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

2 I'm getting a bad vibe from Roberts talking like that.  Isn't he the one who said during his confirmation hearings that he'll follow whatever the Constitution says and that if it isn't in there, then tuff titties?

3 >>It's -- We -- I don't think we think of that as a market.

Did he just say the federal regulations are the cell phone industry are unConstitutional? Heh.

4 The Libs are just doing that "OMG, I sooo totally failed that bio quiz!" thing that straight-A chicks always do.

5 Today wasn't that bad...

6
It was a bad day for me.

7 To be honest, Kennedy seems a lot more equivocal than liberal commentators imagined. A lot of his statements (like the one from page 24, above) are very on the fence.

There's nothing as yummy as having a fencepost up your ass.

8 It's Mourning in America

9 I was for it, before I was against it........wait.....Nope, It sucks.

10 Wishy washy is the most accurate description for Kennedy.  As for Roberts, it looks to me like he's just trying to pin down the government's position on how far they are willing to go, not how far HE is willing to go. 

11 So are we boned?

12
The Feral Government will stop demanding additional mandates after we all purchase a Chevrolet Volt.

13 And remind me, have the Black Panthers been arrested yet for soliciting kidnapping and murder? Remember that bounty they put out on national TV the other day? I could've sworn offering bounties for the kidnapping and murder of people you don't like used to be illegal in America. If only we had some evidence, like maybe a nationally televized broadcast of the bounty offer

14 TANSTAAFL, bitches, TANSTAAFL.

15 This is the most true statement ever:

JUSTICE KENNEDY: And the government tells us that's because the insurance market is unique. And in the next case, it'll say the next market is unique.


That is EXACTLY what will happen if this obamanation is allowed to stand.  The government NEVER gives power back once it's taken it.  EVER.

16

"I understand that we must presume laws are constitutional.."

 

Not with Barry, Nancy, Harry and their   band of Merry Marxists in Washington you can't.

17 It sucks to be under the thumb of Big Justice.

18 13
If only we had some evidence, like maybe a nationally televized broadcast of the bounty offer Posted by: Clubber Lang

You are right - why hasn't anything been done?

19 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable tyrant.

20

Justice Alito said:

 

"...what this mandate is really doing is not requiring the people who are subject to it to pay for the services that they are going to consume? It is requiring them to subsidize services that will be received by somebody else."

 

And that is the entire Sandra Fluke episode in short.  The mandate will now be the source of much lobbying as every pressure group will lobby Congress and the agencies to have their particular concern mandated; and every pharma company or medical care company will want their particular treatment mandated.

 

It will be the perfect place to be if you like corruption - making lots of money off of the bribes; and power - the ability to punish enemies by denying them the mandate they seek.  Socialism Chicago-style:  Skip the idealism and go straight to the racketeering.

21

"I could've sworn offering bounties for the kidnapping and murder of people you don't like used to be illegal in America."

 

Still is. I just posted a post over at my little place that includes a link to some of the Florida state statutes that the NBP's broke. Click on my nic, it's the first one. And I need the traffic...

22 hmmmmm...

23 I'm glad others are picking up on this, I think the rational part of Kennedy's brain knows there is no real argument for this, but the part of his brain that doesn't want his left wing lawyer buddies to be furious with him for killing their cool health care bill  is desperately searching for a way to vote to uphold it.

24 Why does it have to come down to libtard justices vs. conservative justices? Is there law or isn't there?

25 Kennedy is known to be a "moderate" and he is feeling things out ant thinking things through. All caveats about reading the justices questions for indications of how they will vote aside, I think the fact that he is likely to come down on the correct side. I think the fact that toobin is apoplectic about the hearings is equally interestng and telling. he certainly has been following this more closely and probably has more knowledge of the behind the scenes machinations of the court and if the hearings have gone in a way that is as contrary to his expectations as these seem to have gone, that is a good sign.

26 I understand that we must presume laws are constitutional

No, Justice Kennedy.  Actually, ever since the Supreme Court usurped the Right and Privilege of the States in deciding what was Constitutional and what was not, you actually have a duty to presume all law are Unconstitutional, and require the Government prove that they are Constitutional.

But expecting such philosophical clarity from someone with a legal education is asking a bit much, I guess.

27

If this it upheld, we must use the 'Trust me' clause in the Constitution to rein in our Government and not exercise this power any futher.

 

I picked a bad day to stop sniffing glue :-(

28 OK that's really ironic- I was just fetching this part-which you also quoted. You have to worry about Kennedy here: JUSTICE KENNEDY: And the government tells us that's because the insurance market is unique. And in the next case, it'll say the next market is unique. But I think it is true that if most questions in life are matters of degree, in the insurance and health care world, both markets — stipulate two markets — the young person who is uninsured is uniquely proximately very close to affecting the rates of insurance and the costs of providing medical care in a way that is not true in other industries. That's my concern in the case. MR. CARVIN: And, Your — I may be misunderstanding you, Justice Kennedy. I hope I'm not. Sure. It would be perfectly fine if they allowed — you do actuarial risk for young people on the basis of their risk for disease, just like you judge flood insurance on the homeowner's risk of flood. One of the issues here is not only that they're compelling us to enter into the marketplace, they're not — they're prohibiting us from buying the only economically sensible product that we would want. Catastrophic insurance. Everyone agrees the only potential problem that a 30-year-old, as he goes from the healthy 70 percent of the population to the unhealthy 5 percent. And yet Congress prohibits anyone over from buying any kind of catastrophic health insurance. And the reason they do that is because they needed this massive subsidy. Justice Alito, it's not our numbers. CBO said that injecting my clients into the risk pool lowers premiums by 15 to 20 percent. So, Justice Kennedy, even if we were going to create exceptions for people that are outside of commerce and inside of commerce, surely we'd make Congress do a closer nexus and say look, we're really addressing this problem. We want these 30-year-olds to get catastrophic health insurance. And not only did they — they deprived them of that option. And I think that illustrates the dangers of giving Congress these plenary powers, because they can always leverage them. They can always come up with some public policy rationale that converts the power to regulate commerce into the power to promote commerce, which, as I was saying before, is the one that I think is plenary.

29 I'm not going to try and read any tea leaves on these comments.  Anyone with a sixth grade education knows that this law is unconstitutional on its face, and if a majority of justices decide to ignore logic and find that it is constitutional, they will have affirmatively chosen to turn our basis of government on its head.

30 The mandate will now be the source of much lobbying as every pressure group will lobby Congress and the agencies to have their particular concern mandated; and every pharma company or medical care company will want their particular treatment mandated.

It will be the perfect place to be if you like corruption - making lots of money off of the bribes; and power - the ability to punish enemies by denying them the mandate they seek. Socialism Chicago-style: Skip the idealism and go straight to the racketeering.

Posted by: Mikey NTH at March 27, 2012 04:15 PM (hLRSq)

who do you think helped write the mandate?

31 Oh OK, he's not a real general, he's a RIAA hip-hop lawyer. Makes more sense to me now.

32 Time to amend the Bill of Rights with a new amendment deballsing the commerce clause because the judiciary and Congress have gone overboard.

33 Why does it have to come down to libtard justices vs. conservative justices? Is there law or isn't there?

Posted by: USS Diversity at March 27, 2012 04:17 PM (vpe0k)

It's all about how the words are "interpreted."  The left tends to add lots of meaning to words and phrases.

I mean, there's no way IN HELL that Dick Cheney or George W. Bush would be allowed to get away with saying "that depends what the definition of "is" is" in a congressional hearing.

34

"I think the fact that toobin is apoplectic about the hearings is equally interestng and telling. he certainly has been following this more closely and probably has more knowledge of the behind the scenes machinations of the court and if the hearings have gone in a way that is as contrary to his expectations as these seem to have gone, that is a good sign. "

 

It could also just be a head-fake, too. His original take on this was that it would be a slam-dunk.

 

/b'ball analogy

35 Time to amend the Bill of Rights with a new amendment deballsing the commerce clause because the judiciary and Congress have gone overboard. Posted by: joeindc44 also punches above his weight (which is bad for you cause I am jacked) at March 27, 2012 04:21 PM (QxSug) maybe we could slip jesse jackson some money to have him get in there and cut commerce clauses nuts off.

36 JUSTICE KENNEDY: And the government tells us that's because the insurance market is unique. And in the next case, it'll say the next market is unique.
I don't like this next part: He seems to concede that here, the market really is unique

Actually it could be read that Kennedy is mocking the government's position of calling everything 'unique.'

Unique means one and one only, people.

37 I was riding up the hill on this roller coaster of the previous post, almost to the top!
what happened?  I went to the top of the hill and flew back down to the bottom.
i knew i shouldn't have smiled.

38

Posted by: willow at March 27, 2012 04:19 PM (TomZ9)

 

What - you don't like people pointing out the obvious?  This is a moron site after all.

39 Law will stand. How many times have we proclaimed it dead or unpassable?
I have zero confidence in these 9 bozos.  Don't get your hopes up. How many times can we be heartbroken ?

40 Are these fuckers going to address the 200 times it says in the bill "by decree of the Secretary", thus granting her powers never before been given to an unelected official?

41 North Miami Beach police said surveillance video shows dozens of high school students demonstrating in the Trayvon Martin case Friday ransacking a Walgreens store. North Miami Beach Walgreens incident caught on video Misunderstood yoots I guess?

42 So shouldn't the government also have the power to compel women to birth babies, for their own good/health?

43

Ace....remember that post you made about "This is how they will do it -- With Insurance"?

 

That is what this boils down to. ....The creeping socialism that sneaks in under  innocent-sounding names, like "Healthcare for Everyone".

 

I heard it said today, on Megyn Kelly's show...that the ruling will come down "tomorrow at Noon". .....This doesn't seem like near enough time for the Justices to deliberate on this. ....But then, they have had time to be thinking about it for over a year now.

44

45 I, for one, am trying not to read too much either way into the transcript.  As I tell coworkers who get mad at an email: writing does not convey tone of voice.

Just the Transcripts don't tell us the way in which things were said, simply the words that were used.  To some extent we can read tone-of-voice into the transcripts, based on the reactions recorded therein, but even those are just guesses.

46 What did they say about severability?

47 39 Law will stand. How many times have we proclaimed it dead or unpassable? I have zero confidence in these 9 bozos. Don't get your hopes up. How many times can we be heartbroken ? Posted by: grease monkey at March 27, 2012 04:24 PM (VSWPU) Yeah it survived Scott Brown's election, it survived having over 55% of our country be against it, it survived hundreds of rallies consisting of hundreds of thousands of US citizens. This fucking thing is like a colony of cockroaches. I tend to agree with your sentiment, somehow someway this fucking thing just will not fucking die.

48 It could also just be a head-fake, too. His original take on this was that it would be a slam-dunk. /b'ball analogy Posted by: BackwardsBoy at March 27, 2012 04:22 PM (d0Tfm) yeah it could be, and he is far enough in it for the liberals that he would play along if asked. I do not really see any advantage to the media spinning or faking anything for obamacare at this time, it is largely beyond the effects of popular opinion. Also, if he does pride himself on his analytical abilities, coming out and admitting he was wrong and things are a lot different than he expected is not something he would take lightly.

49 North Miami Beach Walgreens incident caught on video


Misunderstood yoots I guess?

Posted by: nevergiveup at March 27, 2012 04:25 PM (i6RpT)

No.  Just forced by whitey to commit crimes because they're being held down.

50

"It's all about how the words are "interpreted." The left tends to add lots of meaning to words and phrases."

 

With apologies to all the lawyerly types in attendance here, modern laws are written to be specifically vague, needing a lawyer to decifer it, and then a judge. Laws are written by lawyers (in this case, by one still in jail, IIRC), which one would think is a blatant conflict of interest.

 

It's all about increasing market share.

51 I heard it said today, on Megyn Kelly's show...that the ruling will come down "tomorrow at Noon".

Everything I've heard is June or July.  I sincerely doubt they'd rule on it on the same day they wrapped up testimony.

52 So today the most powerful man in America is Anthony Kennedy. Gotcha.Who has been known to be feckless. Okay.Who is the most powerful man in the most powerful cabal in America, which is a law unto itself. Check. Who is deciding the fate of the country.

But they're waving poor poor Trayvon's bloody shirt! Let's consider that instead.

53 Severability is tomorrow's topic of grilling, I mean questioning.

54 I think we are going to see Troops coming down ropes to confront the black panthers, let's see how bad they are with M-4's pointed at them.

55 Mikey NTH, sorry, i was only re-iterating  in my  Own mind all those that lined up for (pretend this next part is  is inferred)Fairness of the poor down and out .
 
in other words Ins  and govt all wanting a slice of the pie.

56 >>>What did they say about severability? I do not believe that was on today's agenda.

57

joeindc44 @ 32

 

Actually, that is a pretty good idea. 

 

 

A constitutional amendment which strictly limits the commerce clause would defang the powers of  Congress and the Judiciary to create nonsense out of whole cloth.

58 Tomorrow I'll kick their asses! Staying @ a Holiday Inn tonight.

59 This is what I want to happen to the healthcare bill. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOkZIay0J00

60 IF health care is unique because almost all people will access it or use it at some time and that "universal" use is what make sthat market unique, what are the limits on the gov't from mandating, what housing you purchase or what food you must consume or what leisure activities must be conducted or what transportation is used because all those unique markets are all touched at some point by the same vast majority of people. That unique market argument is completely full of crap. Just remember, you are unique, just like everyone else.

61 or wanting More pie.

62 Just the Transcripts don't tell us the way in which things were said, simply the words that were used. To some extent we can read tone-of-voice into the transcripts, based on the reactions recorded therein, but even those are just guesses. Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 27, 2012 04:26 PM (8y9MW) ************ Well...Kennedy's tone got very grave when he said- "that's my concern here." And the lawyer's response to that- MR. CARVIN: And, Your — I may be misunderstanding you, Justice Kennedy. I hope I'm not. ***************** It's also the timing of Kennedy's question....

63 I heard it said today, on Megyn Kelly's show...that the ruling will come down "tomorrow at Noon". .....This doesn't seem like near enough time for the Justices to deliberate on this. ....But then, they have had time to be thinking about it for over a year now. Posted by: wheatie at March 27, 2012 04:25 PM (dEMjC) noon tomorrow? that does seem a little soon. However, I am of the opinion that sooner is better with kennedy on the case, get him to rule before he has a chance to talk himself into something stupid.

64 What did they say about severability? I do not believe that was on today's agenda. Posted by: ace at March 27, 2012 04:28 PM (nj1bB) Tomorrow's agenda

65 North Miami Beach police said surveillance video shows dozens of high school students demonstrating in the Trayvon Martin case Friday ransacking a Walgreens store.


North Miami Beach Walgreens incident caught on video


Misunderstood yoots I guess?

Posted by: nevergiveup at March 27, 2012 04:25 PM (i6RpT)

Honoring Trayvon the best way they know how. I expect that Barry will give them a shout out too

66 Misunderstood yoots I guess?

Posted by: nevergiveup at March 27, 2012 04:25 PM (i6RpT)

*********

Reparations, pussy ass cracker!

67

I don't trust any of these clowns in DC to do the right thing.  I'm still planning on leaving the country if this is considered constitutional and the subsequent repeal goes south (as most know it will).

 

This country is in it's death throes.

68 67,

That statement is stupid!

69 In France, the U.S. Embassy in Paris co-sponsored a seminar to teach Muslims in France how they can politically organize themselves. Operatives from the Democratic Party coached 70 Muslim "diversity leaders" from disaffected Muslim-majority suburban slums known as banlieues on how to develop a communications strategy, raise funds and build a political base. The French government -- which has been trying to reverse the pernicious effects of decades of state-sponsored multiculturalism -- expressed dismay at what it called "meddling." The Obama administration's Muslim-oriented coaching sessions on community organizing come as the Persian Gulf Emirate of Qatar is busy peddling the fundamentalist teachings of Wahhabi Islam -- which not only discourages Muslim integration into the West, but actively encourages jihad [holy war] against non-Muslims -- to hundreds of thousands of disgruntled Muslim immigrants in France. As the Obamans and the Wahhabis compete for influence among Muslim immigrants, forward-looking analysts fret that France may yet end up with politically organized jihadists turning the banlieues into Islamic emirates.

70 It seemed like perhaps Kennedy was buying into Sotomayor's line of reasoning. It's almost as if she was arguing the case.

71 >>Are these fuckers going to address the 200 times it says in the bill "by decree of the Secretary"

She's been seen out on the town with Sonia Sotormayor.
http://t.co/tlZShZla

72

"noon tomorrow? that does seem a little soon. "

 

Yup. I heard that SCOTUS will issue the official ruling in June.

73

51  ...Everything I've heard is June or July. I sincerely doubt they'd rule on it on the same day they wrapped up testimony.

 

That's what we've been hearing....so that's why that struck me as 'too soon'. ....Maybe they didn't mean The Ruling....on the whole case. Hope so.

74 24 Why does it have to come down to libtard justices vs. conservative justices? Is there law or isn't there? Posted by: USS Diversity at March 27, 2012 04:17 PM (vpe0k) Oh, it doesn't really. The Declaration of Independence spells out in precise terms who it really comes down to.

75 @67, 68

Oooh! Soona/'Nam Grunt throwdown!

Giiiit-cher popcorn!
Popcorn right here!
Pretzels!

76 Greetings from the hell on earth that is Charlotte, NE airport on way to Vegas.  Nothing like a 4 1/2 hour layover.

77 Honoring Trayvon the best way they know how. I expect that Barry will give them a shout out too

Posted by: TheQuietMan at March 27, 2012 04:30 PM (1Jaio)

No he won't.  The MSM won't touch that story with a 6 foot Obama.  It DOESN'T FIT THE NARRATIVE.

78 Alito and Scalia better make Kennedy "an offer he can't refuse." I now denounce myself to Zombie Joe Colombo and the Italo-American Anti-Defamation League.

79 Restaurants provide service before they know someone can pay.  Dine And Dash costs "us" tens of billions a year.  We need a restaurant insurance mandate!!  People cross state lines to eat all the time.  Everyone will do it at least once in his life.

80 It seemed like perhaps Kennedy was buying into Sotomayor's line of reasoning. It's almost as if she was arguing the case. Posted by: tasker at March 27, 2012 04:31 PM (r2PLg) yeah well that would be a good thing. if she has a drivers license it is an affirmative action concession. did she have a soledad obrien ear piece in?

81

Whats amazing to me is that the Justices all seem to think its OK to ignore the clear meaning of the Constitution, if the 'cause' or justification is enough.

 

The Constitution is a contract between the American People, States, and the Feds... Now they are saying its OK to just ignore it if the 'cause' is good enough???

 

So, we have one party of a Contract, changing the contract without notifying or getting the aggreement of the other parties (which would be a Constitutional Amendment)....

 

THIS is the arguement the States need to Make.... one that also checks the Power of the Supremes... and reminds them about the OTHER parties of the Social Contract.

82 Kennedy will not be constrained by anything he says today of yesterday or tomorrow.. He's a Liberal.  They are not constrained by anything at all.  He'll still decide to support Obamacare, just because he likes it.  Or because he likes the crease in Obama's pants, or...  Or he'll just decide on the day of the vote depending on which side of the bed he falls out of.  He's a Liberal.

83 69
-
Definitely the Ugly American (JEF)!

84

>>>What did they say about severability?

>>>I do not believe that was on today's agenda.

C'mon, I posted that as John Wayne Bobbit.

What's a guy gotta do to get a laugh around here? Put on a clown nose and blow someone?

85 #61. That last line is a very good point. Thanks for helping us further the cause.

86 The issue Ace so correctly pointed out earlier is the construct under an extra-styled consideration in so much healthcare is so special as to be extracontractual vis a vis classical constitutional limits. The argument against compulsion could be eclipsed through compelling exception in this instant action and thus a decision in the affirmative can be justified and protected from arguments that it will open the flood gates. This is the danger here.

87 70 It seemed like perhaps Kennedy was buying into Sotomayor's line of reasoning. It's almost as if she was arguing the case. Posted by: tasker at March 27, 2012 04:31 PM (r2PLg) But the big question is is Sotomayor a WHITE Hispanic?

88 So, we have one party of a Contract, changing the contract without notifying or getting the aggreement of the other parties (which would be a Constitutional Amendment).... ************** It's worse that that. you have Congress compelling private citizen's to essentially sign the contract.

89 Kennedy will do what he always does on a political case.  He will vote depending on whether he is pissed at Scalia or not on the day he writes his opinion.

What I would like to see done is a Constitutional amendment that recognizes the court is a political animal and has been so since 1801. I would provide an Amendment that autyhorizes the corut to rule on Conxitutionality of laws, but only on the exact wording of the Constitution and disavowing BS stare decisis which was only intended for the common law any way.

I would also expand the court to 1 justice to be nominated by each State. The federal government would have zero say-so on justices. In addition, I would make it possible for a State to recall a justice based on a 60% vote by the voters of that State with no campaigning allowed from any out of State body.

90 #69. Posted by: steevy at March 27, 2012 04:31 PM (7W3wI)




Where is that story from? France should throw those assholes out of their country. Better yet ship them to some Muzzie hellhole

91 But the big question is is Sotomayor a WHITE Hispanic? Posted by: J.J. Sefton at March 27, 2012 04:34 PM (Af3Wg) definitely a man woman.

92 The very nature of a contract is that it's entered into VOLUNTARILY by the consenting parties. This is not Luca Brasi holding a gun to Johnny Fontaine's manager's head and assuring him that either his brains or his signature will be on that paper. You cannot force someone into a contract with someone else. By definition, that is not a contract. It's fucking coercion.

93 I'll bet a dollar to a doughnut that sotomayor's feet stink.

94 That story in 69 is amazing.Obama is community organizing muslims in France.He doesn't give a shit that he French don't like it.What more is he doing here?What will he do with another term??

95 Warden/John Wayne Bobbitt,

I got the joke.  A mild chuckle.  It wasn't a gutbuster.

96 Where is that story from? France should throw those assholes out of their country. Better yet ship them to some Muzzie hellhole Posted by: TheQuietMan at March 27, 2012 04:35 PM (1Jaio) I'm thinking the bottom of he Marianas Trench would be a good spot...

97 what would honor Trayvon, would be the state staying out of families lives , to allow parents  to figure out what might help their  children  . For Leaders of communities to  not use 'they don't like you so you wanting their stuff is a natural right' and that messaging might lead to stealing!
that telling children others hate you because of your color might lead to hate, fear, hate, disrespect towards yourself and others!
to not teach hopelessness to children and disdain of others and telling children they  themselves are not GOOD enough to be successful without making others the bad guy,and a politician their G-d. for polticical gain!

98 Come on, baby. Just the tip. The tip is a special, unique case, baby. Come on, baby. Just the tip. I swear to God I will never ask you to do this again. I swear on my mother's grave. Come on, baby. Just the tip.

99

85....C'mon,I posted that as John Wayne Bobbit.
What's a guy gotta do to get a laugh around here? Put on a clown nose and blow someone?

 

I caught that, Warden. ....Heh. ...But I think the 'rons were probably too busy crossing their legs upon reading the name 'Bobbit', to give you a golf clap.

100 >>He will vote depending on whether he is pissed at Scalia or not on the day he writes his opinion.

Can we send him a cookie bouquet and sign the card with Scalia's name?

101 91 I should find the attribution,took it from a commenter at JihadWatch.I don't doubt it's veracity though.

102 91
-
I have linked to an article from europeaninstitute.org from last year. Nothing new here.

103

Toobin is a media lawyer buffoon.  Who knows what he means?  Why don't we ask Nancy Grace about it?

 

That would be edifying.

 

The Supreme Court as presently constituted is loath to do something that was passed by the majority of the House and Senate.  And yes, I know that Pelosi and Reid pulled every stinky two-faced trick out of the book to birth this abomination of a law, but still.

 

We all would be happy if the SC overturned this, as would a majority of Americans, but a strong minority would be hopping mad.  The Supreme Court is going to have to have a very airtight and extremely sound and clear logic to overturn this, and even then, there is going to be anger in the streets.   This weighs heavily on Kennedy's mind - although it really shouldn't. The law and only the law should be weighed.

 

If Congress has excercised a power that is beyond their scope by the Constitution, then this needs to be overturned.  But the subtle minds of old men and women sleep uneasily when they are worried about their posterity.

104 sorry for the rant.
no i'm not i think this shit is senseless! and i lay the corrupting opf childrens souls at the feet of the political party, that would prefer to take power away from groups to keep them marginalized and helpless.

105 I'm thinking the bottom of he Marianas Trench would be a good spot... Posted by: blindside at March 27, 2012 04:37 PM (x7g7t) There are a lot of US Navy sailors who are buried at sea. Why desecrate their graves by dumping shit all over them? Do like Bricktop does and feed them to pigs.

106 I'll bet a dollar to a doughnut that sotomayor's feet stink.

Posted by: 'Nam Grunt at March 27, 2012 04:36 PM (UtDJ2)

I didn't need that....really.  Thanks.

107 This chick on Bloomberg is actualy doing a decent job interviewing about this monstrosity with some douche named Zeke.  Surprising.

108 That story in 69 is amazing.Obama is community organizing muslims in France.He doesn't give a shit that he French don't like it.What more is he doing here?What will he do with another term?? Posted by: steevy at March 27, 2012 04:37 PM (7W3wI) yeah well the problem for zero is that he is not the greatest strategic thinker and is used to playing on a field where his opponents play with one hand tied behind their back by political correctness. he may find that pissing in paris results in the dgse letting some interesting information about him fly during the election. those french play chicago style on the international stage.

109 107,

Haha, sorry.

110 Can we send him a cookie bouquet and sign the card with Scalia's name?

White Chocolate Macadamia Nut!?  That bastard!  He knows I'm allergic to nuts!

111 103 Was new to me.Here's a link http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2916/state-department-promoting-islam-europe

112 Can we send him a cookie bouquet and sign the card with Scalia's name?

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at March 27, 2012 04:38 PM (ZKzrr)

----------------------------

LOL; That bit about him ruling based on Scalia came from Jan Crawford Greenburg's book on the justices, Supreme Conflict. She didn't' say Scalia had a way of mollifying him or not.

113 But the subtle minds of old men and women sleep uneasily when they are worried about their posterity. Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch writes..... at March 27, 2012 04:39 PM (sJTmU) Jeez, if they overturn it, their posterity will sing their praises for decades to come.

114 Hopefully they won't wake the Wise Latina from siesta when it's time to vote.

115 and especially angry.

116 If I had a drunk-ass illegal alien uncle arrested for DUI, he'd look just like Onyango Obama.

117 But the subtle minds of old men and women sleep uneasily when they are worried about their posterity.

So you're saying they all need ring cushions?

118 he may find that pissing in paris results in the dgse letting some interesting information about him fly during the election. those french play chicago style on the international stage.

Posted by: yankeefifth at March 27, 2012 04:41 PM (Z9EHQ)

Wouldn't it be nice if France or Israel or another allied country that Barry has shit all over would do that. Just flood the airwaves with all kinds of dirt on the SOB. Make so the MFM couldn't ignore it

119 Clarence Thomas hasn't said much but I did like this quote from him Justice Thomas: Mr. Verrilli what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

120

Posted by: willow at March 27, 2012 04:28 PM (TomZ9)

 

Oh - sorry.  I've always though that pointing out the obvious is something that can't really be overrated because so many people miss the obvious.  Such as the people who can't understand why Obama does something and I say "Dude - he's a Cook County hack, what did you expect?  That he was the only virgin in the brothel?"

121 If the Supreme Court upholds this BS, then they will have sold out on everything America stands for.

122 If I had a drunk-ass illegal alien uncle arrested for DUI, he'd look just like Onyango Obama. Posted by: President Weaseldick at March 27, 2012 04:42 PM (/ZZCn) now there is a bumper sticker - if I had an uncle he would look like this - then a side by side of zero and his uncle holding up the police nameplate.

123

95 That story in 69 is amazing.Obama is community organizing muslims in France.He doesn't give a shit that he French don't like it.What more is he doing here?What will he do with another term??

 

Well that's the thing, Steevy....about this guy. He's an Agitator...with a capital 'A'. ....That is his big talent. Always has been. ....And agitators work both in the open, and behind closed doors.

 

And since he took office, we've seen this come out in everything he does. ....That whole Arab Spring last year had his fingerprints all over it. ....So now, it's Europe's turn.

 

 

124 That statement is stupid!

Posted by: 'Nam Grunt at March 27, 2012 04:31 PM (UtDJ2)

 

---------------------------------------

 

Not to me.

125 111, 97, others
--
Sorry. My comment was not meant as a criticism of the comment. I meant 'we' have been doing this crap for a while now.

France has no greater ally than the United States!

126 That statement is stupid!
Posted by: 'Nam Grunt at March 27, 2012 04:31 PM (UtDJ2)
---------------------------------------
Not to me.
Posted by: Soona at March 27, 2012 04:44 PM (Nl2C4)

Wait!  I don't have the box office open yet!  I don't have a score-card to give to spectators!

127 Such as the people who can't understand why Obama does something and I say "Dude - he's a Cook County hack, what did you expect? That he was the only virgin inthe brothel?"

Posted by: Mikey NTH at March 27, 2012 04:43 PM (hLRSq)

ooh nice.

128 They will not go (generally) for something that they perceive as "fundamentally altering the relationship between citizen and government."

Barky was elected to make a "fundamental transformation" of the greatest nation that has ever existed ...  Kennedy is just pointing out his solidarity with that mission for future history books.

129

GENERAL VERRILLI: No, Mr. Chief Justice. [We] think that's different. It's -- We -- I don't think we think of that ourselves as a market fascists.

 

 

 

 

 

FIFY 

 

 

130 125,

Let me clue you on something, if you aren't in the fight to save this Country that me and many have given sweat and blood for, then I suggest you gtfo now why stay?

131 Whole lotta parsin' goin' on...

132 I am listening to today's oral arguments:

http://tinyurl.com/bnnz6fa

133 Anyone know whether the Solicitor General has argued against severability of the mandate?  It's an interesting strategic conundrum.

134 Hey Anthony, baby, call me, OK?

135
Clement spanks Kagan by explaining insurance/credit.  It wasn't a good day for the lesbians.

http://tinyurl.com/d9fubry

136 Wouldn't it be nice if France or Israel or another allied country that Barry has shit all over would do that. Just flood the airwaves with all kinds of dirt on the SOB. Make so the MFM couldn't ignore it Posted by: TheQuietMan at March 27, 2012 04:43 PM (1Jaio) He has so politicized our relationships and foreign affairs that is may just happen. Any of our traditional allies would be correct in assuming that they are worse off vis a vis the US because of zero.

137 i'm listening to the oral arguments, the Wise Latina now babbling about "strands"

138 "JUSTICE KENNEDY: And the government tells us that's because the insurance market is unique. And in the next case, it'll say the next market is unique."

I think you're being too pessimistic about Kennedy.  The quote above is significant.

Kennedy seems very concerned about the possibility the government may mandate the purchase of Chevy Volts or broccoli. 

I give you the Affordable Chevy Act:

Congress finds and the President agrees that the US auto market is unique.  It comprises a substantial percentage of the nation's entire economy, both directly and through its aggregated effects.  Millions of people depend on it for their livelihoods. It is nearly certain that nearly hundred percent of the American people will ride in automobile in the course of a given year. The National Highway System is directly effected by it.  

The uniqueness of this market is further established by the unprecedented investments the federal government made in GM and Chrysler in 2008 and 2009. The government's ownership in GM continues today.

The Chevy Volt represents a substantial investment of national resources and prestige. It will significantly contribute to a reduction of greenhouse gases and reduce dependence on foreign oil.  The Volt's success in the unique market is required. 

Accordingly, the government determines that all Americans must purchase a Chevy Volt.

139 >>>So if you offer them a middle ground, or something disguised to look like a middle ground, they just might go for it. Pitch them the idea that this is unique and limited to this one single area of activity and hence will not provide precedent or justification for further expansions of power, but will remain limited to just this one little thing.

The fundamental flaw in any argument the government might make along those lines is that the health care market is super special because it was *MADE* that way *BY GOVERMENT* intervention in that market. The immediate killer counter argument to the one off rule is that, using the germane and accepted provisions of the Commerce Clause congress can make *ANY* market into such a special case market, and therefore have infinite leeway with which to expand their power to force participation into *ANY* market they target. So this would be a fundamental change in the relationship between Citizen and Government no matter what you do.

140

In Belgium, U.S. Ambassador Howard Gutman, another Obama fundraiser turned diplomat, told lawyers attending a conference in Brussels in November 2011 that Israel is to blame for Muslim anti-Semitism in Europe.

According to the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronot, Gutman, who is Jewish, showed conference attendees a video of himself receiving a warm welcome at a Muslim school in Brussels, which he said proved that Muslims are not anti-Semitic. Following a barrage of criticism for rationalizing the growing problem of anti-Semitism in Europe, the U.S. Embassy in Belgium removed the evidence by uploading an amended transcript of Gutman's remarks on its website.

From the link in #111. This info needs to go public in a big way. Thanks steevy

141 and the distinguishing feature of that is that they cannot, people cannot generally control when they enter that market or what they need when they enter that market.


I have a feeling that more is spent on elective procedures than anything else.  I have no data on this.  Anyone know?  I didn't find anything on a quick search.

142 "Strands" of what?

143 Screw France.

144

Hey, if Zimmerman is a "white hispanic" because his father was white, does this mean that Obama is a black african american because his father was black?

Is race in the US determined matraliniarly or patraliniarly?

145 Anyone know whether the Solicitor General has argued against severability of the mandate?

That's for tomorrow.

It seems they've done this:

1) Arguments regarding the AIA issue ("Penalty" or "Tax").  That is: can we even decide on this case at all?

2) (Today) Is the Insurance Mandate Constitutional?

3) Is the Insurance Mandate Severable from the rest of the law?

I would presume their opinion will address the first, and (if they find that it's a penalty instead of a tax), go on to the second, and then (if they find the mandate to be UC), go on to the third.

146 "Strands" of what?

Rich multicultural stands of, like multi-culture and shit.

147
i'm listening to the oral arguments, the Wise Latina now babbling about "strands"


Strands as in strands of a shredded beef taco?
mmmmm taco's.

148
11 So are we boned?
Posted by: John P. Squibob at March 27, 2012 04:10 PM


The boning shall continue until morale improves.  And then it shall still continue.

149 143,

Maybe she's a Bob Marley fan and wants dreads.

150

If the Supreme Court upholds this BS, then they will have sold out on everything America stands for.

 

 

Posted by: 'Nam Grunt

 

 

Yes, they would have. But it would be for a good cause. 8(

 

This is the convoluted logic they twist themselves into. It is either one thing or another.  Yes it is a weighty and difficult issue.  But it is clear.

1) the mandate compels

2) the compulsion to enter into a contract is not voluntary

3) immense amount of discretionary power is bestowed upon an appointed executive , without Congressional oversight.

 

Is this freedom?  Is this what anyone actually conceives of as freedom?  The interior justifications for this are really statism - creating power for the state to abrogate personal liberty and personal autonomy.  It is the end of personal soveriegnty of the citizen.  Nothing less.

151

Part of transcript from Washington Examiner:

 

JUSTICE KAGAN: "Well, doesn't that seem a little bit, Mr. Clement, cutting the bologna thin?

 

 

Cutting the bologna thin?  This is supposed to be the Supreme Court, not a New York deli.   

152 You cannot force someone into a contract with someone else. By definition, that is not a contract.

It's fucking coercion.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at March 27, 2012 04:36 PM (Af3Wg)

 

------------------------------------

 

With  heavy-handedness that the government usually does things, I think the word "extortion" is more applicable. 

153 what would a lesbo know about cutting the bologna ?

154 Cutting the bologna thin? This is supposed to be the Supreme Court, not a New York deli.

Posted by: Insomniac at March 27, 2012 04:54 PM (v+QvA)

Thinner than a tortilla, IMO.

155 "It seems to me" it really sucks that America's most important legal decisions keep depending upon how often Anthony Kennedy's being blown.

156 And the reply should have been "no matter how thin you slice it, it's still bologna"

157 The only reason health insurance is unique, if it is, is because the govt made it unique by mandating this and mandating that. It controls coverages. Health insurance is inherently as unique as auto insurance: IOW, it's not.

Let the free market correct the mistakes, not bureaucrats.

158 Look, I know I'm beating this horse to death, but how is health care unique?

In particular, we have an absolute right to have access to the courts.  Moreover, it's just plain injustice for a case to be won or lost on the basis of a good or bad lawyer.

So we need ObamaLegalCare.

159

>>>JUSTICE KAGAN: "Well, doesn't that seem a little bit, Mr. Clement, cutting the bologna thin?

Fucking bitch!

160

Since so much of the cost that we pay for healthcare...is because of liability insurance....I have wondered what would happen if we could finally get some tort reform.

 

In Canada, and other countries that have Government-Run Healthcare.....there are 'caps' on how much you sue doctors and hospitals for. ....Those usually come about after the Govt takes over the healthcare of a country.

 

What would be 'fair' for a Cap on lawsuits? .....A million dollars? Half a million?....Wouldn't it need to be a sort of graduated thing, depending on the harm done?

161 It's only my nose, nothing to worry about.

162 I have a feeling that more is spent on elective procedures than anything else. I have no data on this. Anyone know? I didn't find anything on a quick search.

Maybe, for a given value of "elective procedures."  If you say that anything that isn't specifically necessary (that is: not having the procedure won't kill you or affect your ability to function) is "elective" then you're probably right.  If what you're talking about is truly elective procedures (plastic surgery, for instance.  Lasik.) then, no.

And, for an example of something that is not strictly necessary, but would not be purely "elective" I give you: skin tag removal.  Depending on where the skin-tag is, or other factors (pain, bleeding, etc.), these "elective" procedures will be considered "medically necessary."

163 >>I have a feeling that more is spent on elective procedures than anything else.

How do you define elective?

The kid who goes car surfing and requires several surgeries, lengthy hospital stay, spinal cord injury makes him disabled so all the secondary problems that come with paralyzation get covered by Medicaid--I would code that as "elective."  But pinkos would code that as "no fault of his own."

164 You cannot force someone into a contract with someone else. By definition, that is not a contract. It's fucking coercion.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at March 27, 2012 04:36 PM (Af3Wg)


You never heard of The Social Contract?  Either your signature, or your brains, will be on this Social Contract.

165 With heavy-handedness that the government usually does things, I think the word "extortion" is more applicable. Posted by: Soona at March 27, 2012 04:54 PM (Nl2C4) Hey, I'm an honest businessman. So if you use the word "extortion" again, I'll have your legs broken, capsize?

166 i'm listening to the oral arguments, the Wise Latina now babbling about "strands"

Posted by: ace at March 27, 2012 04:50 PM (nj1bB)

 

Wait, is she a wise latino or a white latino. I am having a hard time keeping up

167
mmmmmmmm  bologna.

168 Capisce! Damned auto-correct!

169 What would be 'fair' for a Cap on lawsuits? .....A million dollars? Half a million?

Just a cap on the lawyers' portion.  That's good enough for me.  Keeps down the incentive for jackpot lawsuits.

170 157,

Yeah, and it's prolly Ginsburg doing it her teeth certainly are false.

171 You never heard of The Social Contract? Either your signature, or your brains, will be on this Social Contract. Posted by: Don Vito Sebelius at March 27, 2012 04:57 PM (QKKT0) And may your first aborted fetus be a male aborted fetus. (preferably a white Hispanic fetus)

172
I heard that bologna comment, and it reminded me of watching Long Dong Silver and munching out on bologna & Fritos.

173 Look, I know I'm beating this horse to death, but how is health care unique?

shakeshakeshake
...
...
...
Shut Up.

174 Remember when Barky talked smack in the SOTU address.... I have a feeling thats still a thorn in a couple of those guys sides

175 Posted by: Clarence Thomas at March 27, 2012 04:59 PM (TkGkA) Who you gonna play hide the salsicce with? Kagan?

176 "You have to understand justices-- they want to make small waves. They want to rule on the smallest grounds possible, creating the least new law going forward."

(cough) Sotomayor (cough)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdsK8ehTcMg

177 BTW, the legal profession should be disbarring Kagan right now.

178 No like Barky.

179 Posted by: The Jackhole at March 27, 2012 04:59 PM (nTgAI) The one side we need is Kennedy's. And I seem to recall a year ago he announced he wasn't going to retire until "well after 2013." That might be a good omen. I'll take it anyway.

180 165 >>I have a feeling that more is spent on elective procedures than anything else.

How do you define elective?

The kid who goes car surfing and requires several surgeries, lengthy hospital stay, spinal cord injury makes him disabled so all the secondary problems that come with paralyzation get covered by Medicaid--I would code that as "elective." But pinkos would code that as "no fault of his own."

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at March 27, 2012 04:57 PM (ZKzrr)

 

 

 

Typically, elective just means the treatment is planned and scheduled in advance, as opposed to urgent or emergency care.  

181
Does Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg voted with the lesbians?

182 BTW, the legal profession should be disbarring Kagan right now.

Hideousness is not grounds for disbarment.

183 179 BTW, the legal profession should be disbarring Kagan right now. Posted by: AmishDude at March 27, 2012 05:00 PM (T0NGe) Reminds me of the joke - Q - Why don't sharks eat lawyers? A - Professional courtesy. Even the mob whacks its own every now and again. Call it precedent. I am being rhetorical here, of course.

184 Hey, I'm an honest businessman. So if you use the word "extortion" again, I'll have your legs broken, capsize?

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at March 27, 2012 04:58 PM (Af3Wg)

 

 

 

Capsize?  Quick, everybody out of Guam!

185 The whole premise that Jeffrey Toobin was even looking at this fairly is/was absurd.  He's a credible legal observer the way Krugman is a credible authority on fiscal policy.

186 How do you define elective?

The kid who goes car surfing and requires several surgeries, lengthy hospital stay, spinal cord injury makes him disabled so all the secondary problems that come with paralyzation get covered by Medicaid--I would code that as "elective." But pinkos would code that as "no fault of his own."

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at March 27, 2012 04:57 PM (ZKzrr)

I love this place.

187 I'm all in favor of a man-date.

188
The diminutive Robert Reich says that defeat of the mandate will be a great win for Obama.  Billy Barty would be ashamed of his fellow traveler.

189 I read the transcript, and, unfortunately, I don't think the argument went as badly as Toobin and the MSM are painting it.  To someone whose idea of a tough question is asking Obama who he has in the Final Four, the justices may seem critical, but Kennedy's questions just show him saying "tell us how to write an opinion that doesn't eviscerate the Constitution"; that's a legitimate question that doesn't signal which way he's leaning.  I think the lefties are also overreacting to the Solicitor General stepping on his d*ck over and over again, but Kennedy isn't going to rule against the law on the basis of bad lawyering.. Wickard v. Filburn + everybody has to buy health insurance may be enough of an argument for Kennedy to go along with the libs.

190
Cutting the bologna thin? This is supposed to be the Supreme Court, not a New York deli.

Posted by: Insomniac at March 27, 2012 04:54 PM (v+QvA)

She's just picturing her live long dream of pulling a Lorena Bobbit.

191 Got to go folks crawfish boil on tap with lots of cold beer, play nice.

192  Capisce! Damned auto-correct!

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at March 27, 2012 04:58 PM (Af3Wg)

 

---------------------------------------

 

LOL!  I was going to ask you if you were vacationing in Guam.

193 Ok, just this once I'm for a mandate.

194 Maybe, for a given value of "elective procedures." If you say that anything that isn't specifically necessary (that is: not having the procedure won't kill you or affect your ability to function) is "elective" then you're probably right. If what you're talking about is truly elective procedures (plastic surgery, for instance. Lasik.) then, no.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 27, 2012 04:57 PM (8y9MW)

I was just wondering.  Vermillion is painting a picture of health care as if it's nothing but one big mergency room with people running around, blood splattering every which way.   And it just slips by. 

Reminds me of the initial claims that the white hispanic chased poor Trayvon down the alley wildly waving his gun in the air ...

195
Elena Kagan has dreamed of taking a bologna, but always chooses to go with the taco. 

196 Greg Gutfeld: How odd is it that the Obama administration is for a mandate but against gay marriage. Classic

197 188 The whole premise that Jeffrey Toobin was even looking at this fairly is/was absurd. He's a credible legal observer the way Krugman is a credible authority on fiscal policy. Posted by: @ParisParamus at March 27, 2012 05:04 PM (mENeG) before the arguments he was of the opinion that it was a slam dunk for zero, now after today's arguments he in in a panic. he is not objective, he is clearly pro zero, but I do not see the gain from panicking over the questioning today.

198

171 What would be 'fair' for a Cap on lawsuits? .....A million dollars? Half a million?

 

Just a cap on the lawyers' portion. That's good enough for me. Keeps down the incentive for jackpot lawsuits.

 

Oh gawd, that would be great, wouldn't it? .....But a Cap on the total judgement amount would/should   bring  down the cost of liability and malpractice insurance....one would think.

 

This is one glaring example of what should have been included in a Healthcare Bill.....since the soaring cost of liability insurance has been one of the big reasons that healthcare costs have soared.

199 This whole thing is making me about as comfortable as sitting in a boat with wet shorts.  AKA Boat Butt, as Mr. Black calls it.  IOW, I'm not comfortable with this at all. 

The entirety of the nation is in the hands of a few black robes. 

200 And, for an example of something that is not strictly necessary, but would not be purely "elective" I give you: skin tag removal. Depending on where the skin-tag is, or other factors (pain, bleeding, etc.), these "elective" procedures will be considered "medically necessary."

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 27, 2012 04:57 PM (8y9MW)

I've had a skin tag or two in my day.  I've found that using nail clippers is messy and painful.  If it's big enough for you to twist on it, and you can spend a week or so, it will eventually just twist off and I've yet to have one grow back.

201

I was just wondering. Vermillion is painting a picture of health care as if it's nothing but one big mergency room with people running around, blood splattering every which way. And it just slips by.

 

 

And even emergency rooms aren't typically a scene of people running around with blood spattering every which way.  Sure, you have your trauma centers that treat all the gunshot victims and drug ODs, but you also have large numbers of people coming to the ER for non-emergency conditions, and various things in-between.

202 The diminutive Robert Reich says that defeat of the mandate will be a great win for Obama. Of course. Having the signature accomplishment of his regal presidency struck down is sterling recommendation for his re-election.

203 "Congress chose to exempt from the minimum coverage requirement -- those who for religious reasons don't participate, those who are incarcerated, Indian tribes --" And of course congress chose to exempt themselves. Assholes.

204 "Congress chose to exempt from the minimum coverage requirement -- those who for religious reasons don't participate, those who are incarcerated, Indian tribes --"

And of course congress chose to exempt themselves.

Assholes.

Posted by: Mr Fever Head at March 27, 2012 05:09 PM (SzAZ7)

 

 

 

Don't forget politically favored groups/large contributors!

205
...skin tag removal. Depending on where the skin-tag is...

I call those venereal warts, and the treatment is stop fucking skanky liberal chicks.  And a little muffin acid burn. 

206 Chief Justice Renquist didn't plan on retiring either. God had other plans for him.

207 Healthcare Bill.....since the soaring cost of liability insurance has been one of the big reasons that healthcare costs have soared.

Posted by: wheatie at March 27, 2012 05:08 PM (dEMjC)

 

Most lawmakers are also lawyers. Ever wonder why laws are made with vague language? Yes, it is a jobs program for lawyers. Crony Lawyerism is here and it is the most monstous of parasites.

208 I was just wondering. Vermillion is painting a picture of health care as if it's nothing but one big mergency room with people running around, blood splattering every which way. And it just slips by.

The biggest drain, of course, is ER care.  Specifically people who abuse the ER as though its their Primary Care physician. That's different (or probably different; I haven't seen specific numbers) from where we (collectively) spend the most money.  The ER, though, is where the illegals and medicaid recipients tend to go.

I would guess, however, that true emergency care accounts for 1/3 or less (probably far less) of actual health care consumption in the US.

209 Just a cap on the lawyers' portion. That's good enough for me. Keeps down the incentive for jackpot lawsuits.

Posted by: AmishDude at March 27, 2012 04:58 PM (T0NGe)

If the damn government wants to regulate something, START THERE!!!!

Why is health care so expensive?  LAWYERS
Why are prescription drugs so expensive?  LAWYERS
Why is insurance so expensive?  LAWYERS

I know all our law makers ARE these fuckers, but THAT needs to CHANGE.

210 In hearing of the "help" Kagan offered the Solicitor General today, I wonder if she is doing a bit of private tutoring tonight, in the form of reverse "ear-wigging" (a Southern term used to describe lawyers attempting to sway judges while hunting or at a cocktail party).

I am sure "Ex parte" no longer exists under this administration, nor with Kagan, since she did not recuse herself from this issue before the court.

God help us all. Really. If you are a praying person: pray for a good outcome for the USA and for fairness of the SCOTUS judges who believe in the US Constitution.

Also think Psalm 108:9 every day until November.

298 days and 18 hours until January 20, 2013 and the moving vans return The Won to Chicago.

211 192 - Bud Norton
Agree. I think Kennedy is looking for a way to vote for this thing. It's not good that he said the government had to meet a heavy burden -- shows he's looking to define how large the burden is so he can say the government met it.

212 Yes, it is a jobs program for lawyers.
Posted by: Hydrocarbon Liberation Front at March 27, 2012 05:12 PM (NVu2l)

AmishDude, you're not supposed to sock active posters.

213 I know all our law makers ARE these fuckers, but THAT needs to CHANGE.

Posted by: © Sponge at March 27, 2012 05:13 PM (UK9cE)

 

Mitt went to Harvard Law.

 

Obama went to Harvard Law.

 

Our choice is between two Harvard Law grads, and you don't think we have already surrendered to our pedigreed betters?

214 Things are looking so dismal for 0bamacare at the Supreme Court, Spike Lee is already tweeting Justice Kennedy's home address.

215 Nothing influences commerce like consumers. Got too few? Ban abortion. Got too many? Ban reproduction. Is there anything regulation this clause can't justify?

216
Our choice is between two Harvard Law grads, and you don't think we have already surrendered to our pedigreed betters?

Posted by: Hydrocarbon Liberation Front at March 27, 2012 05:17 PM (NVu2l)

I know we have, but I'm just saying it MUST CHANGE.  If we're to save this country, we need PEOPLE occupying government, not damn lawyers.

217

212....Most lawmakers are also lawyers. Ever wonder why laws are made with vague language? Yes, it is a jobs program for lawyers. Crony Lawyerism is here and it is the most monstous of parasites.

 

Exactly! ....So totally true. Can't be said enough.

218

"Nor do they easily knock down a law passed by Congress, signed by a president."

(A) This is horribly redundant.  A federal "law" is by definition "passed by Congress [and] signed by a president."

(B) This is what the Supreme Court does.  This is its primary function.  To determine if a "law" (see A, above) is constitutional.  They don't do it lightly, but they do their job.  I don't see this as somehow weighing in the balance on the question of will it or won't it pass constitutional muster.  There are burdens of proof or persuasion on the questions raised by the suit, and that's what will influence the Court, not the fact that they are opining on a "law passed by Congress, signed by a president."  They do that everyday.

219

I'm dreading tomorrow's SCOTUS session.  This is going to be on the construct of the written law itself.  Lawyers (and judges) seem to be the most weasely when comes to this.

220

Oh, and lest anyone think I'm playing favorites, Santorum is a lawyer.

 

Win/lose, no matter what you choose.

 

When Perry went down, I lost all hope.

221 Law is a racket.

222 good news! harry reid said that toobin's analysis of the court's questioning in today's arguments it indicative of nothing!

223

Yeah, I know.....Mitt has a Harvard Law degree too. [ugh]

 

Though in Mitt's case, I don't think he ever practiced law.....did he?

 

And the thing about Mitt, with his background in business....he just might be the guy that we could finally get some tort reform passed with. ....He knows how it dumps huge layers of cost on....everything.

224 (A) This is horribly redundant. A federal "law" is by definition "passed by Congress [and] signed by a president."

I agree with your general point, but this part isn't exactly true.  A bill becomes law if the President doesn't veto it.  He doesn't have to sign it. 

A President's signature certainly doesn't make a difference one way or another as to Constitutionality, of course.

225 harry reid said that toobin's analysis of the court's questioning in today's arguments it indicative of nothing!

Posted by: yankeefifth at March 27, 2012 05:21 PM (Z9EHQ)

 

--------------------------------------

 

And for the first time (and probably the last) I'm agreeing with Harry Reid.  *gak*

226 Regard to med malpractice , I think it should be trial by judge alone. I'd almost say that with any civil liability trial.

227 I think you are underestimating the opponent.  Perhaps today went exactly as planned.

228

Wishy washy is the most accurate description for Kennedy. As for Roberts, it looks to me like he's just trying to pin down the government's position on how far they are willing to go, not how far HE is willing to go.

 

-----------

 

Agree. I think people are reading Roberts wrong here. He's trying to get the Govt. to draw a bright line to see if there actually is one that they believe exists. As to this point, they haven't been able to draw one, instead just basically saying that the insurance market is the only market where they can compel activity, and the rest they can't. Doesn't mean Roberts believes it, he's just trying to get some straigth answers.

229 be the guy that we could finally get some tort reform passed with. ....He knows how it dumps huge layers of cost on....everything.

Posted by: wheatie at March 27, 2012 05:23 PM (dEMjC)

 

Texas passed tort reform. We have lots of doctors. Did Mitt include it when he had the chance?

230 232 I think you are underestimating the opponent. Perhaps today went exactly as planned.

 

Posted by: chic at March 27, 2012 05:26 PM (oZfic)

 

More psy-ops bullshit? ....Sneaking back in like a cur bitch to try and post something that seems remotely relevant to the topic?

 

Again. ....Fuck. Off. 

231 Heh. Harry Reid: George Washington University Law School.

232 harry reid said that toobin's analysis of the court's questioning in today's arguments it indicative of nothing! Posted by: yankeefifth at March 27, 2012 05:21 PM (Z9EHQ) -------------------------------------- And for the first time (and probably the last) I'm agreeing with Harry Reid. *gak* Posted by: Soona at March 27, 2012 05:24 PM (Nl2C4) harry is always wrong.

233

234....Did Mitt include it when he had the chance?

 

No. He didn't. At least not that I've heard of....and you'd think he would be bringing that up if he had.

 

I'm trying....trying....to think positive thoughts about our 'inevitable' nominee.

234 People are missing the most important thing Kennedy said today which was, basically, "we've never ruled this way before."

235 Well, one thing is clear to me, this lifetime appointment to SCOTUS BS has got to change.

236 26 I understand that we must presume laws are constitutional

No, Justice Kennedy. Actually, ever since the Supreme Court usurped the Right and Privilege of the States in deciding what was Constitutional and what was not, you actually have a duty to presume all law are Unconstitutional, and require the Government prove that they are Constitutional.

But expecting such philosophical clarity from someone with a legal education is asking a bit much, I guess.

Inscribe this over the SC, not the current wording.

237 240 Well, one thing is clear to me, this lifetime appointment to SCOTUS BS has got to change.

And replace it with what?

238

240 Well, one thing is clear to me, this lifetime appointment to SCOTUS BS has got to change.

 

Well, life expectancy was a lot lower, back when that was established. ....But, putting age limits, or retirement age on Supremes, could be a real double-edged sword.

 

I kinda liked Newt's idea of hauling them into Congress to grill them about "Why did you rule that way?!".....You know, make them have to answer to someone for their decisions.

 

But then, that could backfire on us too.

239

And replace it with what?

--------

 

Like 10-15 year appointments. I get not wanting judges elected, but they also can't serve as kings either. Keep the appointments, make sure it lasts longer than a President in office can last, but get rid of the forever nonsense.

240 "...what this mandate is really doing is not requiring the people who are subject to it to pay for the services that they are going to consume? It is requiring them to subsidize services that will be received by somebody else." If they uphold the law I'm sending every single one of my monthly fucking bills to Verrilli. Food, mortgage, electric, internet, school loans...

241 Cat piss is here again.....

242 I just love oral...arguments. Now lets talk about the bologna again

243 Like 10-15 year appointments. I get not wanting judges elected, but they also can't serve as kings either. Keep the appointments, make sure it lasts longer than a President in office can last, but get rid of the forever nonsense.

Actually, I agree with that.  I've had enough of superannuated senility cases convinced of their own infallibility.

244 Willis on Fox Business is saying both  Kennedy and Roberts are swing votes on this shit.

245 Actually, I agree with that. I've had enough of superannuated senility cases convinced of their own infallibility.

And yeah, Brennan and Marshall, I'm looking at you.

246 Simply put:
non-regulation of non-interstate non-commerce is not
regulation of interstate commerce

247 I agree with your general point, but this part isn't exactly true. A bill becomes law if the President doesn't veto it. He doesn't have to sign it.
----------------------


Not true in fact the opposite is true. If he doesn't sign it it is the same as a veto.

248 Anybody else take a look over at KosKids?  Un.  Hinged.

249 Anybody else take a look over at KosKids? Un. Hinged. Situation normal.

250 Yeah, I'm not buying Toobin as a predictor.  He was like a lot of the OCare zealots, hoping to see Roberts and Scalia hammering the State's lawyer and looking like they would agree the law stands.  They were hoping for a 7-2 decision.  Seeing that those two are clearly going to rule against, they say Kennedy on the fence, who they thought was in the bag for them. They are panicked.

The difference for us is we have always seen Kennedy on the fence, so nothing that happened today really changes our basic expectations.  If Kennedy rules against us, he just telegraphed why he will do it.  Because the situation of 40 million uninsured does give Congress the right to behave extraconsitutionally.

I see this as pretty much a 50/50 shot after today.

251 Never been to the Kos site. .....I think it would make my eyes bleed.

252 17

So I work for a Fortune 500 company.  I just found out that all employees are now mandated to fill out a "wellness" questionnaire, and complete two "healthy activities" (there is a list of these, including sessions with a life coach.  I'm not kidding.) by the end of the year or get charged an additional $200 for insurance in 2013.

I would ask if this was legal, but why bother.

253 Actually life expectancy of Supreme Court judges has not increased that much. John Marshall lived until he was 79.

254 there is an interesting piece on the daily mail analyzing the arguments today. again reading the justices inclinations based on questioning is dangerous but he reads it as Alito, Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas as being vote against obamacare and Roberts, because of his inclination to want to remain apolitical, the vote in question. http://harndenblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/03/supreme-irony-obamacare.html

255

From the Kos Deep Thinkers Brigade:

 

If it is tossed, Obama has a campaign issue to ignite the party. If it is upheld, he still has a campaign issue to ignite the party. Either way, if he is clever, he gets to use this to his advantage.

256 So tell me again what battle did "General" Virelli fight? Oh, they mean Solicitor General.

When did it become common to call Attorneys General "General?" The Baghdad Bob Media is pathetic.

257 anyone been watching the Eagles with the eggs here?  the one thats away during day just brought a fish and put it in the nest for the other one to eat. but he had already eaten the head off it.........  www dot ustream.tv/decoraheagles

258

263, Racefan

 

I've been checking in on it....haven't seen a hatchling yet. ....That wind has been brutal the past few days. Poor things.

259 There is no good alternative to lifetime appointments. Standing for election means sucking up to the voters, and term limits means they would be tempted to rule in favor of a certain industry, then go and parlay that into a jillion dollar lobbyist position.

I worked in court, and we talked about this conundrum many times. There is no optimal solution.

260

Thank you for the great coverage of the Supreme Court oral arguments on this site. 

261 Verrilli truly is a SCOAMF...I just heard him stuttering and coughing and mumbling on Drudge. I wish this was on CSPAN.

Don't you know there was hell to pay for this guy from the WH today. I am sure Kagan is using encrypted messaging for him to prep him from further embarrassment. V. will now be outfitted with a special ear bud to tell him what to say, and if he forgets she will cheer him on with prompts.

262 Oral arguments really can't be used to predict decisions.  The justices have used them like bluffing in poker in recent decades - every now and then you have to do it, just for advertising's sake.

If the extent of the law were not so great and sweeping, legislatively completely changing one the largest sectors of the economy in ways so profound they still aren't understood - the rules aren't even written - then I would be worried.  But I don't think even the most conservative judge can justify deference to such a huge power grab by the federal government.

Breyer might surprise and join us to make it 6-3.

263 Just for grins I went slumming over at the Daily Kos to see what they are saying about yesterday's and today's arguments.   

Nothing. Zip. Nada. Ничто́. 一点也不 .

I smell fear.  Feels Good.

264 "And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act"

Kennedy either has trouble with pronouns or he does not think of us as people.

265 It is beyond doubt that the Justices know well that if they permit this expansion of the use of the Commerce Clause, they are effectively overturning Marbury v. Madison. For if anything there are no practical limits to what the Commerce Clause allows, nothing can ever be unconstitutional again. The Court invented the concept of Judicial Review with Marbury v. Madison and they won't give it up easily. It's the cornerstone of their power as a co-equal branch of government. Don't be surprised if the mandate is overturned by a vote that includes some of the liberal members of the SCOTUS. Not 5-4 but 6-3 or more.

266 The Republicans are passing up a huge opportunity to underscore the fraud behind the passage of this bill. The reason there is discussion now over whether there is a tax or penalty behind the mandate is if the Dems had called this a tax at the time the bill was passed it would have had to go back to the House of Representatives which never would have passed it out. They are now trapped by that lie and the nonsense of calling it anything but a tax.

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

268 test