 2012 08:29 AM (CEec/)
Posted by: BurtTC at June 30, 2012 08:30 AM (2pG7H)
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at June 30, 2012 08:30 AM (Y5I9o)
Posted by: Conservative Crank at June 30, 2012 08:30 AM (1zwZo)
Which makes it only so much flatus from the bench. It has zero force and won't be used to justify future rulings.
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at June 30, 2012 08:31 AM (famk3)
It was a screwing and nothing short of it.
Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2012 08:31 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: eman at June 30, 2012 08:31 AM (ejmiE)
For all you dipshits that keep saying the commerce clause became limited because Benedict Roberts and the four dissenters say so:
It goes like this: NO CONTROLLING OPINION SAID SO.
The only hope is that the 5 tipped their hand if this law was to reach the SCOTUS without the tax issue - but it didn't. There is nothing else to read into it.
On any other issue that is not as vile as this, Justice Kennedy will side with Congress on the Commerce Clause and that 5 will be 4.
Shit on you and all you Romneycare supportors that gave us this vile montrosity of a pile of shit.
Posted by: doug at June 30, 2012 08:31 AM (gUGI6)
Posted by: JustLikeDavidHasselhoff at June 30, 2012 08:32 AM (WYTHl)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 30, 2012 08:32 AM (GE1+K)
Posted by: BurtTC at June 30, 2012 12:30 PM (2pG7H)
Yeah that's pretty hard for him or anyone else to claim considering the fact that while he supposedly setting presedent on the commerce clause he was throwing presedent on the taxing power under the bus.
Posted by: robtr at June 30, 2012 08:32 AM (MtwBb)
I'll take turds for $1000, Alex.
Posted by: The Reverend Al at June 30, 2012 08:33 AM (bAGA/)
No, it is the second step in nationalizing the healthcare industry. And another mark in the road to turning the US communist.
Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2012 08:34 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Grumpy the Younger at June 30, 2012 08:34 AM (jts1f)
Hate to point out the obvious here, sparky, but Romney's got nothing to do with this. Don't bother with the shit flinging.
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at June 30, 2012 08:34 AM (famk3)
Posted by: Lauren at June 30, 2012 08:35 AM (9jJOH)
Posted by: StuckOnStupid at June 30, 2012 08:36 AM (R5yLq)
Posted by: BurtTC at June 30, 2012 08:36 AM (2pG7H)
Loved G Beck's rant about SCOTUS nominees "litmus test" Thursday following the decision. He said, essentially, "Hell yes there's a litmus test. Do you support abortion? If you do, then get out of my office, you just disqualified yourself!"
I'd like to hear these question posed of a nominee: "Do you think the Constitution places limits on the power of the government?"
"Will your decisions be based at all times on the principle that the power of the government should always be as limited as possible?"
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at June 30, 2012 08:36 AM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: doug at June 30, 2012 08:37 AM (gUGI6)
This ruling does not establish any precedent. It's simply too goofy and arbitrary.
A Chief Justice being pressured into changing his opinion -- maybe that's a precedent. Now that they know Roberts will cave, the Left will be back with pressure every single time one of their big concerns is being decided by the Court. In fact, maybe they'll be more inclined to take cases the Supreme Court, for that reason alone. Four hard-core Leftist hacks and a squish. Yeah, they'll be back.
Posted by: Wm T Sherman at June 30, 2012 08:37 AM (8hBZi)
Many of these elite "conservative" beltway pundits were telling us that Roberts decided as he did in the Arizona illegal alien case to give himself political cover when he threw out Obamacare.
They don't know shit from shinola.
Posted by: Reggie1971 at June 30, 2012 08:37 AM (c9PA0)
Posted by: Alborn at June 30, 2012 08:38 AM (+oksp)
Here is what I think are the most important items for the Article V convention to address.
First set the rules. No convention member can ever have been elected to any political office. Each State gets one vote on all matters, but can send as many delegates as desired (same rules as the original).
Now the issues
1. Complete rewrite of the duties of the Supreme Court and how it is nominated. I would make it where each State got to pick one judge as they saw fit. Take it completely out of Washington.
2. Define the commerce clause for its original intent.
3. Repeal the 14th amendment, except leave citizenship and change it to require at least one parent already be a citizen.
4. Remove the Preamble or simply State that it has no meaning as far as interpretation.
5. Add a new statement to the enumerated powers list that says these are the ONLY powers of congress and nothing else in the document shall presume them to have any additional ones.
6. Apply term limits to both Houses of congress.
7. Rewrite the income tax amendment to limit it to a flat tax of 10% and require federal spending to be limited to no more than collected in taxes the previous year. Provide the only exception being a declared war.
Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2012 08:38 AM (YdQQY)
As such it's not worth squat. You couldn't even get a cup of coffee for that at Starbucks.
Posted by: StuckOnStupid at June 30, 2012 12:36 PM (R5yLq)
That's not true is it. I thought the commerce clause part was the 7 to 2 vote?
Posted by: robtr at June 30, 2012 08:38 AM (MtwBb)
Except that 2/3 of the people still oppose the law.
Posted by: real joe at June 30, 2012 08:38 AM (omojD)
Posted by: Scobface at June 30, 2012 08:39 AM (IoNBC)
Posted by: people in hell at June 30, 2012 08:39 AM (CEec/)
In poker lingo, that's a big fucking tell.
Posted by: GnuBreed at June 30, 2012 08:40 AM (ccXZP)
Posted by: BurtTC at June 30, 2012 08:40 AM (2pG7H)
Posted by: Bob's Country Bunker at June 30, 2012 08:40 AM (Bxm/r)
Posted by: StuckOnStupid at June 30, 2012 08:40 AM (R5yLq)
That's not the American way.
The American way is to limit our exposure but reducing our interface with the government.
It is possible to do so. It won't be easy but if enough people do it, it will get easier and easier for others to follow.
go GALT.
Off the grid.
Under the radar.
Black economy.
Those who preach insurrection or other forms of violence forget one necessary part of that is first one must disassociate oneself with the government for the purposes of safety and security.
Just take as many steps as you can to do so one step at a time.
Make preparations and start planning.
One benefit will be you will find your overall costs go down. You find your healthier, less aggravated and less fatigued.
Retract from the liberal establishment. Don't pay into their money streams. Pay only into conservative money streams. Patronize only those places that epitomize the American Ideal.
Close unnecessary accounts or move them to those who are more conservative or smaller.
It can be done.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at June 30, 2012 08:40 AM (CP+yl)
Posted by: Desperately Sweating Conservative Pundits Who Want To Believe at June 30, 2012 08:40 AM (zsgo8)
Posted by: Conservative Crank at June 30, 2012 08:42 AM (1zwZo)
Posted by: Chief Justice Roberts at June 30, 2012 08:43 AM (Iyg03)
Posted by: eman at June 30, 2012 08:43 AM (ejmiE)
Posted by: rickl at June 30, 2012 08:43 AM (sdi6R)
I remember how people scoffed at Newt Gingrich...for suggesting that SC Justices be hauled into Congress, to face questioning, whenever they make boneheaded rulings like this.
I liked the idea, at the time.
I still like the idea.
Lifetime appointments are turning out to be a really bad idea.
Too much power.
Zero accountability.
It's more than we can afford to give anyone, without the possibility of removing them from office when they abuse their power.
Yeah, I know.
We're supposed to be able to Impeach them.
Like that will ever happen.
Posted by: wheatie at June 30, 2012 08:44 AM (jPxSq)
NO, Wiener took a pic of his Johnson and sent it....
Of course
Roberts TOLD us his Johnson was a TAX...
Posted by: redgrains at June 30, 2012 08:44 AM (TExGL)
Image is everything.
Posted by: Chief Justice Roberts at June 30, 2012 08:44 AM (Iyg03)
Jeebus. I've got to go out in this heat and run errands. Should have dragged my lazy ass out of bed early this morning.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2012 08:45 AM (UOM48)
Posted by: robtr at June 30, 2012 12:38 PM (MtwBb)
--------------------------
Five justices said it was a tax (the libs + Roberts, in the official part of his opinion)
Five said it was no-go on Commerce Clause (Roberts + the four conservatives, in a separate opinion)
Seven (all but Ginzy & The Wise Latina) said you can't take away States' Medicaid funds if they do not adapt the ACA.
Posted by: A One-Eyed Cat Peepin' in the Seafood Store at June 30, 2012 08:45 AM (eMtQ2)
Because no one in Washington would have conceived of socialized medicine or crushing government power before Romneycare.
Posted by: fluffy at June 30, 2012 08:45 AM (z9HTb)
Posted by: izoneguy at June 30, 2012 08:47 AM (hbRed)
Posted by: eman at June 30, 2012 12:43 PM (ejmiE)
Counterintuitive but a long term win.
Smart like me.
Posted by: Justass Roberts at June 30, 2012 08:47 AM (AWmfW)
Posted by: Reggie1971 at June 30, 2012 08:47 AM (c9PA0)
Posted by: WalrusRex at June 30, 2012 08:48 AM (04fgZ)
Posted by: Chilling the most at June 30, 2012 08:48 AM (6IV8T)
Posted by: Lauren at June 30, 2012 08:48 AM (Kp1CB)
Posted by: Chief Justice Roberts at June 30, 2012 08:48 AM (Iyg03)
Posted by: StuckOnStupid at June 30, 2012 08:49 AM (R5yLq)
Posted by: Lauren at June 30, 2012 08:50 AM (r9LWA)
Posted by: eman at June 30, 2012 08:50 AM (ejmiE)
111Romneycare has everything to do with this. Without Romneycare there would have been no Obamacare.
The idea of socialized medicine has been around for a very long time. Look at Ronald Reagan's speech in the 1960s opposing it.
Posted by: Reggie1971 at June 30, 2012 08:50 AM (c9PA0)
I'd dearly love to meet him. I'd also dearly love to know what he thinks of Roberts.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2012 08:50 AM (UOM48)
Posted by: CoolCzech at June 30, 2012 08:50 AM (niZvt)
Posted by: Chief Justice Roberts at June 30, 2012 08:51 AM (Iyg03)
Posted by: StuckOnStupid at June 30, 2012 12:49 PM (R5yLq)
Yeah I just looked it up. the vote was 5-4 that it didn't fall under the commerce clause. Levin says that even doesn't mean shit since the guys that voted with roberts re: commerce were disenters on his opinion.
As we just saw though, the court doesn't give a shit about presedent anyways. They care what the liberal media will say about them.
Posted by: robtr at June 30, 2012 08:51 AM (MtwBb)
"But do seriously consider the plausible alternative scenario where the law was totally struck down, the Left was riled up, the president demagogued it to a November win, and then the far Left set policy for 4 more years with an uninhibited 2nd term pres."
What many people aren't getting is that this decision IS going to rile up the left. Probably moreso. They now think they have a political and judicial mandate and will defend this monstrosity with renewed vigor at the ballot box.
Now Romney has to reverse his history as an elected official and find some Thomases and Scalias to nominate, then get them through the process.......if he even gets elected.
People just aren't getting how big of a loss this was on so many fronts.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 30, 2012 08:51 AM (rX1N2)
Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2012 12:50 PM (UOM4
I don't think he would tell you Jane. I think he has a lot of class and would not vent about his colleagues to outsiders.
Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2012 08:52 AM (YdQQY)
And that goes for the SCOAMF and his ugly wife and the kiddies, too.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2012 08:52 AM (UOM48)
Posted by: CoolCzech at June 30, 2012 12:50 PM (niZvt)
Yeah, I remember when Social Security became a tax and the Republicans were able to do away with it.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 30, 2012 08:53 AM (rX1N2)
118
If Obama slimes his way to victory, you're going to hear a lot of debate about a state's right to secede.
Posted by: Reggie1971 at June 30, 2012 08:53 AM (c9PA0)
Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2012 08:53 AM (UOM48)
Posted by: Y-not at June 30, 2012 08:53 AM (5H6zj)
Today is one of the most important fundraising deadlines of this campaign so far.
We might not outraise Mitt Romney.
But I am determined to keep the margin close enough that we can win this election the right way.
To do that I need your help today.
Please donate $3 or more before tonight's deadline:
Good week.
Barack
The psychic side of me just couldn't help it. I felt the need to convey his true feelings in that last sentence.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 30, 2012 08:54 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: Lauren at June 30, 2012 12:48 PM (Kp1CB)"
The next generation has already been assimilated.
That's just how badly we've been outplayed.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 30, 2012 08:55 AM (rX1N2)
Posted by: Count de Monet at June 30, 2012 12:47 PM (BAS5M)
What ? If we just gives Germany the Sudetenland , it will never go that far.
Piss for our time.
Posted by: Justass Roberts at June 30, 2012 08:55 AM (AWmfW)
Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2012 08:56 AM (YdQQY)
That makes a huge difference.
Huge? I don't think so. They had a bad idea they wanted to act on. I would say it was encouragement for them, but the Massachusetts plan was more of a symptom than a cause.
Posted by: fluffy at June 30, 2012 08:56 AM (z9HTb)
Posted by: Scummy Dread Lord Judge Pirate Roberts at June 30, 2012 08:57 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: BurtTC at June 30, 2012 08:57 AM (2pG7H)
Posted by: ObjectionSustained at June 30, 2012 08:57 AM (RGetl)
So Obama can appoint someone? Somehow I don't think that would be a good idea. Bad as things are, they can be worse.
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at June 30, 2012 08:57 AM (i0App)
Posted by: Chief Justice Roberts at June 30, 2012 08:58 AM (Iyg03)
Posted by: phoenixgirl, team dagny at June 30, 2012 08:58 AM (Ho2rs)
Posted by: Lady in Black - ObamaTaxCare opponent - This means war, bitchez at June 30, 2012 08:58 AM (vOMX+)
Posted by: John "Studly" Boehner at June 30, 2012 08:59 AM (IoNBC)
Posted by: Y-not, Perry supporter and Romney donor at June 30, 2012 08:59 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Count de Monet at June 30, 2012 08:59 AM (BAS5M)
This is common for all judge appointments in the last 6 months of a term.
Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2012 09:00 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: S. BaldwinTC at June 30, 2012 09:00 AM (2pG7H)
You're forgetting the smartest woman in the world Hillary Rodham Clinton in '92 and her committee and the reeking pile that was produced then?
Strangely enough Bob Dole stopped that in it's tracks.
Posted by: Lauren's New Phone Overlord at June 30, 2012 09:00 AM (CP+yl)
Posted by: Dr. Varno at June 30, 2012 12:08 PM (ak7FB)
She does.
Posted by: antisocialist at June 30, 2012 09:00 AM (j/nZn)
Posted by: Lauren at June 30, 2012 09:00 AM (Kp1CB)
Posted by: ObjectionSustained at June 30, 2012 12:57 PM (RGetl)
They voted on it though so doesn't that mean it was decided?
Posted by: robtr at June 30, 2012 09:00 AM (MtwBb)
Nothing the damned commie bastard would have planned would surprise me.
He's a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable tyrant.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2012 09:00 AM (UOM48)
Posted by: fluffy at June 30, 2012 12:56 PM (z9HTb)"
The problem is that repeal of Obamacare is going to be Romney's rallying cry. The low info voter is going to look at that and say "Wait, but he did the same thing!"
They're going to differentiate between the two about as much as they're going to differentiate between a mandate and a tax - read: none
Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 30, 2012 09:01 AM (rX1N2)
Posted by: eman at June 30, 2012 09:01 AM (ejmiE)
Hill? I think we just discovered we are on a featureless prairie. We will be lucky to have tall grass.
Fix bayonets.
Posted by: fluffy at June 30, 2012 09:02 AM (z9HTb)
Posted by: Lady in Black - ObamaTaxCare opponent - This means war, bitchez at June 30, 2012 09:02 AM (vOMX+)
Posted by: Y-not, Perry supporter and Romney donor at June 30, 2012 09:03 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Grumpy the Younger at June 30, 2012 09:04 AM (jts1f)
Posted by: ObjectionSustained at June 30, 2012 09:05 AM (RGetl)
Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2012 09:05 AM (UOM48)
Even if it's stipulated that they managed to limit the commerce clause...
The ruling does not set any limits regardless. After all, just call the damn thing a tax and they can require whatever they want.
Calling this thing a tax, especially to justify that it is acceptable, is appaling. Based on this precedent, the only way to challenge similar legislation would be to show that the 'tax' is not only punitive in nature , but excessively so. And good luck getting standing to challenge it before it's implemented now as well.
Guess we'll all be required to buy a Volt soon - or face increased taxes. After all, the government needs these cars to sell so that GMs stock price will go up and we can reclaim our initial investment right?
As long as this ruling stands, I'll be pushing my representatives to pass a tax for failure to own a gun... Once everyone owns a gun, then we'll have to set minimums for ammunition purchase, target practice, etc. or face another tax...
Posted by: Dilligas at June 30, 2012 09:05 AM (/Odq7)
Listening to John Batchelor (sp) on radio the evening of SCOTUS decision unveiling, and he had on 2-3 guests. All of the guests, as well as Batchelor, sermised that the decision was made and it appeared that Roberts changed his mind at last minute. The Holding appeared to differ from his purported original opinion. I have not looked at the decision, so just basing this on the discussion on air.
Did Roberts not meet with the Obama admin at about this time? What else could have caused this shift?
Posted by: Prisoner at cellblock H at June 30, 2012 09:05 AM (rZZA3)
"I dont know. Conservatives still have a lot more kids, on average, than liberals. We have 3.5, and nearly all my conservative friends have at least 3.
Posted by: Lauren at June 30, 2012 01:00 PM (Kp1CB)"
My retort to that is going to come across as racist, so I'm going to refrain.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 30, 2012 09:06 AM (rX1N2)
Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2012 09:06 AM (YdQQY)
It is a full out effort to control and manipulate the electorate.
It is a means of ostracism.
A means of involuntary euthanasia.
Population control. (they haven't flinched at killing 50 million children why do you think that killing old people would bother them?)
Thought control.
Economic control.
Independence has been lost. You're every decision will now be colored by what effect it might have on your access to life sustaining assistance.
Let's call this what this is; It's a DEATH CONTROL MECHANISM.
No bullets needed. No soldiers with guns. No sheriffs with hoses.
You will live in fear of the government holding up or denying access to life saving procedures and professionals.
Your children will be threatened by your every political act.
Moving to another state will be onerous and perhaps even penalized somehow. Or to another job. Or your party registration.
You all understand somewhat. How about all those who have no clue. They won't realize the impact until it's too late.
Posted by: Lauren's New Phone Overlord at June 30, 2012 09:07 AM (CP+yl)
Vic @ 87 and Soap McT @ 107...
10. All laws will be written in plain English.
11. All Executive Orders must be reviewed for their adherence to the Constitution.
12. The Constitution will be the only law permissible within the borders and territories. International law or sharia law will not be tolerated in the US.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at June 30, 2012 09:08 AM (d0Tfm)
...is there a search party we can send out for all of the lost spaces?
I know they were in the comment when I typed it... maybe it's some new 'space' tax that I haven't figured out how to properly pay...
Posted by: Dilligas at June 30, 2012 09:08 AM (/Odq7)
Posted by: Y-not, Perry supporter and Romney donor at June 30, 2012 09:08 AM (5H6zj)
#69 - this
I've tried to agree with Kraut, Will, Hewitt who say this is a win but keep coming back to Occams Razor. The simplest answer is often the correct one. The simple answer here is that Roberts caved. All the things the Wills and Hewitts say he got with this ruling would have been gotten by striking the law down which would have happened had he sided with the 4 no votes. The only thing he avoided was liberal outrage which, as noted above, makes him look very weak.
As noted above the only answer now is to defeat O and take over the Senate while holding the House and then pray Romney picks some good ones
Posted by: NObama12 at June 30, 2012 09:08 AM (EIHH8)
How sad.
Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2012 09:08 AM (YdQQY)
What gives me hope.....is our conservative Governors.
If it weren't for our conservative Governors, this case would have never made it to the Supreme Court.
For they are who filed these suits in the first place.
And they are the ones who are now vowing to continue to fight this.
It's also heartening to see how energized the various Tea Party groups are now.
They were silent....waiting to see how the Supremes would rule.
From what I hear, they are now planning a lot of demonstrations for the 4th....and between now and November.
Posted by: wheatie at June 30, 2012 09:09 AM (jPxSq)
I am going to go mow my lawn into unconditional surrender.
Posted by: fluffy at June 30, 2012 09:09 AM (z9HTb)
Posted by: Lauren at June 30, 2012 09:09 AM (hNLFW)
Posted by: Bruce Douchesteen at June 30, 2012 01:06 PM (vbh31
Okay. This made me laugh. Thanks!
Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2012 09:10 AM (UOM48)
Posted by: dantesed at June 30, 2012 09:10 AM (MsxAm)
Posted by: Miss80sBaby at June 30, 2012 09:11 AM (d6QMz)
Heat makes me angrier.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2012 09:11 AM (UOM48)
Posted by: pat at June 30, 2012 09:11 AM (UFxap)
Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2012 01:11 PM (UOM4
It is already near 105° here now Jane. How is it there?
Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2012 09:12 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: theworldisnotenough at June 30, 2012 09:12 AM (dCpBL)
Posted by: Y-not, Perry supporter and Romney donor at June 30, 2012 09:13 AM (5H6zj)
Yeah, and most conservatives send their kids off to the public schools that have been run by liberals for nearly a century.
So, no, it's not much of an advantage.
Posted by: OregonMuse at June 30, 2012 09:13 AM (xm1A1)
Posted by: antisocialist at June 30, 2012 09:14 AM (j/nZn)
Posted by: Y-not, Perry supporter and Romney donor at June 30, 2012 09:14 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2012 09:14 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Pascal at June 30, 2012 09:15 AM (OULR2)
Posted by: CoolCzech at June 30, 2012 09:15 AM (niZvt)
It's also browser and hardware related.
I see problems here that arent' at any other site but I've discovered that it's due to how ff handles the specific code and not the site.
cOUrag.e!
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at June 30, 2012 09:15 AM (CP+yl)
Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2012 01:12 PM (YdQQY
It's 94 in town right now (where I'm headed) and the actual temp is supposed to be 100.
It's a tiny bit cooler out here on the island where we live.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2012 09:16 AM (UOM48)
Posted by: CoolCzech at June 30, 2012 01:15 PM (niZvt)
The ONLY time we have had a President in office that was NOT a socialist was when RR was in office.
Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2012 09:16 AM (YdQQY)
184
I've tried to agree with Kraut, Will, Hewitt who say this is a win....
Krauthammer?
When did he say this was a "win"?
He's been ripping it.....from what I've seen.
I don't always agree with Krauthammer.
But on this, he has been talking about how Roberts made a bad call, and merely trying to give some logic as to 'why' Roberts would do such a bad call.
Posted by: wheatie at June 30, 2012 09:16 AM (jPxSq)
Eh. There's extremely little cultural difference between the trailer parks of the rural Midwest and the inner cities with respect to unwed women making babies with multiple men.
Both PJMedia and NRO have been publishing pieces lately calling childless women "parasites" on society. I want what they're chooming--there's no fucking way in reality I'm a "parasite" but my HS classmate whose illegitimate daughter just gave her a illegitimate granddaughter (the births and vaccinations and housing and food etc paid for by state and federal tax dollars) is the host being weakened by my working and paying taxes with no deductions for dependents. No fucking way.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ is still at work cleaning up other people's fucking mess at June 30, 2012 09:18 AM (ZKzrr)
Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2012 09:18 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Lauren at June 30, 2012 09:18 AM (hNLFW)
Posted by: The Democrat/Republican Oligopoly at June 30, 2012 09:19 AM (IoNBC)
Posted by: ObjectionSustained at June 30, 2012 09:19 AM (RGetl)
Posted by: CoolCzech at June 30, 2012 09:19 AM (niZvt)
If the Dems said giving cocaine to toddlers was a good idea, the Dem voters would scream about how awesome the idea is.
The Dead and the Fictitious are not the only Democrat constituencies that consistently vote for them. The Brain-Dead are also very reliable for them.
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at June 30, 2012 09:19 AM (i0App)
Policy. Who are we kidding. This isn't insurance anymore folks. Its' shared cost.
It's a PONZI scheme.
it will survive ONLY if enough 'buyers' don't need it. that's why the mandate. It wouldn't work without millions of younger, healthier payors.
(ahem, excuse me)
Then companies will evaluate whether or not what they have qualifies. If it doesn't then they evaluate the cost of compliance. If that's larger than the penalty, they'll cut the insurance benefit and force their employees to buy their own.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at June 30, 2012 09:20 AM (CP+yl)
That may be true but the last census data that I saw for rate of illegitimacy had this
blacks 75%
Hispanics 45%
Whites 25%
Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2012 09:20 AM (YdQQY)
*seething rage*
Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2012 09:20 AM (UOM48)
Posted by: Y-not, Perry supporter and Romney donor at June 30, 2012 09:21 AM (5H6zj)
211 - I thought there were articles at HotAir and elsewhere with Kraut spinning this as a win. If incorrect my bad.
My point remains that this was a big loss and the rest is all spinning/hope
Posted by: NObama12 at June 30, 2012 09:21 AM (EIHH8)
Percentages. Go look at raw numbers. 75% of 11% of the population; 25% of 50% of the population...
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ is still at work cleaning up other people's fucking mess at June 30, 2012 09:22 AM (ZKzrr)
Watch it. Watch it.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at June 30, 2012 09:22 AM (CP+yl)
Posted by: ADK46er at June 30, 2012 09:22 AM (tkY5j)
Stupid, brainless fuckwits. And my lib m-i-l, 87 years old with health issues....hope she enjoys her Obamacare.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2012 09:23 AM (UOM48)
Posted by: IdowhatIwant at June 30, 2012 09:23 AM (a4CUi)
Posted by: Y-not, Perry supporter and Romney donor at June 30, 2012 09:23 AM (5H6zj)
Since Roberts defined it as "a tax", which Obama continues to deny, it seems they are caught in a bit of a circular argument. As for opening us up to labeling everything a tax in the future, I think the Dems gnashing of teeth over this supports the argument that nobody is going to be too quick to go down that path.
Just my thoughts.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 30, 2012 09:24 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: DaMav at June 30, 2012 09:24 AM (rT08W)
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ is still at work cleaning up other people's fucking mess at June 30, 2012 09:24 AM (ZKzrr)
Posted by: Scobface at June 30, 2012 09:24 AM (IoNBC)
The point is you are looking at cultural differences, not total illegitimate babies born.
Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2012 09:24 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: eman at June 30, 2012 09:24 AM (ejmiE)
Posted by: doug at June 30, 2012 12:37 PM (gUGI6)
------------->>>>
Dude, I'm no happier about the SCOTUS decision than you are, but .... that's delusional. The Democrats have been pushing for nationalized healthcare for a long time. The machinations to get the "Affordable Care Act" out of Congress had nothing to do with the existence of Romneycare and everything to do with President Obama.
Posted by: Retired Buckeye Cop at June 30, 2012 09:25 AM (M0NzJ)
Posted by: Deety at June 30, 2012 09:25 AM (rH+V2)
Posted by: LIGuy at June 30, 2012 09:25 AM (+usC4)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at June 30, 2012 09:25 AM (i330i)
"Then companies will evaluate whether or not what they have qualifies. If it doesn't then they evaluate the cost of compliance. If that's larger than the penalty, they'll cut the insurance benefit and force their employees to buy their own."
As for all those that note that the employer will give the employee a raise for cutting the insurance benefit... Any raise that may be given, will be after factoring in the penalty they have to pay... which means the employee takes another pay cut to maintain (or acquire) the required insurance. As it will undoubtable cost much more than anything the employer may pass on to the employee in savings.
Posted by: Dilligas at June 30, 2012 09:25 AM (/Odq7)
Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2012 09:25 AM (UOM48)
Posted by: Scobface at June 30, 2012 09:25 AM (IoNBC)
Imposing self-ban. Fuck you nay-sayers. Sit here and masturbate each other with defeatism. I'm going to fight.
***
Heh. Are you new here?!
Did you miss the Sarah/Perry/Gingrich/Romney/Santorum months?
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 30, 2012 09:26 AM (piMMO)
Could a Conservative group send out a memo to Ontario that basically states WE would be willing to nation-build with all our great values,$$$, and businesses if they would allow us to create our own constitution separate and distinct from Canada?
Win-win, right Ontario?
Posted by: Prisoner at cellblock H at June 30, 2012 09:27 AM (rZZA3)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at June 30, 2012 09:27 AM (i330i)
Posted by: Scobface at June 30, 2012 09:27 AM (IoNBC)
It goes like this: NO CONTROLLING OPINION SAID SO.
***
Actually, it is even worse then that.
Does anyone seriously believe that a liberal justice would be constrained from advancing government power by precedent? So even if Roberts had signed the liberals onto his argument, they would not considered themselves bound by it.
And *either* Obama or Romney will appointment more liberals to the court, so the best case scenario is that in 4 or 8 years the court continues to be 4 liberals, 2 left to moderate justices, and 3 conservatives.
Posted by: Justice Roberts at June 30, 2012 09:27 AM (AUeaU)
*****
Have you forgotten Hillary-care?
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 30, 2012 09:27 AM (piMMO)
*****
You think his legacy has been "protected"? You can't be serious.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 30, 2012 09:28 AM (piMMO)
Look at his actions. Are his past actions and attitude one of someone who might be concerned about fooling people into voting for him again?
Look at all the golf and trips. It's like someone found a credit card and is using it on anything and everything before it gets denied.
He was hired to do one thing maybe two.
1. impose a Population/electoral control act
2. reduce 2nd amendment/gun ownership
He failed at 2 and the SCOTUS put a nail in any future actions in it. (done also by Roberts court)
He succeeded at 1 only because their was a malfeasant Democrat controlled House to aid the Democrat controlled Senate.
Remember that we got a Democrat controlled House first then O.
This was PLANNED people. They saw the window and jumped through it.
Obama was just the messenger, the ultimate sock puppet.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at June 30, 2012 09:29 AM (CP+yl)
Posted by: ParanoidGirlInSeattle at June 30, 2012 09:29 AM (RZ8pf)
***
What makes you think that this was anything other then an endorsement of unlimited government power by a smarter then average left of center judge?
Roberts is another Souter.
Posted by: 18-1 at June 30, 2012 09:29 AM (AUeaU)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at June 30, 2012 09:29 AM (i330i)
It still is easier to get rid of a tax over a commerce clause regulation. Now when they cry about the Bush Tax Cut rate they will also have the weapon of the Obama tax care rate. Everything else is regulations and a proper HHS can undo more than congress could think as they just gave the department a blank paper to fill out later. The HHS can regulate what the exchanges look like or what the level of care is allowed to be covered. Get rid of the federal HHS department and Obamatax is gone as there is no one to manage it.
Posted by: TJexcite at June 30, 2012 09:29 AM (AsD76)
Posted by: Y-not, Perry supporter and Romney donor at June 30, 2012 09:30 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at June 30, 2012 09:31 AM (i330i)
96Forget secession.
That's not the American way.
It's certainly not something that I would consider ideal, nor am I advocating it at this point, but this country was formed because of it. We essentially seceded from Great Britain.
If there were to come a time when our Constitution is nothing more than a dusty symbolic document, and was in a de facto sense non-binding, then people will have to look at their options.
Posted by: Reggie1971 at June 30, 2012 09:31 AM (c9PA0)
Posted by: CoolCzech at June 30, 2012 09:31 AM (niZvt)
I am one hot moron.
Posted by: sTevo at June 30, 2012 09:32 AM (VMcEw)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at June 30, 2012 09:32 AM (i330i)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 30, 2012 01:27 PM (piMMO)
****
Obama wanted Hillarycare, but even with Democrat majorities in both houses he didn't think he could get it.
So he gave us Romneycare instead, since it was easier to get through congress, and shockingly the courts.
It is interesting to consider that Obama might have lost the Obamacare battle, in a Democrat congress, with a Hillarycare clone proposal.
Posted by: 18-1 at June 30, 2012 09:32 AM (AUeaU)
Posted by: hmmmm at June 30, 2012 09:32 AM (e9LVX)
Posted by: HeatherRadish
If that's aimed at me, I was joking about stereotyping the mid west and trailer parks.
I concur otherwise. pace.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at June 30, 2012 09:32 AM (CP+yl)
*****
About a third of the nation now despises him. Is that the legacy you mean?
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 30, 2012 09:33 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at June 30, 2012 09:34 AM (i0App)
Posted by: eman at June 30, 2012 09:34 AM (ejmiE)
Hey dipshit: We're brainstorming and also venting.
ban yourself if you want but don't be a dick about it. dick.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at June 30, 2012 09:34 AM (CP+yl)
*****
That was once the case, but no more. The internet has changed that. Information and opinion are abundant.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 30, 2012 09:34 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: sTevo at June 30, 2012 01:32 PM (VMcEw)
Now the 'ettes will demand pics. 
Posted by: chemjeff at June 30, 2012 09:35 AM (LK3ef)
268....I am one hot moron.
You're without power, sTevo?
Oh man, that sucks.
Our a/c was out for a few days in this 100 degree heat....but at least we had power.
Posted by: wheatie at June 30, 2012 09:35 AM (jPxSq)
Posted by: Scobface at June 30, 2012 09:35 AM (IoNBC)
***
Roberts could have always done the right thing.
Instead he choose to give Obama what he wanted, at least the most important part.
We probably will never know how much fear, the desire for self benefit, and leftist ideals determined the Roberts stab in the back, but he made a conscious decision to shred the Constitution.
Posted by: 18-1 at June 30, 2012 09:35 AM (AUeaU)
Posted by: holygoat at June 30, 2012 09:35 AM (XnwWl)
Posted by: StuckOnStupid at June 30, 2012 09:36 AM (R5yLq)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at June 30, 2012 09:37 AM (i330i)
Posted by: CoolCzech at June 30, 2012 09:37 AM (niZvt)
Posted by: chemjeff
Pic of my 'smoking hotness' @sdrizo.
Will make a beer run with the next gas refill.
Posted by: sTevo at June 30, 2012 09:38 AM (VMcEw)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at June 30, 2012 09:38 AM (i330i)
Posted by: StuckOnStupid at June 30, 2012 09:38 AM (R5yLq)
His crack about retreating to a fortress just shows he is spitting in our faces.
Posted by: real joe at June 30, 2012 09:38 AM (omojD)
***
This is a core problem conservatives face. We want people to fight and claw to take an office, and then voluntarily fight to weaken the power of the office they just took.
Worse yet, the Republicans have seen that conservatives will vote for them no matter what they do. All the incentives for them are to NOT fight to repeal Obamacare.
They will make a token effort and fail. And then the leadership will tell us we can't do anything without 60 Senator, the presidency, and a larger house majority, just like in 2004...
Posted by: 18-1 at June 30, 2012 09:38 AM (AUeaU)
Posted by: Scobface at June 30, 2012 09:38 AM (IoNBC)
Posted by: ParanoidGirlInSeattle at June 30, 2012 01:29 PM (RZ8pf)
huh ? where did you see that?
Posted by: willow at June 30, 2012 09:39 AM (TomZ9)
Arr-oooo-gooo-la.
Nice woody word.
Arugula.
Roberts.
Tinny.
Tinny word, Roberts.
Is there any dog left in the fridge?
Posted by: Barky Obama at June 30, 2012 09:39 AM (Qxdfp)
Posted by: waelse1 at June 30, 2012 09:40 AM (VaU8E)
Posted by: Y-not, Perry supporter and Romney donor at June 30, 2012 09:40 AM (5H6zj)
***
And this is why we should have stopped supporting "moderate" Republicans some time ago.
By the way, Mitt Romneycare is going to overturn Obamacare on day 1....right?
Posted by: 18-1 at June 30, 2012 09:40 AM (AUeaU)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 30, 2012 09:41 AM (j1gX1)
Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 30, 2012 09:41 AM (rX1N2)
****
Buy a $100 window unit and store it in the garage. When your a.c. goes down, you can pop it into a window and keep a couple of rooms cool enough to sleep. You can take it out and store it again when the a.c. is repaired.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 30, 2012 09:41 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at June 30, 2012 09:41 AM (i330i)
Posted by: Y-not, Perry supporter and Romney donor at June 30, 2012 09:42 AM (5H6zj)
It doesn't really matter.
It has had the effect of making me a rabid Romney supporter. I only wish I could afford contributing.
I will however be offering my services to aid his election.
Something I've never had the time for before.
This IS war.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at June 30, 2012 09:42 AM (CP+yl)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 30, 2012 09:42 AM (j1gX1)
Posted by: eman at June 30, 2012 09:42 AM (ejmiE)
Posted by: Y-not, Perry supporter and Romney donor at June 30, 2012 09:42 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Reggie1971 at June 30, 2012 12:20 PM (c9PA0)
Reggie1971 nailed it.
Posted by: Donna V. at June 30, 2012 09:43 AM (EflcN)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 30, 2012 09:43 AM (j1gX1)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at June 30, 2012 09:43 AM (i330i)
Posted by: Former Mass. Resident at June 30, 2012 09:44 AM (ZZPs4)
Posted by: Mr. Pink at June 30, 2012 09:44 AM (++kZl)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 30, 2012 09:45 AM (j1gX1)
***
So, when Bush spent 4 years doing nothing of note on domestic policy, except advance a few leftist policies, we threw him out in 2004, right?
Romney, Boehner, McConnell believe that conservatives will support them no matter what they do, because hey, the other guys are worse...right?
If you are expecting Mitt Romneycare to not only be more conservative then Bush 43, but every president since Coolidge - and that is in fact what you are arguing in saying he will get rid of Obamacare - you will be sorely disappointed.
Posted by: 18-1 at June 30, 2012 09:45 AM (AUeaU)
*****
But doesn't that open up an entirely new case for the courts?
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 30, 2012 09:45 AM (piMMO)
The one thing I can't offer is time, you'll be doing more good than a single donation (at least a normal one).
Here in CA it's a lost cause, so best to contribute money to the whole, and get some senate seats to boot!
Posted by: Clutch Cargo at June 30, 2012 09:45 AM (Qxdfp)
Posted by: Reggie1971 at June 30, 2012 01:31 PM (c9PA0)
A "nation" only meaningfully exists when the various segments of society agree upon the basic ground rules of that society. Otherwise, you have anarchy. Right now, we are on the verge of anarchy and, frankly, splitting into two or more countries seems like the best of a set of bad options, to me, although I can see why a lot of non-Leftists would disagree vehemently at this point in time.
However, as time goes on, I predict that more and more people will come around to this same conclusion. It's pretty much baked into the cake at this point. Yes, human agency enables us to achieve some scope of freedom of action and history is not deterministic, but unless you see a mass defection from the totalitarianism brewing on the Left on the part of a large enough number of Leftists, it's going to come to a point where you either acquiesce to their totalitarianism or you form a separate sovereign nation. Mr. Irresistable Force, meet Mr. Immovable Object.
Posted by: BS Inc. at June 30, 2012 09:46 AM (P2Ufm)
302....Buy a $100 window unit and store it in the garage.
That's a good idea, NDH....a very good idea.
Posted by: wheatie at June 30, 2012 09:46 AM (jPxSq)
****
That might be the only thing that would get me to watch that show.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 30, 2012 09:46 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 30, 2012 09:46 AM (j1gX1)
Posted by: Y-not, Perry supporter and Romney donor at June 30, 2012 09:47 AM (5H6zj)
They've been down since early am. I assume due to blackouts around DC and east coast.
item I saw said that Amazon Cloud was down and some other sites, so I assume Dailycaller is part of this.
We now return you to your current program of lamentations and avowals of vengence.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at June 30, 2012 09:47 AM (CP+yl)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 30, 2012 09:47 AM (j1gX1)
Posted by: eman at June 30, 2012 09:47 AM (ejmiE)
257
He ain't Bill Clinton, that's for sure.
Clinton started off as an idealogue, and then changed course to recover his political viability. He took polls on anything and everything after he got slapped hard on Hillarycare, even to the point of getting public opinion on where they would like him to spend his vacation time. America was, and I believe still is a center-right country. That's why he served two terms.
Posted by: Reggie1971 at June 30, 2012 09:48 AM (c9PA0)
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at June 30, 2012 01:42 PM (CP+yl)
***
For you and I this is serious shit. We are watching our country be destroyed - by Democrats...and Republicans.
To the technocratic elite that are currently running DC, this is merely a question about pushing a little faster on the socialism pedal - Obama or a little slower - Romney. There is no serious desire in the Republican leadership to change direction.
Posted by: 18-1 at June 30, 2012 09:48 AM (AUeaU)
Posted by: BS Inc. at June 30, 2012 09:48 AM (P2Ufm)
Posted by: Reggie1971 at June 30, 2012 12:20 PM (c9PA0)
Fuck that:
I WAS WRONG ABOUT GEORGE W. BUSH.
That's more accurate. Let's put the blame where it belongs.
Root causes and all that.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at June 30, 2012 09:49 AM (CP+yl)
Posted by: Y-not, Perry supporter and Romney donor at June 30, 2012 09:49 AM (5H6zj)
316....I will be there in Summer Whites in the Navy Cheering section.
Cool.
How will we know which one is you?
No wait....that's probably not a good idea. Heh.
Posted by: wheatie at June 30, 2012 09:50 AM (jPxSq)
***
No - Roberts specifically said it doesn't matter if Obama calls it a tax or a mandate.
Amusingly, even if Roberts believed his argument for this being a valid tax policy, he *should* have thrown it out because it wasn't passed as one.
But he wanted to uphold it, the only question was on which grounds.
Posted by: 18-1 at June 30, 2012 09:50 AM (AUeaU)
Posted by: StuckOnStupid at June 30, 2012 09:51 AM (R5yLq)
320
It really is a question of what is a nation. Is it a land mass with a bunch of people scattered about, or does it owe its existence to a set of principles.
I really do hope it doesn't come to a point of critical mass, but we've been riding down this anti-Constitutional slope for a long time now. Eventually we will crash.
Posted by: Reggie1971 at June 30, 2012 09:54 AM (c9PA0)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 30, 2012 09:54 AM (j1gX1)
Posted by: StuckOnStupid at June 30, 2012 09:54 AM (R5yLq)
***
And indeed Bush 43 was far better on National Security then Kerry - as Romney would be better then Obama.
The problem is he was a terrible president overall from a conservative perspective.
And Mitt Romney's *best* case is that he would be about as good as Bush 43 was.
Mitt Romney is not going to remove any part of the bureaucratic state.
Posted by: 18-1 at June 30, 2012 09:54 AM (AUeaU)
*****
But did he "side with the liberals"? The libs would have allowed it to stand precisely as presented. Roberts' vote put in him in the majority with the libs, but by casting it as a tax, he also broke with the the libs "individual mandate" stance.
I'm not going to presume to know what Roberts' motives were, yet, in the end, the Dems are left to defend a tax and are going nuts. How do they implement it in the form permitted by the court if they will not write it into the tax code?
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 30, 2012 09:54 AM (piMMO)
in Cost's opinion, conservatives can more easily deal with policy problems at the ballot box than they can stealth the constitutional innovations.
Fuck Cost. I would rather deal with that "problem" than I would in relying on the Republicans in Congress and Romney as presdent to actually follow through and repeal this load of horse shit.
Posted by: buzzion at June 30, 2012 09:55 AM (GULKT)
Posted by: DAve at June 30, 2012 09:55 AM (h+/7G)
Posted by: eman at June 30, 2012 09:55 AM (ejmiE)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 30, 2012 09:55 AM (j1gX1)
Posted by: rdbrewer at June 30, 2012 09:55 AM (Iyg03)
Clinton's so-called triangulation to the center is a myth spawned by the Democrats and repeated infinitely by the MFM. They give him credit for the welfare bill on this which is bull shit. He vetoed it twice before Newt sent it to him in a veto override and he had no control over it.
He got blocked by actual Republican control.
Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2012 09:56 AM (YdQQY)
That and the fact that the Constitution only gives Congress the power to levy very specific taxes and this doesn't fit into any of those 3 categories.
***
Unfortunately, we only have 3.5 justices that have a use for the Constitution.
Actually, that isn't fair - Roberts does have a use for it, what with the price of toilet paper going up.
Posted by: 18-1 at June 30, 2012 09:56 AM (AUeaU)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 30, 2012 09:57 AM (j1gX1)
Posted by: Meggie Mac at June 30, 2012 09:57 AM (IoNBC)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 30, 2012 01:54 PM (j1gX1)
I'll be trying to figure out which one you are.
Posted by: wheatie at June 30, 2012 09:57 AM (jPxSq)
Next is to hammer Obama every chance that it's a tax.
Enumerate the taxes and their estimated costs. Point out the clauses that are no longer "operative" that the CBO used to score the bill and accurately redefine what the true cost will be.
Keep promising to rescind it.
Call Obama a liar when he does. Maybe not like joe walsh but there's ways to call someone a liar that everyone knows but that doesn't use the word "liar" in them.
reiterate the above.
One last thing. If Romney wants a second term and if the House wants to stay in; they better repeal this thing.
Not because we'll vote them out, (which will happen) but because otherwise they will share in the infamy of this being the Act that reduced the American Dream to a nightmare.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at June 30, 2012 09:57 AM (CP+yl)
***
Let me be clear, as I have always said, if you like being fucked in the ass, you can continue being fucked in the ass.
Posted by: Barack Obama at June 30, 2012 09:58 AM (AUeaU)
****
You could swing by Fox and Friends and wave through the window to us. (Do they still have a window?)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 30, 2012 09:58 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: rdbrewer at June 30, 2012 09:59 AM (Iyg03)
Another John Roberts is probably the high bar for a Romney SC nominee. Sigh...
Posted by: mugiwara at June 30, 2012 10:00 AM (RY/Ag)
That's that CDN (Content Delivery Network) practice that I think is foolish.
Penny wise and pound foolish.
Putting ones eggs in one basket.
As Sheriff joe would say; "that's just D-U-M. stupid.)
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at June 30, 2012 10:00 AM (CP+yl)
Posted by: StuckOnStupid at June 30, 2012 10:00 AM (R5yLq)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 30, 2012 10:00 AM (j1gX1)
Posted by: rdbrewer at June 30, 2012 10:01 AM (Iyg03)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 30, 2012 10:02 AM (j1gX1)
***
Comparing their records, that would also be better then you could fairly expect from a President Romney.
Vote Charybdis 2012 because Scylla is a SCOAMF!
Posted by: 18-1 at June 30, 2012 10:02 AM (AUeaU)
331
I warned my friends about GWB and his damned "compassionate conservatism" back in 2000 (kindler, gentler redux). They fell on deaf ears.
Posted by: Reggie1971 at June 30, 2012 10:08 AM (mryu2)
how's about an aiguillette?
Not uniform of the day? Maybe you can fake it.
Summer whites so no stripes?
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at June 30, 2012 10:11 AM (CP+yl)
Posted by: gm at June 30, 2012 10:12 AM (K0tm3)
349
Vic, I'm not saying the slick one went conservative. I'm just saying he became a lot more timid about implementing his true agenda. The GOP Congress was a big factor in that, I agree.
Posted by: Reggie1971 at June 30, 2012 10:23 AM (mryu2)
Posted by: MrC_5150 at June 30, 2012 10:33 AM (IZDSj)
Posted by: Zombie El Bejay at June 30, 2012 10:34 AM (Qr9Rc)
It seems what people are really upset about is that it's still up to them to get something done.
Posted by: Prez 4 Evah Superhero Genius at June 30, 2012 10:42 AM (Usk3+)
Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2012 10:43 AM (YdQQY)
" that Roberts' decision is a victory for conservatives"
A couple more 'victories' like that and we'll be praying for the SMOD.
Posted by: chuck in st paul at June 30, 2012 10:56 AM (EhYdw)
Posted by: Ward of the State #3894635A at June 30, 2012 11:05 AM (fWqsc)
But Christine O'Donnell making the right decision would be *embarrassing*.
Whereas Roberts fucking us all to death is MONEYBOMB.
Huge win. Huge.
Posted by: nope at June 30, 2012 11:15 AM (cePv8)
Randy Barnett is a glass half full guy:
But if winning by losing was a great strategy, conservatives would rule the world.
Posted by: Frankly at June 30, 2012 11:17 AM (g6iAG)
Posted by: TooCon at June 30, 2012 11:17 AM (YcTIW)
Oh, and... #155: Of course this isn't the hill to die on. That tanning bed tax is quite disturbing, though.-Posted by: John "Studly" Boehner at June 30, 2012 12:59 PM (IoNBC)
You know what's funny, sad, and scary about that tanning bed tax? Around the time the bill was signed into law, that tax was described as (paraphrased) "Racist... a tax on white people."
You know who said that? Frickin' Snooki, that's who.
Snooki officially understands the Constitution better than the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court.
Posted by: Prothonotary Warbler at June 30, 2012 11:22 AM (3yCFy)
Posted by: Oldcrow at June 30, 2012 12:03 PM (rAKo4)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at June 30, 2012 12:19 PM (i330i)
Bingo. And this is what infuriates me the most; the insistence that there was some sort of victory. There wasn't.
I like to call it "Phantom Menace" syndrome, wherein - as a rabid Star Wars fan - I was positive Phantom Menace was a good movie, or at least a film with likeable qualities. I finally had to admit I was kidding myself.
Posted by: Sgt. York at June 30, 2012 12:26 PM (pqW4Y)
Posted by: someguy at June 30, 2012 12:31 PM (sEXZ/)
Posted by: VADM (Red) Cuthbert Lord Collingwood (mentioned in dispatches) at June 30, 2012 12:49 PM (m7blM)
To the former, "strained" arguments are exactly what we don't want. That, translated, means "legislating from the bench." Justices aren't there to rewrite the legislation by selective editing; they're there to accept or reject that which is presented... nothing more.
As to the latter, how was there no "qualitative expansion"? The broad authority remains as broad and, now, we have the added distinction that Congress need only define any liberty-restricting legislation where money is the behavior modifier a "tax" (a merely semantic exercise) and, poof, it's Constitutional. I'd say that's a pretty big qualifier to justify government overreach to the point of oppression. So, both in quantity and quality, the Roberts affirmation re-entrenched the idea that the taxing authority is so broad as to permit the government to do pretty much anything as long as you massage the right term - "tax" - into the legislation.
This is a horrible outcome. Sure, you could argue that Roberts was playing 3D chess by "subtly" providing a political solution to the legal affirmation by calling a tax a "tax" which the political arena can bat around for the next election. But that would be stupid. Roberts et al. aren't there to manage elections through wordplay and subtle suggestion; they're there to decide if the Constitution is violated without inserting their own law. We lost. We lost big.
Thank you, Roberts and the majority, for nothing. You will not be forgotten. Likewise, you will not be forgiven.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at June 30, 2012 12:50 PM (eHIJJ)
If murdering unborn children doesn't bother voters enough to make it illegal, another slow-drip, undercover tax won't bother them into action either. And if I'm wrong and the tax does bother them more than abortion, so much the worse for what remains of this country's soul.
Posted by: shatburger at June 30, 2012 01:15 PM (BLcKg)
So Basically Roberts wiped Obama's A$$ with the Constitution.
The American Experiment is over. Roberts own analogy of being an umpire is true. He blew the call and the game is over.
Does not matter who is in the Whitehouse, Congress or Supreme Court... the end result will be more debt, more taxes, more GIvernment and less freedom..
Posted by: airandee at June 30, 2012 01:21 PM (9GHCK)
Benedict Roberts created a whole new, nearly unlimited definition of the word "tax". Plus, he allowed it to apply on a per-statement basis, so that what is or is not a "tax", in this new ill-defined definition, can change from statement to statement in the same "logical" argument.
Jay Cost is a retard. A well-defined retard.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at June 30, 2012 01:30 PM (X3lox)
Roberts crafted this legislation in his own little demented brain just as surely as if he wrote it from scratch.
If he can substitute "tax" for "mandate" then he could as easily substitute the word "shrubbery." If there were no substantive difference between "tax" and "mandate" then the shiftless son of a bitch wouldn't have had the change the word to begin with would he?
Under Robert's jurisprudence, such as it is, he could just as easily change the bill into Beethoven's First Symphony for all of the sense it would make and all the legitimacy it would have.
What Roberts did was seditious and is the very definition of judicial advocacy. He should be made to pay a very high price for it and his name should never be spoken lest it be in conjunction with the word "traitor."
var __chd__ = {'aid':11079,'chaid':'www_objectify_ca'};(function() { var c = document.createElement('script'); c.type = 'text/javascript'; c.async = true;c.src = ( 'https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://z': 'http://p') + '.chango.com/static/c.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(c, s);})();
Posted by: Voluble at June 30, 2012 01:52 PM (eOimU)
Yeah, we probably lost this battle when FDR intimidated the shrinking Nancies on the court during the New Deal but most people are too stupid to understand that.
Making the magnitude of what just happened understood requires there be a change in vocabulary. This is not the United States anymore. There are no founding documents that justify its existence. This is something entirely new.... Call it Post-America or the USSA... whatever you like but it is certainly not something a very large part of population wants any part of and it is certainly not justified by the Constitution that supposedly legitimizes it.
Roberts was worried about the legitimacy of the court when really what he did was destroy the legitimacy of the country and every single one of its institutions. Between Kelo and now this abomination his legacy is solidly that of someone who gave the government license to run roughshod over the people at every turn.
The only right we have left is the right to bitch about we have no rights. And now that the government controls your health care you had best not do that too loudly.
BTW, I am not sure where all of that garbage came from at the end of my last post. Some glitch in the software I guess.
var __chd__ = {'aid':11079,'chaid':'www_objectify_ca'};(function() { var c = document.createElement('script'); c.type = 'text/javascript'; c.async = true;c.src = ( 'https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://z': 'http://p') + '.chango.com/static/c.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(c, s);})();
Posted by: Voluble at June 30, 2012 02:08 PM (eOimU)
Roberts is a clusterfuck and these lawyers know it.
Posted by: TexasJew at June 30, 2012 02:18 PM (iBGQ2)
Posted by: Mirimichi at June 30, 2012 04:48 PM (84bEu)
Posted by: steevy at June 30, 2012 05:52 PM (Xb3hu)
Posted by: edward cropper at June 30, 2012 06:14 PM (JqIMQ)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.3362 seconds, 514 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: Dr. Varno at June 30, 2012 08:08 AM (ak7FB)