July 01, 2012
— rdbrewer OUT: Arguing your case in court. IN: Lobbying Supreme Court justices.
Volokh Conspiracy has the transcript of Jan Crawford reporting on CBS Face the Nation that Chief Justice Roberts switched his vote in May.
I am told by two sources with specific knowledge of the courtÂ’s deliberations that Roberts initially sided with the conservatives in this case and was prepared to strike down the heart of this law, the so-called individual mandate, of course, that requires all Americans to buy insurance or pay a penalty. but Roberts, IÂ’m told by my sources, changed his views deciding to instead join with the liberals.
More from CBS:
Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy - believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law - led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold."He was relentless," one source said of Kennedy's efforts. "He was very engaged in this."
But this time, Roberts held firm. And so the conservatives handed him their own message which, as one justice put it, essentially translated into, "You're on your own."
The conservatives refused to join any aspect of his opinion, including sections with which they agreed, such as his analysis imposing limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause, the sources said.
Instead, the four joined forces and crafted a highly unusual, unsigned joint dissent. They deliberately ignored Roberts' decision, the sources said, as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate.
So Roberts knew better than the other justices, the circuit court judges, the district court judges, the attorneys, and the American public.
OUT: The rule of law. IN: The rule of Roberts.
Posted by: rdbrewer at
09:38 AM
| Comments (611)
Post contains 316 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: Cicero at July 01, 2012 01:41 PM (6j180)
The possibility of influence outside of argument?
Posted by: garrett at July 01, 2012 09:43 AM (2aS1X)
The Times specializes in serving up the lying hypocrisy of the liberal bourgeois establishment, which is then echoed by the various “left” defenders of the Democratic Party. As such, one of the newspaper’s primary tasks is to lend a progressive veneer to the right-wing policies of the Obama administration.
The response of the Times to ThursdayÂ’s Supreme Court ruling on ObamaÂ’s health care program is a typical, although particularly disgusting and absurd, example of its propaganda in support of the administration. A few articles are worth singling out.
In “Roberts Shows Deft Hand as Swing Vote on Health Care,” which appeared under the category of “news analysis,” the newspaper’s Supreme Court correspondent Adam Liptak heaps praise on Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the deciding opinion of the Court on the most significant element of Obama’s bill, the individual mandate to purchase insurance from private corporations.
Posted by: BearManPig at July 01, 2012 09:43 AM (e8kgV)
Posted by: eman at July 01, 2012 09:43 AM (ejmiE)
Now with 33.3% Less Checks and Balances!
Posted by: Affirmitive Action Jackson Supreme Court Playset at July 01, 2012 09:45 AM (2aS1X)
So, how about that impeachment? After the election of course, when, fingers crossed, Obama wouldn't be around to appoint his replacement.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at July 01, 2012 09:45 AM (kdS6q)
Posted by: eman at July 01, 2012 09:45 AM (ejmiE)
"Roberts' ability to fuck us over this way can be severely weakened if we put together a solidly Conservative/Libertarian Congress and WH."
"if"
Posted by: Spartans for Communism at July 01, 2012 09:46 AM (rX1N2)
Posted by: Jeanne. at July 01, 2012 09:47 AM (1p0nc)
Posted by: alans at July 01, 2012 09:47 AM (bBBdT)
Posted by: rdbrewer at July 01, 2012 09:47 AM (Iyg03)
Posted by: eman at July 01, 2012 09:47 AM (ejmiE)
Posted by: logprof at July 01, 2012 09:48 AM (DcdZE)
OUT: Loyalty to the Constitution and the concept of limite power.
IN: Cocktail Parties and Impregnable Fortresses.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at July 01, 2012 09:48 AM (d0Tfm)
I clerked on the CA state Court of Appeal for a year. If the Supreme Court handles cases anything like my court did,the cases are nearly always decided on the briefs. Although oral argument was occasionally dramatic (but mostly deadly boring), they rarely changed a draft opinion.
Posted by: Cicero at July 01, 2012 09:49 AM (6j180)
Posted by: eman at July 01, 2012 09:50 AM (ejmiE)
Posted by: Andy at July 01, 2012 09:50 AM (NSHE+)
Posted by: jjshaka at July 01, 2012 09:51 AM (RYE3c)
Sotomayor and Kagan are on the court.
For Life.
'There isn't much potential for damage left.'
I thought. On wednesday.
Posted by: garrett at July 01, 2012 09:51 AM (2aS1X)
Doesn't matter.
We were going to win this election on one issue: the economy. And we still have that.
All eyes will be back to the economy by next Thursday and we'll never look back on this decision until after the election
Posted by: Soothsayer at July 01, 2012 09:53 AM (b1VW8)
And the significance of the date is...
Posted by: Cicero
Looking at the wikipedia events page for May 2012, the only event of note in US politics seems to be Obama switch on gay rights.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at July 01, 2012 09:53 AM (kdS6q)
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at July 01, 2012 09:54 AM (gkSHY)
Posted by: 18-1 at July 01, 2012 09:54 AM (AUeaU)
Posted by: Dr. Varno at July 01, 2012 09:55 AM (nOAVk)
Posted by: adagioforstrings at July 01, 2012 09:55 AM (c6yKs)
Posted by: @ParisParamus at July 01, 2012 09:55 AM (GFX++)
You guys do know that Anthony Kennedy could have switched HIS vote to uphold the rest of the law. And Roberts would have then voted with the four conservatives to kill the mandate.
So why are you pissed at Roberts and not at Kennedy?
Posted by: rockmom at July 01, 2012 09:55 AM (YPgCz)
Posted by: 18-1 at July 01, 2012 01:54 PM
Lifetime appointment equals unlimited opportunity for douchebaggery.
Posted by: huerfano at July 01, 2012 09:55 AM (bAGA/)
... and I bet most of illegal Asians come in through the Canadian border.
Posted by: Charlie Chan at July 01, 2012 09:56 AM (e8kgV)
Reagan: 1 Conservative, 2 Squishes
Bush 41 - 1 Conservative, 1 Leftist
Clinton - 2 Leftists
Bush 43 - 1 Conservative, 1 Squish
Obama - 2 Leftists
Posted by: 18-1 at July 01, 2012 09:56 AM (AUeaU)
---
My pastor had the gall to give a sermon today on David's refusal to slay Saul as reflecting the need to obey authority.
I told him to go to hell.
Posted by: Methos at July 01, 2012 09:56 AM (6LvlL)
Not a surprise.
Roberts' ability to fuck us over this way can be severely weakened if we put together a solidly Conservative/Libertarian Congress and WH.
Relying on the SC is too risky.
Posted by: eman at July 01, 2012 01:43 PM (ejmiE
You'll excuse me if I don't exactly have much faith in Congress and the White House either.
Posted by: buzzion at July 01, 2012 09:56 AM (GULKT)
Posted by: echo at July 01, 2012 09:57 AM (4Ob4F)
Posted by: jjshaka at July 01, 2012 09:57 AM (RYE3c)
Posted by: Andy at July 01, 2012 09:57 AM (NSHE+)
Posted by: eman at July 01, 2012 09:57 AM (ejmiE)
"We were going to win this election on one issue: the economy. And we still have that."
Which still requires too many assumptions and "ifs" to look at with any optimistic attitude.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at July 01, 2012 09:57 AM (rX1N2)
Posted by: rockmom at July 01, 2012 01:55 PM (YPgCz)
Because Roberts did the deed. Um, duh?Posted by: Methos at July 01, 2012 09:57 AM (6LvlL)
We were going to win this election on one issue: the economy. And we still have that.
We'll have that, good and hard. This awful decision just guaranteed it. Businesses will remain reluctant to hire due to the thousands of regulations that have yet to be written. I wouldn't be surprised to see thing get dramatically worse economically. The best-case scenario is that things will stay about the same: real UE around 11%, real inflation around 5%, GDP growth under 2%.
We are so screwed...
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at July 01, 2012 09:58 AM (d0Tfm)
who visited Roberts in May?
kidding. sorta.
He is fine I've heard He's off to an island refuge , enjoying the bliss of having down something memorable.
Posted by: willow at July 01, 2012 09:58 AM (TomZ9)
Posted by: eman at July 01, 2012 09:59 AM (ejmiE)
when we started using monopoly money.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at July 01, 2012 09:59 AM (CP+yl)
Because, for one, Roberts was the one who actually switched his vote.
Secondly, the same CBS report says Kennedy was the main one trying to get Roberts back on the reservation.
So, yeah, I'd have to look really hard to find a reason to be pissed at Kennedy here.
Posted by: Andy at July 01, 2012 10:00 AM (NSHE+)
Along with everything else in this relentless leftist onslaught, we also have to deal with betrayal. Why is it always conservatives who have to show ‘statesmanship’ or ‘compromise’ or ‘collegiality’? Why is it never the Left? Where is the Democrat’s McCain? Or now Roberts?
I hold in special contempt those who betray their principles in the false hope that their opponents will then respect them or like them. For their judgement is contemptibly poor, thinking their opponents are honest and well meaning rather than the ruthless, win at all means, totalitarians that they truly are.
Nobody respects a traitor. And the Left will not respect Roberts. They will treat him as a useful idiot and in that I will agree with them.
Posted by: LGoPs at July 01, 2012 10:00 AM (azcSo)
Posted by: rockmom at July 01, 2012 01:55 PM (YPgCz)"
Because that's not what happened?
So Roberts apologists are reduced to asking painfully stupid questions now?
Posted by: Burn the Witch at July 01, 2012 10:01 AM (rX1N2)
Posted by: Scobface at July 01, 2012 10:01 AM (IoNBC)
Posted by: eman at July 01, 2012 01:43 PM (ejmiE
The only problem is we are running a leftwing technocrat for President, and have a weak kneeded squish leading each house in Congress.
Even presuming we take all three elected branches of government in Nov, we are unlikely to get any serious effort to change course out of the Republican leadership.
Expect to hear that we can't do anything unless we have 60 solid Senators a lot.
Posted by: 18-1 at July 01, 2012 10:01 AM (AUeaU)
The Los Angeles Police Department is the largest agency to embrace an experiment known as "predictive policing," which crunches data to determine where to send officers to thwart would-be thieves and burglars. Time Magazine called it one of the best inventions of 2011.
Early successes could serve as a model for other cash-strapped law enforcement agencies, but some legal observers are concerned it could lead to unlawful stops and searches that violate Fourth Amendment protections.
In the San Fernando Valley, where the program was launched late last year, officers are seeing double-digit drops in burglaries and other property crimes. The program has turned enough in-house skeptics into believers that there are plans to roll it out citywide by next summer.
... this will work until the criminals learn to become counter-intuitive.
Posted by: Charlie Chan at July 01, 2012 10:01 AM (e8kgV)
Posted by: John Roberts at July 01, 2012 10:01 AM (k4bdL)
>>Roberts Shows Deft Hand
The 'deft' hand would be the one the morons...aren't using to type, so to speak?
Or is that derecho??
It's tough to keep up 'round here.
Posted by: Mama AJ at July 01, 2012 10:01 AM (SUKHu)
Posted by: rockmom at July 01, 2012 10:02 AM (YPgCz)
eman, well yes, BUT, i would say the media has had a lot to do with forming opinions with the populace.
Posted by: willow at July 01, 2012 10:02 AM (TomZ9)
My pastor had the gall to give a sermon today on David's refusal to slay Saul as reflecting the need to obey authority.
I told him to go to hell.
Posted by: Methos at July 01, 2012 01:56 PM (6LvlL)
I know a guy who is fairly influential locally both in the church and in business. He told me a few years ago that he stopped listening to Rush because the Bible teaches that all leaders are to be respected because they are put there by God.
I just had to shake my head.
Posted by: ErikW at July 01, 2012 10:02 AM (lxIso)
Posted by: Charlie Chan at July 01, 2012 10:02 AM (e8kgV)
D.C. is a wretched hive of scum and villainy. Power once attained is never conceded. Ever.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel Kenobi at July 01, 2012 10:02 AM (eHIJJ)
Posted by: willow at July 01, 2012 01:58 PM (TomZ9)
Buck up, Bobby. My name will go down in history too. Bank on it.
Posted by: O. Snowe at July 01, 2012 10:04 AM (DcdZE)
Posted by: Islamic Rage Boy at July 01, 2012 10:04 AM (e8kgV)
This is just silly.
Posted by: Andy at July 01, 2012 10:04 AM (NSHE+)
Posted by: eman at July 01, 2012 10:04 AM (ejmiE)
Posted by: eman at July 01, 2012 01:43 PM (ejmiE
Martin Luther argued the same thing. As he organized the protestant cause against the Pope mind you.
Though at least Luther had a practical reason, he needed the Protestant princes so that the Pope didn't treat him to a bonfire for one. The current gutless mainline protestants in the US have no such caveat.
Posted by: 18-1 at July 01, 2012 10:05 AM (AUeaU)
---
That's the point. Keeping the law was treason and there can be no forgiveness for doing so.
Posted by: Methos at July 01, 2012 10:05 AM (6LvlL)
"November 6, folks. November 6."
Right. A date where we might elect someone who might repeal this monstrosity who might later appoint justices who might resemble something appearing to be a conservative justice.
Keepin' my eye on that prize!
Posted by: Burn the Witch at July 01, 2012 10:05 AM (rX1N2)
Most criminals are dumb as a bag of hammers...
Posted by: navybrat at July 01, 2012 10:06 AM (LRY2r)
***
There are good men in the Republican party, but they rarely achieve leadership positions, and enough of the party manages to keep the Overton window firmly in a position where we cannot change the current left lurching status quo.
And make no mistake, as long as we keep electing the likes of Romney or the Maine sisters they will continue to do so. What is their incentive to change course?
Posted by: 18-1 at July 01, 2012 10:07 AM (AUeaU)
Posted by: eman at July 01, 2012 10:07 AM (ejmiE)
That's a direct slam at the People's inability to stop whatever he wants to do. He knows he needs no fortress. He's surrounded by body guards, his every want and need supplied and cadillac health care guaranteed.
His comment should be go down in history along with "let them eat cake"
(yeah, yeah I know, she didn't say it.)
How about Louis whatever roman numeral who said "L'etat c'est moi"
Time for some pitchforks and scythes.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at July 01, 2012 10:07 AM (CP+yl)
Posted by: Glenmore at July 01, 2012 10:08 AM (EuPtY)
Media-----FREE STUFF! from Barak with Love!
Media------Kill Gramma and make women have 10 Babies!
Posted by: willow at July 01, 2012 10:08 AM (TomZ9)
Posted by: Scobface at July 01, 2012 10:08 AM (IoNBC)
So, Republicans have appointed most of the justices on this court, and have since the 90s, IIRC, and yet there is a far left plurality - can someone explain that to me?
Two words: Progressive Republicans.
We would be well advised to swap the word "Progressive" with " American Communist" from this day forward. It may be a bit oversimplistic and somewhat dated, but that's it in a nutshell.
They are our enemies.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at July 01, 2012 10:08 AM (d0Tfm)
---
Yeah here's the thing. My church? We're Missouri Synod Lutherans. Even if the gutless bastard didn't want to acknowledge that America came from courageous souls willing to rebel against false earthly authority, where does he think the Lutheran denomination came from.
Seriously, barbed cock of Satan and all that.
Posted by: Methos at July 01, 2012 10:09 AM (6LvlL)
He put that out, then wouldn't say another word. Everyone jumped all over him on that one and he smirked and went to get another beer.
Posted by: stare decisis at July 01, 2012 10:09 AM (oZfic)
But some are dumb like a fox. Not naming names, just sayin'.
Posted by: Eric Holder at July 01, 2012 10:09 AM (eHIJJ)
Posted by: rockmom at July 01, 2012 10:09 AM (YPgCz)
Keepin' my eye on that prize!
Posted by: Burn the Witch at July 01, 2012 02:05 PM (rX1N2)
Yeah, I get it but that's our last chance.
Posted by: ErikW at July 01, 2012 10:10 AM (lxIso)
Posted by: navybrat at July 01, 2012 02:06 PM (LRY2r)
Huh, what? Someone askin' for me?Posted by: Eric Holder at July 01, 2012 10:10 AM (6LvlL)
***
Those bastards wanted to follow the Constitution - even Kennedy for Obama's sake (PBUH)!!!! What the hell was I supposed to do?!?
Posted by: John Roberts at July 01, 2012 10:10 AM (AUeaU)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q0qTwpumvc
Posted by: Islamic Rage Boy at July 01, 2012 10:10 AM (e8kgV)
Posted by: Zombie Apocalypse at July 01, 2012 10:11 AM (fI1g6)
Of course, Roberts ended up being the guy to fall on the sword here. So go ahead and keep piling on him, if it makes you feel better.
***
He violated his oath to defend the constitution.
"I, John Roberts, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
Posted by: 18-1 at July 01, 2012 10:12 AM (AUeaU)
Posted by: Rocky at July 01, 2012 10:12 AM (Sld+T)
Posted by: rockmom at July 01, 2012 10:12 AM (YPgCz)
Posted by: rockmom at July 01, 2012 02:09 PM (YPgCz)
srsly, Robert's falls on sword?
Posted by: willow at July 01, 2012 10:12 AM (TomZ9)
Posted by: chai at July 01, 2012 10:13 AM (+3xW/)
They're super-duper conservative, except when it comes time for the really important vote when they can be counted on to fuck you.
Posted by: Andy at July 01, 2012 10:14 AM (NSHE+)
Posted by: hmmmm at July 01, 2012 10:14 AM (e9LVX)
Posted by: Scobface at July 01, 2012 10:14 AM (IoNBC)
Posted by: eman at July 01, 2012 10:15 AM (ejmiE)
"Why is it painfully stupid?"
For the reasons other commenters have thankfully already spared me the time in already responding to your nonsense. And likely have continued to do so in between the above quote and my response.
Your reasoning is about as tortured as Roberts'. No wonder you're covering for him.
You don't happen to practice law do you? Because only lawyers buy off on this level of bullshit.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at July 01, 2012 10:15 AM (rX1N2)
Cicero is correct. In this case an amicus brief argued for the fig leaf, (It's a tax). Robert's bought it.
Posted by: in the deep end at July 01, 2012 10:15 AM (xQnbi)
Posted by: BigJohn at July 01, 2012 10:15 AM (qbrp4)
Posted by: rockmom at July 01, 2012 02:09 PM (YPgCz)
It is not just Roberts' decision to side with the four liberal justices to uphold ObamaCare but the intellectual gymnastics he had to go through to justify it. Couldn't Roberts have simply agreed to strike down the individual mandate instead of justifying it based on tax law then included his dissenting opinion regarding severability?
Posted by: Slappy at July 01, 2012 10:15 AM (LTbLf)
---
Day 1:Repeal Obamacare in full.
Day 2: Impeach Roberts. And fuck the independence of the court.
Posted by: Eric Holder at July 01, 2012 10:15 AM (6LvlL)
Posted by: stare decisis at July 01, 2012 10:15 AM (oZfic)
***
The AG of the United States ran a program where he shipped guns to Mexican drug cartels to build a case against the second amendment. The Obama administration committed treason and acts of war against an allied nation to further a secondary objective of the administration.
Why do you think they would not act in at least as ruthless a fashion against a man that had the power to destroy the president's primary objective of his first term?
There is no evidence that this happened, but their is no particular reason that the administration would not do so if Roberts has any glaring skeletons in his closet.
Posted by: 18-1 at July 01, 2012 10:16 AM (AUeaU)
Posted by: chai at July 01, 2012 02:13 PM (+3xW/)
Push to have him excommunicated. See if he cares.Posted by: Methos at July 01, 2012 10:16 AM (6LvlL)
Not to be pedantic but I'm not piling on a guy who just fell on a sword. That could really hurt. I'll just keep throwing tomatoes at him at ten paces. And, yes, it will make me feel better until I can gather some nice stones.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at July 01, 2012 10:16 AM (eHIJJ)
you can see what they're trying to do can't you?
You know what Obama and his wife is all about right?
We know what Eric Holder is correct?
We realize exactly what they intend don't we?
How much more transparent could they or their motives be?
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at July 01, 2012 10:17 AM (CP+yl)
Posted by: 18-1 at July 01, 2012 02:16 PM (AUeaU)
Won't link it but "Wonkette" goes after a conservative blogger on this, it's fascinating reading.
Posted by: stare decisis at July 01, 2012 10:17 AM (oZfic)
Posted by: rockmom at July 01, 2012 10:18 AM (YPgCz)
Posted by: Scobface at July 01, 2012 10:19 AM (IoNBC)
I think Roberts saw what was coming and decided to get on the winning side of things.
It's not like it was a stretch for him or any other Bush conservative.
And forget punishing Roberts. There's plenty in congress with R's after their nameplate secretly going "hell yeah" over this.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at July 01, 2012 10:20 AM (CP+yl)
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at July 01, 2012 02:16 PM (eHIJJ)
Or Anvils. Or Safes. Or Pianos.
Posted by: Methos at July 01, 2012 10:20 AM (6LvlL)
Posted by: Scobface at July 01, 2012 10:21 AM (IoNBC)
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at July 01, 2012 10:21 AM (CP+yl)
Posted by: rockmom at July 01, 2012 02:18 PM (YPgCz)
Then what's the point of a severability clause then? Why does it even exist? How about if the so-called 1% being thrown out is integral to the entire law (which is true in this case regarding the individual mandate)?
Posted by: Slappy at July 01, 2012 10:22 AM (LTbLf)
Posted by: eman at July 01, 2012 10:22 AM (ejmiE)
---
Yup, uh huh. Obamacare's gonna be around a long time. Seriously.
Posted by: US Treasury Bond market getting a call from it's Italian cousin at July 01, 2012 10:23 AM (6LvlL)
I went 1/2 Gault in `97. That`s why I was up in the mountains after Thursday morning. I`m full fucking fledged Gault now. Going to see how they`ll enforce this piece of bull scat. Though I will still be able to cast my ballot. Maybe for fishbait or fire starter, who knows?
Posted by: rightlysouthern at July 01, 2012 10:23 AM (5j+rs)
Looks like there will be problems in the SCOTUS for quite some time if Roberts keeps this up
Posted by: Mjölnir the banhammer at July 01, 2012 10:23 AM (Jls4P)
I don't cotton to calling other people stupid having a different opinion.
Re: Roberts and why he has proven himself to be a lousy justice
It's not just this ACA decision. Roberts went 0-for-3 this week. AZ, Stolen Valor, and ACA.
Roberts made 3 out of 3 shitty, baseless, wrong, foolish, and highly political decisions this week.
John Roberts is a lemon, not some genius conservative Constitutionalist.
Posted by: Soothsayer at July 01, 2012 10:23 AM (b1VW8)
I know. I'll rob a police station.
Posted by: future thief at July 01, 2012 10:23 AM (nrW1y)
How is it following the Constitution to throw out the 99% of a law that is Constitutional because 1% of it isn't?
***
99% of the law is Constitutional? Seriously? You honestly think that the intent of,
(Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
was to allow the government to force you to buy a product you don't want, to set up cartels, and to control the price of private goods and services?
Posted by: 18-1 at July 01, 2012 10:24 AM (AUeaU)
Posted by: NJRob at July 01, 2012 10:24 AM (FVp26)
We would have been rid of the mandate, and Obama would have been handed a steaming pile of shit that doesn't work without it. But Kennedy wouldn't go along with that.
Posted by: rockmom at July 01, 2012 02:02 PM (YPgCz)
What absolute horseshit. You're going to actually defend wanting to keep the rest of the law, even though with the way the law is written if one part was struck then everything must go. You're going to bitch about the conservatives actually going with the way the law was written.
You know what's better than handing Obama a big pile of shit that doesn't work? Telling him that his big piece of shit that he thought was wonderful is completely unconstutitional in all its aspects and a complete failure.
Quit huffing glue.
Posted by: buzzion at July 01, 2012 10:24 AM (GULKT)
Posted by: Michael at July 01, 2012 10:25 AM (Hl5ka)
someone got alongside Roberts and explained how the Chicago Way really works.
I was thinking the same thing.
I wonder what it took? A stern talking to? A beloved pet suddenly taken "ill?" Pictures of grandkids and a detailed outline of their daily schedules?
This just doesn't make sense. There's something foul afoot.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at July 01, 2012 10:25 AM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: chai at July 01, 2012 10:25 AM (+3xW/)
Posted by: StuckOnStupid at July 01, 2012 10:25 AM (R5yLq)
Posted by: Methos at July 01, 2012 02:20 PM (6LvlL)
I know of a good ACME Supply house.
Posted by: BigJohn at July 01, 2012 10:25 AM (qbrp4)
Posted by: Mark at July 01, 2012 10:25 AM (fEXaF)
And forget punishing Roberts. There's plenty in congress with R's after their nameplate secretly going "hell yeah" over this.
***
If the Republicans were smart they would go all in on legal ways to make his life hell. As I mentioned above, the Federalist Society should officially strike his name from their records.
Small potatoes perhaps, but this "civility" game has to end.
Posted by: 18-1 at July 01, 2012 10:26 AM (AUeaU)
The mandate is a critical feature to finance the thing. Without it, the rest becomes unviable. They would have no choice but to go back to the drawing board and pitch a new version.
Posted by: epobirs at July 01, 2012 10:26 AM (kcfmt)
Posted by: your winnings, sir at July 01, 2012 10:26 AM (QupBk)
Thank goodness others are pointing out the obvious to the resident Roberts apologist.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at July 01, 2012 10:26 AM (rX1N2)
I know. I'll rob a police station.
Posted by: future thief at July 01, 2012 02:23 PM (nrW1y)
Ahem.Posted by: The Terminator at July 01, 2012 10:27 AM (6LvlL)
Posted by: Mark at July 01, 2012 02:25 PM (fEXaF)
Because: History.
Posted by: buzzion at July 01, 2012 10:27 AM (GULKT)
Posted by: Scobface at July 01, 2012 10:28 AM (IoNBC)
Posted by: Lauren at July 01, 2012 10:28 AM (hNLFW)
Posted by: buzzion at July 01, 2012 02:27 PM (GULKT)
What would be a comparable historical precedent?
Posted by: Mark at July 01, 2012 10:29 AM (fEXaF)
***
Because they haven't done anything, yet, about the law that had a hope in hell of removing it?
Voting against it when Harry Reid will table it is fine politics, but it won't get rid of the law.
There are other, more concrete, steps they could take to hit it head on that they have refused to do.
For example, tie an Obamacare repeal to every piece of legislation you pass. Let Reid grind the whole government to a halt.
Posted by: 18-1 at July 01, 2012 10:29 AM (AUeaU)
Posted by: Burn the Witch at July 01, 2012 02:26 PM (rX1N2)
She seems to think she's making valid points by ignoring all the inconvenient facts and details about ObamaCare. She even adopted a favorite debating tactic of the Left -- use of an obscenity (#120) to show you just how passionate and sure she is of her views on this matter.
Posted by: Slappy at July 01, 2012 10:29 AM (LTbLf)
Posted by: eman at July 01, 2012 10:29 AM (ejmiE)
--
Pretty much just a photo of my cock and the promise he could suck on it a while.
Posted by: Barry the Magnificent at July 01, 2012 10:29 AM (6LvlL)
Posted by: Ezra's Equal at July 01, 2012 10:30 AM (+74DP)
Posted by: Fritz at July 01, 2012 10:30 AM (ZN5qR)
Posted by: Mark at July 01, 2012 02:29 PM (fEXaF)"
I think that was his point. There is no history suggesting the Republicans will even try.
Maybe I'm wrong.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at July 01, 2012 10:31 AM (rX1N2)
Posted by: torabora at July 01, 2012 10:31 AM (znvbE)
Tragically, yes.
The threat of appeal will be election fodder only. The GOP will hem and haw about how bad the law is and if you'll only give more money, votes, and power to it it will enact a repeal. And it's BS. Immediately upon receipt of that gained power, the repeal will morph into yet another hill not to die on; or it will need 3/4ths of the House and 61 Senate seats. Or more because some representatives live in purple districts and can't risk a "small government" vote. On and on the excuse-making will continue.
We're boned. ObamaTax is the law of the land. We've been fundamentally transformed and Roberts escorted it right on through because he wanted to exercise his complimentary Chief Justice pen. Thanks for the template, Mr. Roberts. Any control via tax is now Constitutional. Yippee!
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at July 01, 2012 10:31 AM (eHIJJ)
Posted by: sherlock at July 01, 2012 10:31 AM (f29LO)
Posted by: eman at July 01, 2012 10:31 AM (ejmiE)
Posted by: Lauren at July 01, 2012 10:32 AM (hNLFW)
Posted by: 18-1 at July 01, 2012 02:29 PM (AUeaU)
Both sides are going to bring it up for a vote (at least try in the Senate) within the next two weeks. Even if they were to attach it to every piece of legislation in the Senate, Reid would make sure there wouldn't be a vote on it anyway.
This is a winning issue for Republicans (repealing Obamacare). I'm not nearly as pessimistic as some of you folks.
Posted by: Mark at July 01, 2012 10:32 AM (fEXaF)
Posted by: bebe's boobs destroy at July 01, 2012 10:33 AM (EQK1g)
We (the Right) and especially the conservative justices need to make clear that we're not upset that he sided with the libs but that he made the wrong decision (and most likely knowing better).
It's going to be groan-inducing to watch this be wildly spun as conservatives simply being angry because he didn't help them politically. We're going to have another Maverick on our hands and the MSM/left will just say we're butthurt.
Posted by: Where're my ping pong balls at July 01, 2012 10:33 AM (YxaXw)
***
You ain't seen nothing yet.
Posted by: Mitt Romney at July 01, 2012 10:33 AM (AUeaU)
John Roberts is the new Meghan McCain.
Someone should make a fake John Roberts facetweet page and model it after a 15yr old girl's page.
Posted by: Soothsayer at July 01, 2012 10:35 AM (b1VW8)
http://bit.ly/LRyD1W
Posted by: Miss80sBaby at July 01, 2012 10:35 AM (d6QMz)
Posted by: adagioforstrings at July 01, 2012 10:35 AM (c6yKs)
---
When was the last time the GOP resolved a winning issue rather than keeping it around for the next fundraising cycle?
Posted by: Methos at July 01, 2012 10:35 AM (6LvlL)
Posted by: admiral ackbar upon seeing c.j. roberts at a cocktail party at July 01, 2012 10:35 AM (nrW1y)
Hello Kitty theme or something a bit more edgy?Posted by: eman at July 01, 2012 10:35 AM (ejmiE)
I really think the Catholic Church should get out of American politics and go back to being a church. We wondered why they wouldn't excommunicate ms. nancy, well cause she was doing their bidding along with syphylis, the secretary is also a Catholic. Maybe they threatened to excommunicate Roberts if he didn't rule this way. They want the bill, they just don't want to pay for anything they don't want to pay for or have to do anything they don't want to have to do.
They are seeing it in the pews and the collection coffers, Americans are not happy with them at all.
Posted by: stare decisis at July 01, 2012 10:36 AM (oZfic)
But Obama isn't Bill Clinton. Obama is a hard-core idealogue, someone who would hire a Van Jones and an Anita Dunne or any number of Marxists without batting an eye. A 5-4 ACA overturn decision would have played directly into the hands of the Obama Campaign, which is most comfortable with the political counter-punch. Reduced now to playing defense on ACA, the loser's road,, and with the economy in free-fall, Axelrod & Co. are out of ammo.
CJ Roberts played politics, the inside SC game. With his vote, he also claimed his right as Chief Justice to write the majority opinion, to write it as tightly as he could as a conservative justice.
The ACA ruling focuses the electorate's attention directly on the Obama record. Do the Obamaites really, really want to spend the rest of the campaign explaining why Obamacare isn't a tax? When corporate HRs and small-business owners are sending out millions of notices to their employees explaining why their health-care coverage has been eliminated or curtailed?
So, yes, Roberts played politics. It's up to us, now to go on the offiense and elect candidates who will have the power and the will to eliminate the ACA and the lawless activities of the current administration.
Posted by: mrp at July 01, 2012 10:36 AM (HjPtV)
***
So, instead of making Reid pay a major political price, it is better to quietly surrender and tepidly claim you will address the law in the next Congress?
Keep in mind that even if they only forced a vote there are a lot of Democrat Senators that might be faced with a stark choice of voting against Obamatax or losing office.
The Republican leadership may hide behind incompetence, but they could fight just as fiercely as the left does....if they wanted to.
Posted by: 18-1 at July 01, 2012 10:36 AM (AUeaU)
What would be a comparable historical precedent?
IMHO, it's not so much anything in the past, it's that future hisorians will look back on Thursday's decision and say "WTF? How was any normal human able to twist the plain meaning of the Constitution into this pretzel of convoluted logic?"
While I'm on the subject, there is a great psychological power in being emotionally shocked (for the shocker, that is). It tends to make the weak-minded more compliant. This also explains to me why there is so much defiance among conservaties. Some of the stuff I read in the comments on left-leaning sites on Thursday was pretty rebellious.
As it should be.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at July 01, 2012 10:36 AM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: Quint&Jessel, Sea of Azof, Bly, UK at July 01, 2012 10:37 AM (7v5Ct)
Posted by: jfalcon, the curmud..curmuge..the old guy in Vegas at July 01, 2012 10:37 AM (2EqTP)
Posted by: Methos at July 01, 2012 02:35 PM (6LvlL)
There simply is no down side to repealing this law. It's all positive. Hell, they even get to enact their own version (hopefully just including those provisions where there is some broad-based support).
Posted by: Mark at July 01, 2012 10:37 AM (fEXaF)
***
1994 perhaps? When Newt and Santorum took on welfare reform?
Good thing we didn't choose either of those guys!
Hey, what's Romney's record on healthcare mandates again?
Posted by: 18-1 at July 01, 2012 10:38 AM (AUeaU)
Posted by: Hopped up on Something at July 01, 2012 10:38 AM (HHXXi)
Posted by: jfalcon, the curmud..curmuge..the old guy in Vegas at July 01, 2012 10:39 AM (2EqTP)
Posted by: StuckOnStupid at July 01, 2012 10:39 AM (R5yLq)
Posted by: 18-1 at July 01, 2012 02:36 PM (AUeaU)
Reid would have blocked any attempt to vote on this as an amendment to other legislation just like he did recently with the Transportation bill with the Keystone amendment.
However, now you have a different dynamic at work because it's now a tax. Some Democrats might switch sides and actually vote with Republicans because they are in fear for their seats. It's a long shot, but it is worth making an effort now.
Posted by: Mark at July 01, 2012 10:40 AM (fEXaF)
Roberts' comments after the decision is what's got me the most angry at him. He sounds like a bitch. I interpreted it as haters gonna hate, deal with it.
The decision was bad enough, but what he said afterwards was a poke in the eye. And it proves that Roberts knew exactly what he was doing.
Posted by: Soothsayer at July 01, 2012 10:40 AM (b1VW8)
Looks like there will be problems in the SCOTUS for quite some time if Roberts keeps this up
Posted by: Mjolnir the banhammer
You gor it buddy.
Posted by:The Grey-haired Ghost of Earl Warren
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at July 01, 2012 10:40 AM (kdS6q)
Posted by: Where're my ping pong balls at July 01, 2012 02:33 PM (YxaXw)"
Personally, I no longer give a fat happy rat's ass.
The MSM spins the Tea Party as terrorists and bends over backwards to offer a convenient mouth in which Obama may safely rest his balls. Meanwhile, OWS can literally rape, kill, pillage and burn, or Dems can flee a state to thwart the will of the people, or the left can force a recall election for no reason other than being butthurt...and the media gives them cover.
I don't even bother groaning anymore because they're just a parody of themselves.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at July 01, 2012 10:41 AM (rX1N2)
Posted by: Hopped up on Something at July 01, 2012 02:38 PM (HHXXi)
No offense, but that sounds a little cynical to me.
Posted by: Mark at July 01, 2012 10:41 AM (fEXaF)
Posted by: NJRob at July 01, 2012 10:41 AM (FVp26)
Posted by: eman at July 01, 2012 10:41 AM (ejmiE)
Posted by: Lauren at July 01, 2012 10:42 AM (hNLFW)
Just back from town and haven't read any other entries so I may be repeating here. A few other people have said this based on the wording in his opinion. I am not sure I buy that.
I honestly don't think we will ever know unless he himself writes some kind of deathbed confession. And I don't think any of them have ever done that.
Posted by: Vic at July 01, 2012 10:42 AM (YdQQY)
And you know what else it proved?
Roberts' bitchy remarks afterwards shows me that he believes that the only people who don't want Obamacare is the Tea Party folks, which Roberts regards, in my opinion, as a small fringe part of the GOP.
(this attitude, as we all know, is shared by many so-called Republicans in Washington)
Posted by: Soothsayer at July 01, 2012 10:42 AM (b1VW8)
***
Let him. And let the bills set dead in conference committee. Do we need another transportation bill?
This is the last damn hill to fight on and the Republicans WILL NOT DO IT.
Posted by: 18-1 at July 01, 2012 10:43 AM (AUeaU)
Posted by: theBuckWheat at July 01, 2012 10:43 AM (bqjXm)
Posted by: Rocky at July 01, 2012 10:44 AM (Sld+T)
Posted by: buzzion at July 01, 2012 02:27 PM (GULKT)
What would be a comparable historical precedent?
Posted by: Mark at July 01, 2012 02:29 PM (fEXaF)
History as in the history of what Republicans in power do. Or have I somehow missed the smaller government we have now compared to 1992? What they campaign on and what they actually implement is usually very different. So I do not trust them and have no reason to trust their honeyed words now. I will believe they actually want a full repeal when there is a presiden'ts signature on a bill authorizing a full repeal and not before.
Posted by: buzzion at July 01, 2012 10:44 AM (GULKT)
You can't think of any time the GOP has crossed it's friends across the aisle when it was in their interest to do so or otherwise, can you?
Posted by: Methos at July 01, 2012 10:44 AM (6LvlL)
In short the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has just determined that it is not the job of the Supreme Court to read or follow the Constitution. They can rule any way they want on anything they want based solely on politics and personal whim.
I, for one, welcome our new Postmodern Judicial Overlords.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at July 01, 2012 10:45 AM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: eman at July 01, 2012 02:41 PM (ejmiE)
There are many worthwhile reforms like allowing insurers to cross state lines, enablingin portability and tort reform.
Posted by: Mark at July 01, 2012 10:46 AM (fEXaF)
"The GOP has to hear that repeal is all we want and we don't have any interest in replacing it.
Replace is a euphemism for "keep in a diluted form to be strengthened later".
Posted by: eman at July 01, 2012 02:41 PM (ejmiE)"
Better go shout that at Rombley a few thousand times, because that's what he's running on. And his case is even weaker now.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at July 01, 2012 10:46 AM (rX1N2)
A Republican president put a "stealth" leftoid fascist jackoff on the Court.
As Republican presidents reliably do.
Mystery solved.
Posted by: nope at July 01, 2012 10:46 AM (cePv8)
Posted by: eman at July 01, 2012 10:47 AM (ejmiE)
***
"No, no, I like mandates. The mandates work."
Posted by: Mitt Romney at July 01, 2012 10:47 AM (AUeaU)
Posted by: rockmom at July 01, 2012 02:09 PM (YPgCz)
That's an odd argument, you are saying Roberts can not only rewrite the legislation but rewrite 250 years of tax law but he couldn't ignore the fact that severability wasn't written into the law? Not that he should of, but it doesn't seem like precedent is a big deal to him.
He should have overturned the entire law and told congress and the president if you wan't to tax Americans tell them you are doing it and repass the bill with that language.
Roberts permitted a fraud on Americans, I won't ever trust him again. From now on anything going in front of the court is a crap shoot in my opinion.
Posted by: robtr at July 01, 2012 10:48 AM (MtwBb)
***
That's right kiddies - remember if you don't vote for us, we won't be able to do nothing about Obamatax!
Posted by: Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Mitt Romney, etc at July 01, 2012 10:48 AM (AUeaU)
Posted by: eman at July 01, 2012 10:49 AM (ejmiE)
Posted by: Methos at July 01, 2012 02:44 PM (6LvlL)
I can't think of another occasion where everything was up-side (like repeal is for them now) and they went the other way.
Posted by: Mark at July 01, 2012 10:49 AM (fEXaF)
This ruling has no logic and no basis anywhere in the Constitution. The liberals, including Roberts, are relying on the "Good and Plenty" clause.
Posted by: Vic at July 01, 2012 10:49 AM (YdQQY)
the new meme being pushed by the Left:
Republicans need to tell the people what they'd replace Obamacare with because people do like some of the stuff in it.
Complete bullshit. But the Republicans, including Mitt, are falling for it. The Democrats are pushing this meme to try to stop Cantor from taking a vote in July to repeal the law.
Posted by: Soothsayer at July 01, 2012 10:49 AM (b1VW8)
Posted by: eman at July 01, 2012 10:50 AM (ejmiE)
Posted by: stare decisis at July 01, 2012 10:50 AM (oZfic)
Posted by: Mark at July 01, 2012 10:51 AM (fEXaF)
Posted by: Reggie1971 at July 01, 2012 10:52 AM (8cOY0)
"Republicans need to tell the people what they'd replace Obamacare with because people do like some of the stuff in it."
It's like ace's Ferrari argument. Republicans and the right need to come out saying how much it's going to cost the average American, and then keep saying it until everyone's ears bleed.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at July 01, 2012 10:53 AM (rX1N2)
Posted by: toby928© at July 01, 2012 10:53 AM (QupBk)
So good job Roberts, you fucked the country and ended your pathetic institution's legitimacy.
Posted by: Methos at July 01, 2012 10:53 AM (6LvlL)
Posted by: StuckOnStupid at July 01, 2012 10:53 AM (R5yLq)
Complete bullshit. But the Republicans, including Mitt, are falling for it. The Democrats are pushing this meme to try to stop Cantor from taking a vote in July to repeal the law.
Posted by: Soothsayer at July 01, 2012 02:49 PM (b1VW
As I have been saying since Thursday. the only real chance we have to fix this before complete collapse of the Republic is an Article V convention.
The idiots in both Parties are so insulated from the public at large they have no idea what they are doing and how pissed the rank and file are.
Posted by: Vic at July 01, 2012 10:53 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: George Will at July 01, 2012 10:54 AM (IoNBC)
Posted by: Mark at July 01, 2012 02:49 PM (fEXaF)
No one wanted TARP.
Posted by: Methos at July 01, 2012 10:54 AM (6LvlL)
The Democrats are pushing this meme to try to stop Cantor from taking a vote in July to repeal the law.
They can vote all they want to repeal this POS. It's only political posturing.
There's no way Hairy Reed will allow this to get to the Senate floor for a vote. Even if that happens, teh SCOAMF will just not sign it, make a speech about it bashing it, and use it for fundraising.
I like the upthread suggestion that every single bill that comes from the House have a rider to repeal. Make HR own it, lock, stock, and barrel.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at July 01, 2012 10:54 AM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: Soothsayer at July 01, 2012 02:49 PM (b1VW
The Republicans have already published many alternatives.
Posted by: Mark at July 01, 2012 10:54 AM (fEXaF)
So much for p'rtectin' the integert'y of dah Court.
Way to go, asshole.
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at July 01, 2012 10:54 AM (famk3)
Posted by: AtlasMugged at July 01, 2012 10:55 AM (xALIn)
Posted by: Reggie1971 at July 01, 2012 02:52 PM (8cOY0)
It was shocking. Initially, on first read, you couldn't believe that the one person on the court you trusted could do that to you, so you tried to come up with some way to see if he was helping. But by the third read, you realized that someone you trusted let you down in a huge way and will continue to let you down. The people who support this are, for the most part, either exempted or covered by the best insurance in the world, government insurance. They don't really care, as long as they have theirs and the poor are covered, they don't care if you "made poor choices and worked in the private sector".
Posted by: stare decisis at July 01, 2012 10:55 AM (oZfic)
Posted by: Lincolntf at July 01, 2012 10:55 AM (HethX)
Posted by: eman at July 01, 2012 02:50 PM (ejmiE)"
You and me both, bother. Just try convincing the self-deluded how much harder this SCOTUS ruling made Nov 6th.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at July 01, 2012 10:56 AM (rX1N2)
***
So, outside of SS reform what did the Republicans do when they controlled all three elected elements of the government in 2004 again? Did they roll back unpopular environmental law? Cut waste at HUD? Anything of note?
Posted by: 18-1 at July 01, 2012 10:56 AM (AUeaU)
Posted by: eman at July 01, 2012 10:56 AM (ejmiE)
Posted by: Jawkneemusic at July 01, 2012 10:57 AM (fK55S)
Posted by: Methos at July 01, 2012 02:54 PM (6LvlL)
There was a down side to voting against TARP. Or, at least, a perceived down side.
Posted by: Mark at July 01, 2012 10:57 AM (fEXaF)
I'm really starting to believe Roberts rendered this decision to save face with his liberal jurist friends. I'm not sure he has any core convictions or principles when it comes to Constitutional interpretation. We were warned back in 2005 that his judicial philosophy was somewhat mysterious, but GWB went forward with his nomination, instead of selecting a judge with a substantial history of conservative decisions.
Is there any end to George W. Bush's destructive effect on conservatism? Have Republicans ever made a worse mistake than nominating him back in 2000?
Posted by: Reggie1971 at July 01, 2012 10:57 AM (8cOY0)
Posted by: Z as in Jersey at July 01, 2012 10:58 AM (y62pL)
Posted by: cheese eatin' SOB at July 01, 2012 10:58 AM (N8ZZU)
Posted by: Lauren at July 01, 2012 10:58 AM (hNLFW)
Posted by: 18-1 at July 01, 2012 02:56 PM (AUeaU)
SS reform wasn't exactly popular among the public like repeal is.
Posted by: Mark at July 01, 2012 10:59 AM (fEXaF)
Posted by: Soothsayer at July 01, 2012 10:59 AM (b1VW8)
Posted by: Mark at July 01, 2012 02:57 PM (fEXaF)
I guarantee you there will be a 'perceived' downside to repealing Obamacare come January.Posted by: Methos at July 01, 2012 10:59 AM (6LvlL)
Posted by: chai at July 01, 2012 10:59 AM (+3xW/)
Posted by: eman at July 01, 2012 02:56 PM (ejmiE)
Reforms would be a better term - not replacement. Reform is still somewhat of a popular idea in the public.
Posted by: Mark at July 01, 2012 11:00 AM (fEXaF)
***
Yep. Expect to hear every argument against Obamacare was decided by the SC constantly from the State Media.
And more importantly it would have been trivial for Roberts to side with the conservatives to repeal.
Winning all three elected elements of the government, fighting to repeal Obamacare in toto, and crafting a winning process would be damn hard even if the Republican leadership really wanted to.
Oh...and our standard bearer in cases we do win all those offices will be a guy on record as supporting health care mandates.
Posted by: 18-1 at July 01, 2012 11:00 AM (AUeaU)
Here's the original wonkette link for those so inclined: http://tinyurl.com/76asgfc
Posted by: stare decisis at July 01, 2012 11:00 AM (oZfic)
***
Wouldn't be prudent.
Posted by: George Herbert Romney at July 01, 2012 11:01 AM (AUeaU)
Posted by: SMOD at July 01, 2012 11:01 AM (4cEeF)
Posted by: NJRob at July 01, 2012 11:01 AM (FVp26)
Posted by: StuckOnStupid at July 01, 2012 11:02 AM (R5yLq)
Posted by: toby928© at July 01, 2012 11:02 AM (QupBk)
Then: The House must vote for repeal. Then the Senate will have to vote for repeal using the nuclear option. The Romney must keep his promise.
I don't see the nuclear option happening. I see them "threatening" then cutting a deal with the Dems to just cut it back to Obamacare lite. That at best.
They will call it victory when it is just another bag of beans and a promise to not do it in their mouth again next time. Meanwhile the Dems will gradually push it further and further to the left.
That is until we collapse in the same manner as the other countries that have monetized their dept to the extent we are doing.
And THAT is what I think the best available will be.
Posted by: Vic at July 01, 2012 11:02 AM (YdQQY)
***
You are missing the point. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of policy items that the Republicans could have advanced in 2004 that were widely popular with the public. They didn't advance on any of them because of resistance of "moderate" Republicans, the State Media, and the permanent bureaucracy. All three of which will still be there if they win in Nov - and far more heavily leveraged in Obamacare then Gore Toilets or HUD corruption.
Posted by: 18-1 at July 01, 2012 11:03 AM (AUeaU)
No doubt the Jello Salad Conspiracy keeps that under wraps.
Watch it, sir. I have a muffin with your name on it.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, Rioting Christian at July 01, 2012 11:04 AM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: Vic at July 01, 2012 03:02 PM (YdQQY)
I think they could balk at the nuclear option. That is possible, I do believe. But I have to believe they will go through with it. They are totally justified in doing so. Again, the public would support it.
Posted by: Mark at July 01, 2012 11:04 AM (fEXaF)
Posted by: Dubya at July 01, 2012 11:05 AM (IoNBC)
Posted by: 18-1 at July 01, 2012 03:03 PM (AUeaU)
Your example was a swing and a miss - got another?
Posted by: Mark at July 01, 2012 11:05 AM (fEXaF)
Posted by: eman at July 01, 2012 11:05 AM (ejmiE)
***
I'll take your failure to respond as a recognition you can't.
Posted by: 18-1 at July 01, 2012 11:07 AM (AUeaU)
Hey guys, as much as I enjoy a good religious war - since we're all going to end up in the reeducation camps together maybe now would be a good time to make nice.
Posted by: StuckOnStupid
Oh, NOW you want to be pals....
Posted by: Raymond Roger Trencavel
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at July 01, 2012 11:07 AM (kdS6q)
Posted by: stare decisis at July 01, 2012 11:07 AM (oZfic)
Like someone else said upthread - anyone who thinks this isn't going to rally the left, who sorely needed it, is a choom head. They feel as though they have a mandate for their backdoor for single payer and will now stop at nothing to defend it. They aren't going to have to start over, they only have to defend.
And the MBM will carry their water and use Rombley's support for mandates to make him appear confused to the low info voter. These voters will look at him like "wtf is wrong with this guy?" The DNC has Romney's major campaign platform as an attack ad against him.
We're fucked.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at July 01, 2012 11:07 AM (rX1N2)
Posted by: Scobface at July 01, 2012 11:08 AM (IoNBC)
Posted by: Miss80sBaby at July 01, 2012 11:08 AM (d6QMz)
No decent man should ever speak to him again.
And IF Romney should win in November, could he arrange for someone other than Chief Judas Roberts to administer the Oath of Office? There's no rule that it has to be him, I believe. I think anyone can administer an oath - let it be Scalia, or even his wife. Anyone but Roberts.
Posted by: Dr. Mabuse at July 01, 2012 11:08 AM (KOHFD)
Posted by: chai at July 01, 2012 02:59 PM (+3xW/)
Not a chance. The point was that a Lutheran pastor should be familiar with our history and the antichristian nature of the office of the Pope (giving unlimited authority to a wretched sinner, like say our supreme court) are fairly central to that.
Any apology that would sate someone foolish enough to ask for one would necessarily be an admission of the Papal cult's authority over me. So, no.
Posted by: Methos at July 01, 2012 11:08 AM (6LvlL)
Posted by: 18-1 at July 01, 2012 03:03 PM (AUeaU)
Keep in mind we're not talking about initiatives from out of nowhere. We're talking about a very stark existing choice. It is popular among the public (and probably will grow even more so with the debate on taxes that is going to now take place), Republicans have all already voted against it once, and they are all going to be campaigning on it in the coming months.
Posted by: Mark at July 01, 2012 11:09 AM (fEXaF)
Obama will hit Mitt with that in the debates and Mitt will sputter and glurble
Posted by: eman
Obama: "Governor, I'm just trying to give the people of America the same choices you gave the people of Massachusetts."
Romney: " * "
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at July 01, 2012 11:10 AM (kdS6q)
Posted by: toby928© at July 01, 2012 11:10 AM (QupBk)
And made comments that it was a fortress. Although I'm told they were conquered by everyone and his brother.
Posted by: stare decisis at July 01, 2012 11:10 AM (oZfic)
Posted by: Mark at July 01, 2012 11:11 AM (fEXaF)
***
Yeah, the public doesn't give a damn about the federalism argument. Which is fair because no one believes it.
Now, had Romney said as soon as he left MA something like, "The law was horrible, but it was all I could do to stop single payer" I could see some hope that he really changed his mind.
But he clearly has not. He has been saying the minimum he has to get the Republican nod.
Now, you could argue fear would keep him in line - that a betrayal would cost him a potential second term. But the Republican party has never acted like that, and as a rational actor Romney knows if he wins election in 2013 he will also be the nominee in 2017.
By choosing Romney we left the SC has the only power that could, and might, get rid of Obamacare. And Roberts fucked us.
Posted by: 18-1 at July 01, 2012 11:11 AM (AUeaU)
Posted by: toby928© at July 01, 2012 11:11 AM (QupBk)
Mitt may have done unConservative things, but he had no choice, to paraphrase.
Posted by: eman at July 01, 2012 02:31 PM (ejmiE)
Well, based on her arguments on ObamaCare, she seems to also have another bad habit exhibited by the Left -- use of emotion-based arguments that ignore sound logic and reasoning.
Roberts' actions and decision on ObamaCare contradicted the facts of ObamaCare. Basically, he showed himself to be an activist judge who was going to justify his opinion regardless of the facts or the legal basis or arguments. Why else would he come to the decision he did when he could've addressed his concerns by saying that the individual mandate would pass constitutional muster if it were a tax? Thus, Congress needs to change and revote on the bill so that it is described overtly as a tax.
I don't even agree with the tax argument, but I certainly know that the federal government cannot constitutionally require Americans to purchase a product just for being alive, whether through an individual mandate or a tax. I guess Roberts didn't see the potential problems with providing the federal government with that type of court-endorsed power over its citizens. Plus, he completely ignored one of the court's responsibilities -- to consider how ObamaCare came to be. If Obama & Co. didn't argue that it was a tax to get it passed and then only argued it in passing during oral arguments before the Court (and now are publicly claiming it isn't a tax), then how could it be considered as such? Talk about intellectual dishonesty.
Posted by: Slappy at July 01, 2012 11:12 AM (LTbLf)
Posted by: NJRob at July 01, 2012 11:12 AM (FVp26)
"Obama: "Governor, I'm just trying to give the people of America the same choices you gave the people of Massachusetts."
I refuse to watch the debates for this reason alone.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at July 01, 2012 11:12 AM (rX1N2)
Posted by: eman at July 01, 2012 11:13 AM (ejmiE)
Posted by: toby928© at July 01, 2012 03:10 PM (QupBk)
Had to look up that reference - very good. I agree.
Posted by: Mark at July 01, 2012 11:13 AM (fEXaF)
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at July 01, 2012 11:13 AM (yFHtF)
Posted by: Mark at July 01, 2012 03:01 PM (fEXaF)
The MSM will come up with something. The cocktail crowd will buy it. Doesn't really matter what.---
Hey guys, as much as I enjoy a good religious war - since we're all going to end up in the reeducation camps together maybe now would be a good time to make nice.
Not sure what religious war has to do with it today. The history is what it is. I think the worship of the Pope is a sin. I think prayers to saints are at best an insult to God since Christ told us to pray directly to the Father, boldly (and it stinks of the Greco-Roman pantheon). I also have no need to do anything about it, and believe Christ's blood is thick enough to cover whichever one of us is wrong.
Posted by: Methos at July 01, 2012 11:14 AM (6LvlL)
Posted by: StuckOnStupid at July 01, 2012 11:14 AM (R5yLq)
Posted by: Scobface at July 01, 2012 11:14 AM (IoNBC)
Posted by: toby928© at July 01, 2012 03:10 PM (QupBk)
Then give me some damn hope Toby. In your inimitable, concice way!
Posted by: Burn the Witch at July 01, 2012 11:15 AM (rX1N2)
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at July 01, 2012 11:15 AM (yFHtF)
Posted by: Lincolntf at July 01, 2012 11:16 AM (HethX)
Arguing backward from an intended result.
Posted by: rdbrewer at July 01, 2012 11:16 AM (Iyg03)
****
Republicans have indeed voted against Obamacare. And they have done so in a format that has no hope of doing anything about repealing it. It is part of the political game and they should do so - but they've done nothing concrete about it when they've had the power to do so. The House of Representatives is the most powerful institution in the government, at least in regards to Constitutional derived powers.
What incentive do you think there will be to remove Obamacare after the election? They already have achieved office after doing nothing concrete about Obamacare. Logic dictates that fighting to repeal will be the riskier choice. And there will be enough non-conservative Republicans that will find that a very strong argument.
Posted by: 18-1 at July 01, 2012 11:16 AM (AUeaU)
Posted by: Miss80sBaby at July 01, 2012 03:08 PM (d6QMz)
I don't think americans are as stupid as the MSM and Roberts beleive they are. Roberts did as much to render the court illegitament as has been done since Roe V. Wade. He found law that does not exist.
There is nothing in the constitution that says the feds can impliment an a tax that is not propotional. He could have sent it back and said change it so taxes are raised on everyone and then offer a deduction if you have insurance and it would have been constitutional. It would also have never passed congress.
What he did is instead of allowing a mortgage interest deduction if you own a house he said it's constitutional to tax you if you don't buy a house. That is a big difference.
Posted by: robtr at July 01, 2012 11:16 AM (MtwBb)
Posted by: eman at July 01, 2012 11:16 AM (ejmiE)
Posted by: Dr. Varno at July 01, 2012 11:18 AM (nOAVk)
I'm sure that if there is one thing Romney will have a pat, smooth and plausible answer for, it's RomneyCare.
***
Uh...that was totally different. Healthcare mandates are only a good conservative solution when I am the chief executive.
Posted by: Mitt Romneycare at July 01, 2012 11:18 AM (AUeaU)
http://tinyurl.com/49ffab
The man has no clue about economics and an even lesser clue as to what it means to be poor. As a double Harvard grad, prior attending private school, he was always an elite.
Posted by: stare decisis at July 01, 2012 11:19 AM (oZfic)
Posted by: Gen. U.S. Grant at July 01, 2012 11:19 AM (ZN5qR)
Posted by: eman at July 01, 2012 11:20 AM (ejmiE)
"No one worships the pope"
Not really trying to stir up anything here, but isn't the Pope regarded by Catholics to be Jesus' personal representative down here? If so, that doesn't seem too far from worship.
If not, then I'll shut up now since I'm not Catholic.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at July 01, 2012 11:20 AM (rX1N2)
Posted by: StuckOnStupid at July 01, 2012 11:20 AM (R5yLq)
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at July 01, 2012 03:15 PM (yFHtF)
Well, good. One hopes your faith is strong enough that you don't need some stranger on the internet to validate it.Posted by: Methos at July 01, 2012 11:20 AM (6LvlL)
1. Nothing in Article 1, Section 8 allows congress to regulate, legislate, or do anything else with regard to health care. It is a State issue.
2. Nothing in the Constitution allows any body of the federal government to force any individual to purchase any product or to engage in commerce.
3. This law is unconstitutional from beginning to end, and is therefore held t be null and void.
Posted by: Vic at July 01, 2012 11:20 AM (YdQQY)
Not sure what religious war has to do with it today. The history is what it is. I think the worship of the Pope is a sin. I think prayers to saints are at best an insult to God since Christ told us to pray directly to the Father, boldly (and it stinks of the Greco-Roman pantheon). I also have no need to do anything about it, and believe Christ's blood is thick enough to cover whichever one of us is wrong.
Posted by: Methos at July 01, 2012 03:14 PM (6LvlL)
Yep now you're just flashing your ignorant bigotry around for everyone to see.
Posted by: buzzion at July 01, 2012 11:21 AM (GULKT)
***
For now.
Posted by: Barack Obama at July 01, 2012 11:21 AM (AUeaU)
Posted by: Scobface at July 01, 2012 11:22 AM (IoNBC)
Posted by: eman at July 01, 2012 11:22 AM (ejmiE)
religious discussion is a pretty bad idea right now. there will always be disagreement on even who G-d is .
let alone how others practice their faith.
Posted by: willow at July 01, 2012 11:23 AM (TomZ9)
Cain v Abel, Judas v Jesus, Arnold v USA
He will live in infamy.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at July 01, 2012 11:23 AM (CP+yl)
Posted by: StuckOnStupid at July 01, 2012 11:24 AM (R5yLq)
Posted by: Vic at July 01, 2012 11:24 AM (YdQQY)
I predict Scalia will slash his tires in October. Also, Roberts just fucked up any chance he has of ever being trusted in his own profession, in particular by those most inclined to be his allies. Oops.
Posted by: Aaron at July 01, 2012 11:24 AM (Tlix5)
Posted by: stare decisis at July 01, 2012 11:24 AM (oZfic)
***
He was actually never much of a supporter of secession.
As an American citizen, I take great pride in my country, her prosperity and her institutions, and would defend any State if her rights were invaded. But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than the dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation. I hope, therefore, that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution.
Posted by: 18-1 at July 01, 2012 11:24 AM (AUeaU)
Posted by: StuckOnStupid at July 01, 2012 11:25 AM (R5yLq)
Posted by: Scobface at July 01, 2012 11:26 AM (IoNBC)
So, are we going to get taxed on not practicing theism or not practicing atheism?
Inquiring minds...
Posted by: Burn the Witch at July 01, 2012 11:26 AM (rX1N2)
Posted by: eman at July 01, 2012 11:26 AM (ejmiE)
If not, then I'll shut up now since I'm not Catholic.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at July 01, 2012 03:20 PM (rX1N2)
The position of the Pope is the position of Peter. So its a position of authority and leadership but not one to worship. There are no prayers to the pope. And if there are some that I am not aware of its likely to be of a nature similar to "prayers" to the Saints, which are actually requests for them to pray for us. Even the Hail Mary is a request for her prayers for us.
Posted by: buzzion at July 01, 2012 11:27 AM (GULKT)
Posted by: Scobface at July 01, 2012 11:27 AM (IoNBC)
Posted by: Vic at July 01, 2012 11:27 AM (YdQQY)
Go easy on those who are saying Roberts is using judicial ju-jitsu, stepping aside to let the ACA fall on its face while breaking the arm of Commerce Clause overreach as it goes by. I think many are just wish-casting, as the head Ewok would say. Most of us do it sometimes, this is a tough thing to come to grips with and they're in denial. Sure there are logical arguments to reach that conclusion (theirs, not Robert's), but (IMO) the premises are rooted in hopes and there are too many "if"s.
A better approach I think is "hey, I think we need to talk. Let's go get a beer. I'll buy."
Posted by: Where're my ping pong balls at July 01, 2012 11:28 AM (YxaXw)
Posted by: StuckOnStupid at July 01, 2012 11:28 AM (R5yLq)
Posted by: buzzion at July 01, 2012 03:27 PM (GULKT)
Gotcha.
Not sure where I came across the part I mentioned, but I read it somewhere reputable (from what my fuzzy memory recalls). Not a religious guy myself, but I try to maintain some knowledge of the biggies.
Most times I fail.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at July 01, 2012 11:30 AM (rX1N2)
Posted by: willow at July 01, 2012 11:30 AM (TomZ9)
***
I'm intrigued why much of the conservative commentariat came to the super secret good idea theory, whereas condemnation from the hoi polloi is almost universal.
Posted by: 18-1 at July 01, 2012 11:31 AM (AUeaU)
Posted by: Clemenza at July 01, 2012 11:31 AM (vuX5p)
It'd be unfair to Bieber to tie him in with Chief Injustice Roberts.
Posted by: Prothonotary Warbler at July 01, 2012 11:32 AM (3yCFy)
---
Maybe try reading the comments.
1.My Lutheran pastor today gave a sermon about the importance of bowing to earthly authority.
2.I told him to go to hell
3. I made specific reference to the history of the Lutheran denomination as a means of pointing out how obviously full of shit he was.
4.chai demands an apology on behalf of all catholics
5. As it was out of line and much later in the discussion, I gave him the back of my hand. Other people whined.
I get that many catholics are being lied to about the possibility of the rest of Christianity returning to be part of your little club, but we left for reasons, mainly that we don't believe your doctrine is true. That hasn't changed. We are not coming back. And we're not going to kiss your asses over it.
Posted by: Methos at July 01, 2012 11:32 AM (6LvlL)
Posted by: Vic at July 01, 2012 11:32 AM (YdQQY)
A better approach I think is "hey, I think we need to talk. Let's go get a beer. I'll buy."
***
everyone print that out for future reference.
Posted by: willow at July 01, 2012 11:32 AM (TomZ9)
Posted by: Dr. Varno at July 01, 2012 11:33 AM (nOAVk)
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at July 01, 2012 11:34 AM (Y5I9o)
Was watching an interview on one of the cable outlets. The lawyer interviewee said that Roberts used the word "dictum" and said the commerce clause thing was a "one time only" thingie. I'll go look for the interview later...when I'm not drinking wine.
Posted by: stare decisis at July 01, 2012 11:35 AM (oZfic)
Posted by: Methos at July 01, 2012 03:32 PM (6LvlL)
But you sure are going to let your bigotry about it Shine through loud and clear.
Posted by: buzzion at July 01, 2012 11:35 AM (GULKT)
Dorecho vs Tornado? Compare and contrast.
Posted by: Vic at July 01, 2012 11:35 AM (YdQQY)
I'm getting pretty excited about the fact that SCOTUS rulings now have the potential to go against us 6-3 now.
SCOTUS: Now with twice the angst!
Posted by: Burn the Witch at July 01, 2012 11:36 AM (rX1N2)
Vacuum tube amplifiers sound better than solid state and have more "presence".
More warmth.
Modern solid state amps have come a long long way in the last 10 years. Tons of seperation and a tremendously quiet soundstage...just a tad dry/cold for some.
But the difference anymore is almost negligable when comparing dollars spent to sound produced. I'd have to spend almost 3 times on a tube amp setup to get an improvement in my system.
Now, if we're talking guitar amps...well, then that's a whole other can of worms.
Posted by: garrett at July 01, 2012 11:36 AM (2aS1X)
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at July 01, 2012 03:13 PM (yFHtF)
Anyone who pays taxes or has a body that will ever need healthcare.
I hope that answers your fucking question.
Posted by: TexasJew at July 01, 2012 11:36 AM (iBGQ2)
Posted by: George Will at July 01, 2012 11:37 AM (IoNBC)
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at July 01, 2012 03:34 PM (Y5I9o)
And the first and last thing you do when entering and leaving church is make the sign of the cross with Holy Water.
Posted by: buzzion at July 01, 2012 11:37 AM (GULKT)
Posted by: willow at July 01, 2012 11:39 AM (TomZ9)
Posted by: Dr. Varno at July 01, 2012 11:39 AM (nOAVk)
Posted by: StuckOnStupid at July 01, 2012 11:40 AM (R5yLq)
Posted by: TexasJew at July 01, 2012 03:36 PM (iBGQ2)"
But who won't realize it until after the election when it will be too late.
Reid/Pelosi aren't as stupid as they seem.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at July 01, 2012 11:40 AM (rX1N2)
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at July 01, 2012 11:40 AM (Y5I9o)
NEVER. HEARD. IT. IN. MY. LIFE.
I can find references only back to about the clinton years. Remember when they brought in all the weather folks? I've never trusted another meteorologist since then. Global warming foorah only made it worse.
It's a fucking storm front jack holes.
A gust front. They get generated by every storm. some are worse than others depending on conditions.
Land hurricane defies the definition. It's just another example of media hype and that you can't trust them as they're entertainers not scientists, not philosophers they're fucking clowns in 3 piece suits.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at July 01, 2012 11:40 AM (CP+yl)
Posted by: eman at July 01, 2012 11:40 AM (ejmiE)
Posted by: Dr. Varno at July 01, 2012 11:41 AM (nOAVk)
Posted by: buzzion at July 01, 2012 03:35 PM (GULKT)
Okay, oh wise sinless one. Please put me some fuckin' knowledge about how I might state my rejection of another denomination's authority over me in a non-offensive manner to members of that denomination.Posted by: Methos at July 01, 2012 11:41 AM (6LvlL)
Posted by: willow at July 01, 2012 11:41 AM (TomZ9)
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at July 01, 2012 11:41 AM (CP+yl)
Posted by: GMan at July 01, 2012 11:42 AM (UkbKS)
Posted by: Lessons from the Ceramic Throne at July 01, 2012 11:43 AM (QpfsD)
Posted by: StuckOnStupid at July 01, 2012 11:43 AM (R5yLq)
She rules over sticky drawers and things you find in them that you
a. know you never bought
b. have no idea what it does
c. always gets stuck so the drawer won't open (but only when you really really need to get something.)
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at July 01, 2012 11:43 AM (CP+yl)
Posted by: Scobface at July 01, 2012 11:43 AM (IoNBC)
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at July 01, 2012 11:43 AM (/i3Yt)
Just a reminder...
The socialists have told us how they intend to defeat capitalism. “The way to crush the bourgeois is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation,” wrote Lenin. “There is only one way to kill capitalism - by taxes, taxes and more taxes,” wrote Karl Marx. “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing what happened,” said Norman Thomas, who ran for public office six times on the Socialist Party ticket (1924-1934). Thomas responded, “The Democrats have put into place plank after plank of the socialist platform, and soon the Republicans will compete with them in a an attempt to gain support from voters who don’t understand what they are doing.”
We were warned.
I wonder why no one took our enemies at their word.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, Rioting Christian at July 01, 2012 11:43 AM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at July 01, 2012 11:44 AM (CP+yl)
Posted by: StuckOnStupid at July 01, 2012 11:44 AM (R5yLq)
In short, given all other things identical, they are the same except: solid state is much more reliable.
Posted by: Vic at July 01, 2012 11:45 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Methos at July 01, 2012 03:41 PM (6LvlL)
How about by not lying about it and referring to it as a cult you pathetic bigotted jackass?
Posted by: buzzion at July 01, 2012 11:45 AM (GULKT)
Posted by: StuckOnStupid at July 01, 2012 11:46 AM (R5yLq)
Posted by: eman at July 01, 2012 11:47 AM (ejmiE)
Posted by: StuckOnStupid at July 01, 2012 11:47 AM (R5yLq)
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at July 01, 2012 11:47 AM (Y5I9o)
He's made threats to my well being and inspired millions to try to take my freedom away.
Plus he's got a faggy little smirk. Can I wipe that smirk from his face your honor?
With a 2x6?
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at July 01, 2012 11:48 AM (CP+yl)
---
I actually did tell my pastor his sermon was a steaming pile of shit today. I chair the board of worship, I'm the music librarian (volunteer), I do all of my volunteering through the church, and I am seriously doubting my future participation there.
And chai wants to pick a fight over a historical reference that I made specifically for the purpose of refuting my pastor's bullshit.
Posted by: Methos at July 01, 2012 11:48 AM (6LvlL)
Posted by: Vic at July 01, 2012 11:48 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: eman at July 01, 2012 11:48 AM (ejmiE)
Posted by: Lessons from the Ceramic Throne at July 01, 2012 03:43 PM (QpfsD)
lovely idea, but what about Peas instead.
or perhaps send him slices of pie, from the people to the Him the Justice DEPT and incare of IRS, size of slice of american pie? how much of GDP will it be?
Posted by: willow at July 01, 2012 11:48 AM (TomZ9)
He has not only done damage to the Constitution, he's damaged the Court.
Yep. I still don't know what his motivation was. I don't think it was for the professed reasons at all. He had to know his rambling, incoherent decision made no sense. He damaged the court, as you say.
Even if you say that SCOTUS should err on the side of not overturning laws, he rewrote the law, which is far more egregious in terms of judicial activism.
This decision has lost legitimacy, I think even on the center left. It's all about Roberts' whim.
Posted by: AmishDude at July 01, 2012 11:48 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: Dr. Varno at July 01, 2012 11:49 AM (nOAVk)
that's a goat that is led up and into the slaughter house to reassure the panicky cattle that everything is okay.
of course the Judas goat's the only one who gets our alive.
John Roberts == Judas goat
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at July 01, 2012 11:49 AM (CP+yl)
Posted by: StuckOnStupid at July 01, 2012 11:50 AM (R5yLq)
In short, given all other things identical, they are the same except: solid state is much more reliable.
Especially for bass amplification. My litte Fender B300C (150 watts at 8 ohms, 300 into 4) is over twenty years old and still going strong. It puts the "solid" in "solid state."
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, Rioting Christian at July 01, 2012 11:51 AM (d0Tfm)
IIRC, you were a big Newt supporter. Who (unlike Romney) is a guy on record as supporting *federal* health care mandates. So? You think that would have weakened Newt as a standard bearer? Or invalidated Newt's pledge to repeal Obamacare?
What's the point of continuing to fight the primaries at this point in time? If Romney loses and/or ACA isn't repealed, there will be time enough for you to go on all the "I told you so" rants you wish. But right now, this is the situation, and these are the stakes, and we have to fight the war with the army that we've got. (IMHO, watching the general election campaigns, I'm glad Santorum isn't our nominee. Let's agree to disagree about that.)
Oh yeah, and pushing the Romneycare = Obamacare meme is a grotesque distortion, misrepresentation, and falsehood, which just aids and abets Dem propaganda. We'll hear a lot of that from Obamabot concern trolls, why join in? It's one thing to make that hyperbolic claim during the primaries (because e.g. you preferred Santorum or Newt to Romney); it's another to do so now (when the stark choice and battle is between Romney and Obama).
As I've said before, if Romney wins, he's not going to be POTUS of MA. He's not going to be POTUS of a state with an overwhelmingly left-liberal legislature that had the power to overrule (and did) virtually every veto on "Romneycare" that Romney tried. Call me Pollyanna (and I promise to eat crow later if I'm wrong), but if Romney has a solidly Republican/ conservative Congress, he'll be a surprisingly conservative POTUS. At least, he'll be a hell of a lot more fiscally conservative than Bush. Regardless of how ideologically conservative (or pragmatist) Romney might be, he's a man who looks at, understands, and acts on the bottom line. He's not a SCOAMF, and he knows very well that for the sake of our nation, Obamacare must go.
Posted by: lael at July 01, 2012 11:51 AM (kfIw+)
Posted by: willow at July 01, 2012 11:51 AM (TomZ9)
Posted by: stare decisis at July 01, 2012 11:51 AM (oZfic)
Posted by: StuckOnStupid at July 01, 2012 11:51 AM (R5yLq)
Posted by: deepelemblues at July 01, 2012 11:52 AM (lFU4D)
Posted by: eman at July 01, 2012 11:52 AM (ejmiE)
Dorecho vs Tornado? Compare and contrast.
Derecho - Multi-state broad straight winds from storm front. e.g. some of everybodies trees get blown one way.
Tornadoe e.g. Circular vortices - visible funnels traveling in lines blow shit everywhere.
Posted by: DaveA at July 01, 2012 11:52 AM (XG53A)
Posted by: breakn70 at July 01, 2012 11:53 AM (bboQL)
I'm more upset about the AZ ruling.
Both decisions contradict each other, and Roberts was on the wrong side of each of them.
There was nothing unconstitutional about SB 1070. And there was nothing in ACA that wasn't unconstitutional. Roberts ruled in favor of centralized government in both cases. Pure politics.
Posted by: Soothsayer at July 01, 2012 11:53 AM (b1VW8)
Ahhh Hayley Mills. My first screen love.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at July 01, 2012 11:54 AM (CP+yl)
And chai wants to pick a fight over a historical reference that I made specifically for the purpose of refuting my pastor's bullshit.
Posted by: Methos at July 01, 2012 03:48 PM (6LvlL)
And yet you felt the need to go full on bigot over it and let out all your intolerance for those who don't worship the same as you do yet you still seem to have a massive chip on your shoulder about it.
Posted by: buzzion at July 01, 2012 11:55 AM (GULKT)
Posted by: eman at July 01, 2012 11:56 AM (ejmiE)
GUST FRONT been around a lot longer. More accurate and descriptive.
It's just pc dave.
you have to stop doing that dave.
or I'll have to close the pod bay doors on your little fingers dave.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at July 01, 2012 11:56 AM (CP+yl)
He only did it because he couldn't get any of the conservatives to go along with keeping the rest of the law.
Then why didn't his opinion read: "On the mandate, it must go. On the rest, it can stay." I don't see any reason why there couldn't be two majorities. Still, his reasoning was idiotic and he made a fool of himself.
Posted by: AmishDude at July 01, 2012 11:57 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: Caunotaucarius at July 01, 2012 11:57 AM (AxE3L)
Posted by: stare decisis at July 01, 2012 11:57 AM (oZfic)
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at July 01, 2012 03:47 PM (Y5I9o)
Amen to that. I said above that Christ's blood was thick enough to cover whichever of us turns out to be wrong. Roman Catholics, at least the ones of faith (I personally know precious few of those which colors my opinion of the institution), are certainly members of the body of Christ. The 'antichrist' reference goes back to some of the founding documents of my denomination and, to my understanding, are more about the office heading the church than any individual in it. It seems like a bad idea to be giving anyone unquestioned authority.But yeah, I didn't need to escalate it and take on all comers.
Posted by: Methos at July 01, 2012 11:58 AM (6LvlL)
and in this corner are the protestents. Equal opportunity burners who specialized in lonely little old ladies accused of something by prepubescent bored little girls.
Okay light your bonfires and torches and come out burning.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at July 01, 2012 11:59 AM (CP+yl)
Posted by: holygoat at July 01, 2012 11:59 AM (auGuV)
Posted by: Scobface at July 01, 2012 11:59 AM (IoNBC)
Posted by: eman at July 01, 2012 12:00 PM (ejmiE)
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at July 01, 2012 12:01 PM (Y5I9o)
Posted by: Bill at July 01, 2012 12:01 PM (cQ6oO)
Posted by: holygoat at July 01, 2012 03:59 PM (auGuV)
It took this, really?
Posted by: cm9000 at July 01, 2012 12:02 PM (lzvtR)
Only in the first 50 years was christianity pure and clear.
once Paul (aka Saul of Tarsus. there's a clue) got ahold of the movement, they never looked back until about the 1500's or so.
Religion made by man == flawed likely to fail and be a tool of the devil
Belief in God == likely to inspire patience, understanding, sympathy and faith.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at July 01, 2012 12:02 PM (CP+yl)
"Oh yeah, and pushing the Romneycare = Obamacare meme is a grotesque distortion, misrepresentation, and falsehood, which just aids and abets Dem propaganda. We'll hear a lot of that from Obamabot concern trolls, why join in? It's one thing to make that hyperbolic claim during the primaries (because e.g. you preferred Santorum or Newt to Romney); it's another to do so now (when the stark choice and battle is between Romney and Obama)."
It may be a distortion misrepresentation and falsehood but, for all political intents and purposes, it's true. The MBM will hammer this, not just the DNC attack ads. Mitt will be put on the defensive over this and he'll only confuse the swing voter who isn't going to note, or even understand the difference.
This stuff has GOT to be talked about to develop a coherent strategy to deal with it. Not that Mitt's team is reading our comment section or anything...
Posted by: Burn the Witch at July 01, 2012 12:02 PM (rX1N2)
Posted by: Reggie1971 at July 01, 2012 02:57 PM (8cOY0)
No.
Posted by: Lessons from the Ceramic Throne at July 01, 2012 12:04 PM (QpfsD)
Posted by: Miss80sBaby at July 01, 2012 12:04 PM (d6QMz)
I am so tired of there never being any consequences for bad behavior anymore. I want Roberts to feel the full legal and social consequences of his churlish act.
This makes me so angry that I'm literally dizzy over it.
Posted by: Otis Criblecoblis at July 01, 2012 12:06 PM (IlZPo)
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at July 01, 2012 04:01 PM (Y5I9o)
I'm not calling him a covert bigot. He let it out pretty openly. Calling Catholics a cult is bigotted. Spouting shit about worshipping the pope is idiotic. Chai's comment was silly and dumb but he could have responded to it a lot better than deciding to let out his bigotry.
Posted by: buzzion at July 01, 2012 12:07 PM (GULKT)
In: Squish Justices who can be manipulated into any ruling to display their "independence."
Posted by: Shawn at July 01, 2012 12:07 PM (/lltO)
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at July 01, 2012 12:07 PM (Y5I9o)
Posted by: eman at July 01, 2012 12:07 PM (ejmiE)
Roberts has in his mind assured the legitimacy of the Court.
We can claim otherwise but we aren't the Federal Government. So unless your READY TO RUMBLE (oh shit this means I'll get sued) then who cares?
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at July 01, 2012 12:07 PM (CP+yl)
Posted by: Otis Criblecoblis at July 01, 2012 12:09 PM (IlZPo)
go out there and tell them to
GET OFF MY LAWN!
You'll feel better.
Especially after the SWAT team comes and takes you to the psycho wing of the local hospital and they inject some nice calming meds.
And it's FREEEEE!
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at July 01, 2012 12:09 PM (CP+yl)
Posted by: lael at July 01, 2012 03:51 PM (kfIw+)
As Roberts knew that?
I deplore Roberts's decision; I think he fucked up. But one thing that comes through more than once in the text of his decision is that Roberts himself appears to think that ACA sucks, as legislation and as policy. As policy, it's a mess that's likely to collapse upon itself; as legislation, it was passed by means of deception and subterfuge (as "penalty" not "tax")-- by a Congress and POTUS lying to the American people.
"It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."
My understanding of his attitude is, sorry the SC can't save you from this monstrosity, you have to find another way to get rid of it. Vote more wisely next time. Especially now that you know "what's in it."
The job of a SC judge and the job of a POTUS are very different. Roberts (wrongly in my view) kicked this unholy mess, still alive, back to voters, Congress and the POTUS. Voters, Congress, and Romney as POTUS may very well fuck it up. But if Obama gets a second term, there's no hope at all.
Posted by: lael at July 01, 2012 12:09 PM (kfIw+)
Posted by: Scobface at July 01, 2012 12:10 PM (IoNBC)
Posted by: eman at July 01, 2012 12:11 PM (ejmiE)
have you read some of my comments?
do you really think I'm concerned with or trying for historical accuracy?
Go get a beer, upper, downer, joint, tan, massage, sausage, and chill.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at July 01, 2012 12:11 PM (CP+yl)
Illegitimacy is in the eyes of the beholder (fuck him).
Maybe it's me being from Alabama and all, but I'm confused about this "legitimacy of the court" talk. It's still legitimate, as we were shown last Thursday, good and hard.
What they are now is "not well liked," with very good reason. All the criticism in the world won't change one thing about the ACA now being law.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, Rioting Christian at July 01, 2012 12:11 PM (d0Tfm)
For a few fleeting moments, I thought we might still have men of principles running loose in the streets.
A party with a majority in the House that can't bring itself to pass legislation canceling the law banning the sale of 100W incandescent bulbs is certainly a force to be reckoned with. I certainly expect them to do as well on the repeal of ObamaTaxCare.
Posted by: Hrothgar (CJSC Designated Serf) at July 01, 2012 12:12 PM (i3+c5)
Posted by: NJRob at July 01, 2012 12:13 PM (FVp26)
They don't care if we think they're illegitimate.
Oh and jeremiad; maybe you should change that nic. I think it's affecting your cranial to funny bone nerve. just saying.
GET A GRIP.
Can't dance. Might as well sing.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at July 01, 2012 12:15 PM (CP+yl)
Posted by: Miss80sBaby at July 01, 2012 12:15 PM (d6QMz)
Posted by: StuckOnStupid at July 01, 2012 12:15 PM (R5yLq)
Posted by: Prothonotary Warbler at July 01, 2012 12:15 PM (3yCFy)
***
Nope. Newt was better then Romney, but that was true of the whole field. Well, maybe not the asshole from Utah.
We've already lost the presidency. Is Romney better then Obama? Of course. He's a leftwing technocrat not a left wing extremist.
But we need change now and Romney locks in 8 years of Obama polices if he wins - including, thanks to Roberts, Obamacare.
Time to rally around a third party candidate and support conservative congress critters. Hopefully the shock of conservatives torpedoing Romney will be enough to finally get the Republican congress to be more afraid of their constituents then the State Media.
It is a long shot, but compared to supporting Romney the whole shot we in fact have.
Posted by: 18-1 at July 01, 2012 12:16 PM (AUeaU)
Time for some pitchforks and scythes.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at July 01, 2012 02:07 PM (CP+yl)
That was Louis the XIV. His successor the 15th said something even more appropriate though, "Apres moi, le deluge." After me, the flood. I think things are going to get really bad the next 10 years.
Posted by: fozzy at July 01, 2012 12:16 PM (FEzSe)
yeah, Obama invited Roberts' dog over for dinner
Posted by: Bob's Country Bunker at July 01, 2012 12:16 PM (Bxm/r)
Posted by: eman at July 01, 2012 12:17 PM (ejmiE)
And they are talking out of both sides of their mouth. They want the illegals, they want the healthcare bill but they don't want the abortions and the birth control. So theymount this pseudo fight and think that the parishioners don't see right through them. When you play both sides against the middle, eventually you are the one who loses. the number of masses on Sunday, which used to be in the upper and lower church every hour on the hour in the church I grew up in are now three masses on Sunday and one on Saturday. They have the "bishop's appeal"....fewer and fewer folks are giving as they found out that the Catholic church is a big funder of ACORN and other things people don't agree with. You assumed your money was going for the poor and those who needed it, here, in your parish and the US and then you find out about ACORN and you get annoyed. They are now publishing the statistics of giving in the bulletin. Every month it goes down. People are angry and they are showing it by walking away from the Church and not donating. They still identify as Catholic but they aren't in the trenches working for and with their local parish. Everyone doing all that work has white hair. When they are gone there will be no one there to do it.
Posted by: stare decisis at July 01, 2012 12:18 PM (oZfic)
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at July 01, 2012 12:20 PM (Y5I9o)
---
Let's not have the circumcision argument again.
Posted by: Methos at July 01, 2012 12:20 PM (6LvlL)
I wish it could happen but the fix is in. We've let them have control for too long and they've changed the rules so subtly that we never realized we're not in the game any longer.
Our votes aren't even paper any more for the most part. How symbolic. They're vapor. easily changed easily erased.
They have achieved a majority; them vs us and we've been outmaneuvered. Our only play is suicidal and they know it. They've been just sly enough and slow enough that the opportunities we had to stop things in their tracks were years ago when times were easier and money flowed like honey.
Now it's tight and it's time to start voting people off the island. Think it's going to be the rich and the powerful?
hah, think again. Peasant.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at July 01, 2012 12:21 PM (CP+yl)
Lay off.
Posted by: NJRob at July 01, 2012 04:13 PM (FVp26)
And I learned in my Catholic religion classes that those who are not Catholic are not damned and guarranteed a spot in hell for simply not being Catholic. The stupidity of others is not excuse for you to let out your own stupidity.
Posted by: buzzion at July 01, 2012 12:21 PM (GULKT)
Posted by: Nancy Lugosi at July 01, 2012 12:22 PM (IoNBC)
If you are going to honestly discuss this kind of stuff you can't be thin skinned about it. He has a right to say whatever he wants, freedom of speech and all that.
Posted by: stare decisis at July 01, 2012 12:22 PM (oZfic)
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at July 01, 2012 12:23 PM (CP+yl)
Posted by: eman at July 01, 2012 12:24 PM (ejmiE)
Posted by: Ruby at July 01, 2012 12:25 PM (QAUe4)
Posted by: Barry Obama, Earle of Cornhole at July 01, 2012 12:25 PM (IoNBC)
---
No, buzzion's right. the use of the word 'cult' among Christian denominations is generally restricted to those one is trying to invalidate. That was farther than the response had any need to go.
Posted by: Methos at July 01, 2012 12:25 PM (6LvlL)
So why ARE protestants damned and guaranteed a spot in hell?
Can I get a window seat?
Or at least a place with a cross breeze? (get it?)
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at July 01, 2012 12:26 PM (CP+yl)
Have Republicans ever made a worse mistake than nominating him back in 2000?
Posted by: Reggie1971 at July 01, 2012 02:57 PM (8cOY0)
when you look back at the primary that year, who wouldve been better? the only way your comment makes sense is if you think bush is on board w/ this decision. roberts had a fair amount of support, most thought he would be good. hindsight is 20/20. and we have probably 20+ years of this crap to look forward to.
Posted by: chas at July 01, 2012 12:26 PM (v6zG0)
Posted by: Judean People's Front at July 01, 2012 12:26 PM (Y5I9o)
The SC took a hit, but the Dems took a bigger one. No post-ACA ruling bump for Barry.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/7wvz5cl
Posted by: mrp at July 01, 2012 12:26 PM (HjPtV)
Posted by: cm9000 at July 01, 2012 04:02 PM (lzvtR)
Oh, don't get me wrong, W's tenure was not something I look favorably upon in general, but his willingness to take the fight in the WOT to the terrorists home turf was always something that tended to balance the scales in my mind, but Roberts changes that completely.
I can see Roberts going full William Brennan at this point, since he is clearly soft enough to abandon what were supposedly his core principals. He's crossed the Rubicon, and his colleagues on the right have shunned him. His friends now are all on the left, and he will likely find comfort with them going forward -- and comfort is clearly a priority for Chief Justice John Roberts.
Posted by: holygoat at July 01, 2012 12:27 PM (auGuV)
It depends on the Protestant communion. The Unitarians have gone full-blown Arian, at best. But the others baptise in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. That means the Church doesn't have to rebaptise a convert in from, say, the Presbyterians.
Mainline Protestants are worshipping falsely, by Catholic standards; likewise vice versa - otherwise they'd all be Catholic. Sharing faiths is a matter of nuance. That last point, that Protestants are "damned", isn't anything I've heard from a reputable Catholic since the 1960s. (Does that mean Tertullian is damned too? He accepted every point of Catholic doctrine except for its hierarchy, iirc.)
Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at July 01, 2012 12:27 PM (QTHTd)
Can anyone identify a major program that Republicans have repealed?
Posted by: Harold at July 01, 2012 12:28 PM (wmfzA)
"Father Leonard Feeney (Lynn, Massachusetts February 18, 1897 – Ayer, Massachusetts January 30, 1978 )[1] was a U.S. Jesuit priest who defended the strict interpretation of the Roman Catholic doctrine, extra Ecclesiam nulla salus ("outside the Church there is no salvation"), arguing that baptism of blood and baptism of desire are unavailing and that therefore no non-Catholics will be saved.[1][2] He fought against what he perceived to be the liberalization of Catholic doctrine." http://tinyurl.com/6zglla
Posted by: stare decisis at July 01, 2012 12:28 PM (oZfic)
Chief Justice Andrew Sullivan.
Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at July 01, 2012 12:28 PM (QTHTd)
I grew up in the definition of hick states and even I knew that Catholics were liberal democrats just like the demon spawn that they birthed from.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at July 01, 2012 12:29 PM (CP+yl)
Posted by: NJRob at July 01, 2012 12:29 PM (FVp26)
don't give up.
listen we move forward as they have been doing for years, but we don't have to move slowly ,as we are Not hiding our intent., we become just as active.
we get into every aspect of influence in public life from the pta to the highest positions we can in govt etc. , we back other conservatives in all these endeavors and in business and news, radio.
Posted by: willow at July 01, 2012 12:30 PM (TomZ9)
Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at July 01, 2012 12:31 PM (QTHTd)
Posted by: NJRob at July 01, 2012 03:12 PM (FVp26)
Posted by: buzzion at July 01, 2012 12:32 PM (GULKT)
This is also true of most Protestants, and most people generally.
Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at July 01, 2012 12:33 PM (QTHTd)
Posted by: stare at cat feces (OZFIC) at July 01, 2012 12:33 PM (zsgo8)
Posted by: NJRob at July 01, 2012 12:33 PM (FVp26)
Posted by: The Political Hat at July 01, 2012 12:33 PM (XYqoq)
Posted by: Ruby at July 01, 2012 12:34 PM (QAUe4)
Posted by: NJRob at July 01, 2012 12:34 PM (FVp26)
Posted by: willow at July 01, 2012 12:35 PM (TomZ9)
Catholic SC Justices dissenting in the ACA ruling:
Scalia - Catholic
Alito - Catholic
Thomas - Catholic
Kennedy - Catholic
What are the odds that the Obamaniks were all set up to campaign against the Catholic Court?
Posted by: mrp at July 01, 2012 12:35 PM (HjPtV)
Gust Front is more generic
Derecho has a specific def., they don't happen a lot and like tornado outbreak seem to be a subset of massive multi-state multi-day heat storm outbreaks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derecho
specifically points to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_Waters_Canadian_derecho
which left a metric fuckton n half in the parks up north near our family summer fishing place. They've been cleaning that up ever since. Including putting a fire out in it 2 summers ago one August Night as Me and Dad was out walleye fishing with a cl215
http: //www.youtube.com/ watch?v=j6DQZ5tbSkg&feature=topics
We watched 20+ circuits, nobody contests right of way with these guys.
Meanwhile my right index finger is retaining fluid and has gone doughboy. So I'm going shopping for a vinyl glove to cutdown as a compression sleeve.
Posted by: DaveA at July 01, 2012 12:35 PM (XG53A)
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at July 01, 2012 12:35 PM (CP+yl)
Posted by: NJRob at July 01, 2012 12:35 PM (FVp26)
You can't, he's at an impregnable fortress and then he goes to his summer house in Maine, where he probably hobnobs (my gram's word) with the Bush's and with his favorite republican female senator, Olympia Snowe. thinking back at what she said during the healthcare debate, Roberts is simply the male version of her, only he will be shunned on the court of which he is the boss. I think he doesn't care.
Posted by: stare decisis at July 01, 2012 12:36 PM (oZfic)
Posted by: Judean People's Front at July 01, 2012 12:36 PM (Y5I9o)
Posted by: NJRob at July 01, 2012 04:29 PM (FVp26)
And I gave my own personal experience on what I was taught in official church teachings pointing out that what you heard there was not what you learn in church. And what they were saying there at that retreat was stupid.
Posted by: buzzion at July 01, 2012 12:36 PM (GULKT)
Posted by: DaveA at July 01, 2012 12:36 PM (XG53A)
This stuff has GOT to be talked about to develop a coherent strategy to deal with it. Not that Mitt's team is reading our comment section or anything...[/]
Agree this presents a political challenge, and that a coherent strategy has to be developed to deal with it. (And here's hoping someone on Mitt's team lurks at least occasionally at AOSHQ.)
Agree the DNC and MBM and concern trolls will hammer this to "confuse the swing voter." All I'm saying is-- why should *we* aid and abet that confusion? It's one thing to reach for the hyperbolic Romney = Obama shorthand during the primaries, because e.g. you wanted Santorum or Newt to win the nomination. But what's the point of using that hyperbolic shorthand distortion now, when the battle is Romney *vs.* Obama?
"Mitt will be put on the defensive"-- but why should Mitt, instead of Obama, be put on the defensive? I never quite understood why this should be a great political handicap for Romney in a general election. I understand how Romneycare would be and was a handicap for Romney during the GOP primaries-- that the other GOP nominees would hit him on that, rightly so. But why and how in the general election? What's the Obama message here? How does Obama use Romneycare *against* Romney? Obama can't use Romneycare *against* Romney, he can only use it defensively-- to defend himself against attacks on Obamacare. They will want to conflate Obamacare and Romneycare-- but for the Dems that only works as defense, not offense.
As offense, such a conflation only works coming from concern trolls-- to depress Republican turnout (don't vote for "Obama lite").
Posted by: lael at July 01, 2012 12:37 PM (kfIw+)
Posted by: danielrego@mad.scientist.com at July 01, 2012 12:37 PM (XYqoq)
Posted by: holygoat at July 01, 2012 04:27 PM (auGuV)
My cheap shot didn't require such a thoughtful response. But it gets thinking again why is it always the Republican appointed SC justices who "grow" and earn strange new respect, and never the Democrat?
Posted by: cm9000 at July 01, 2012 12:38 PM (lzvtR)
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
Posted by: stare at cat feces (OZFIC) at July 01, 2012 12:38 PM (zsgo8)
Posted by: lael at July 01, 2012 12:38 PM (kfIw+)
This whole thing is a CATHOLIC CONSPIRACY!!!
Papists!!! Whores of babylon. Antichrists. (what'd I miss?)
Fascists, jew haters, abominations.
I knew there was something fishy about that whole 9 folks in black dresses and lace collars.
Where's their pointed hats? Devil masks? Pointed tails? Cats?
No wait that's witches they're okay.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at July 01, 2012 12:39 PM (CP+yl)
Posted by: demoncrat at July 01, 2012 12:39 PM (1kwr2)
Posted by: Scobface at July 01, 2012 12:40 PM (IoNBC)
Posted by: StuckOnStupid at July 01, 2012 12:41 PM (R5yLq)
Just ask me : the troll formerly known as curious
Posted by: stare at cat feces (OZFIC) at July 01, 2012 04:40 PM (zsgo
Why don't you read. No one here said a single comment about a "Catholic Conspiracy" but yourself, buzzion.
Posted by: stare decisis at July 01, 2012 12:43 PM (oZfic)
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at July 01, 2012 12:45 PM (Y5I9o)
Basically it will say it's for use on frozen/rusted nuts (sorry)
Spray on the nuts (sorry) and don't let the tire guys crank those lug nuts (the correct term) on so tight with an impact wrench (the thingy that goes zeeeeeee when they take the tire on and off)
Be careful trying to un freeze them. don't use an angled tire wrench (the hockey stick looking kind) they can strip your nuts (sorry) head (sorry again) and make it impossible to remove.
Good luck and good on you for tackling this.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at July 01, 2012 12:46 PM (CP+yl)
Posted by: a NYC hairdresser at July 01, 2012 12:46 PM (nrW1y)
Posted by: Scobface at July 01, 2012 12:47 PM (IoNBC)
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at July 01, 2012 12:47 PM (CP+yl)
Also Liquid Wrench (aerosol spray at most auto parts stores) has worked for me.
Posted by: Hrothgar (CJSC Designated Serf) at July 01, 2012 12:49 PM (i3+c5)
Posted by: Scobface at July 01, 2012 12:50 PM (IoNBC)
Yeah but those aren't real real Catholics.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at July 01, 2012 04:40 PM (CP+yl)
They do actually do that though. Too many people use Catholic to identify themselves in a way that some use Jewish to identify themselves. They have heritage in it but don't follow it. I think it you eliminate those Catholics In Name Only and their conservative/liberal voting tendencies flip heavily into majority conservative voting. I know my heavily Catholic county in Ohio went for McCain 71% with Obama getting only 27.5%
Posted by: buzzion at July 01, 2012 12:51 PM (GULKT)
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at July 01, 2012 12:51 PM (CP+yl)
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at July 01, 2012 12:52 PM (Y5I9o)
Posted by: stare decisis at July 01, 2012 04:43 PM (oZfic)
Get lost you pathetic psychotic stalking troll. That wasn't even a comment from me you braindead skank.
Posted by: buzzion at July 01, 2012 12:53 PM (GULKT)
No one. I repeat No One will ever let you live your previous/current behavior down and with an easily identifiable marker well . . . .
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at July 01, 2012 12:55 PM (CP+yl)
Posted by: NJRob at July 01, 2012 12:55 PM (FVp26)
Posted by: stare decisis at July 01, 2012 04:43 PM (oZfic)
Get lost you pathetic psychotic stalking troll. That wasn't even a comment from me you braindead skank.
Posted by: buzzion at July 01, 2012 04:53 PM (GULKT)
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I GIVE YOU THIS POST AS AN EXAMPLE OF SOMEONE WHO PROFESSES TO BE CATHOLIC, YET VIOLATES ALL THE TENETS OF THE FAITH WITH EVERY NASTY POST HE/SHE MAKES....
LOVELY, YOU ARE A FINE EXAMPLE OF CATHOLICS IN NAME ONLY, BUSSION....
Posted by: stare decisis at July 01, 2012 12:55 PM (oZfic)
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at July 01, 2012 12:55 PM (Y5I9o)
Posted by: The Political Hat at July 01, 2012 12:57 PM (XYqoq)
Posted by: Scobface at July 01, 2012 12:58 PM (IoNBC)
ribbit.
No. I'm getting out of control. time to stop.
He's correct. the person he's addressing is a known troll moby and general ass face acting person. they are identifiable by their hash and use multiple nics. but the personality remains the same.
She/he makes inappropriate comments, threats and say nasty things. Today has been one of the better days. Likes to start trouble and has cats. (we think)
so buzzion is well withing moron guidelines in his vitriol.
over and out.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at July 01, 2012 12:59 PM (CP+yl)
Just sayin'...
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at July 01, 2012 04:55 PM (Y5I9
I'm not exactly interested in being cordial to known trolls that have admitted to "attending" a moron meetup but only to sit across from them and observe those that attended. Its a psychotic stalker and I'll call it what its behavior determines it to be.
Posted by: buzzion at July 01, 2012 01:00 PM (GULKT)
When the lug nuts and stud are really rusted and new ones can't be gotten very soon, take a very small amount of some thread eze and place at the tip of the stud. don't use too much or the torgue set on the nut may be affected. this will help keep them from freezing again.
Get new ones asap though. A broken stud is a b!tch. Get replacement lug nuts larger than the originals so they cover more of the stud thread that will help also and make it less likely to strip the head.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at July 01, 2012 01:03 PM (CP+yl)
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at July 01, 2012 01:03 PM (Y5I9o)
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at July 01, 2012 01:06 PM (Y5I9o)
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
How many times have we been sandbagged?
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at July 01, 2012 01:06 PM (CP+yl)
Posted by: buzzion at July 01, 2012 01:08 PM (GULKT)
Oh kayyyy
hey you got a little smudge there on your nose.
No wait that IS your nose.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at July 01, 2012 01:09 PM (CP+yl)
Posted by: Scobface at July 01, 2012 01:09 PM (IoNBC)
Posted by: the lepers guild of wittenberg at July 01, 2012 01:11 PM (nrW1y)
Posted by: Scobface at July 01, 2012 01:12 PM (IoNBC)
Posted by: Marlborough at July 01, 2012 01:16 PM (u3N3z)
Thread eze is a silvery type of grease (I think has molybdenum in it) that doesn't wash off very easily and won't attract a lot of dirt.
The only thing is that it will change the torgue you apply. since it 'eases' the threads the same torgue will be tighter than before so use the lower end of the range for lug nuts. My car has 80-100 (yeah I know nothing like being exact) ft lbs so I use the 80-90 range.
If the torgue is too tight, some wheels and disks may be over torgued and be twisted. Usually only special wheels and high performance disk brakes are affected. like they say YMMV. do some research for you particular application. I've got a 13 year old k car that's my low rent beater transport. I'd be more careful if it was 2013 porsche or something. Of course THEN I wouldn't have to do my own nuts. (tee hee)
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at July 01, 2012 01:16 PM (CP+yl)
Posted by: buzzion at July 01, 2012 05:08 PM (GULKT)
Do me a favor, stop touting your Catholicism, you are giving the rest of us a bad name.
Posted by: stare decisis at July 01, 2012 01:16 PM (oZfic)
Posted by: The Political Hat at July 01, 2012 01:18 PM (XYqoq)
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at July 01, 2012 01:18 PM (CP+yl)
Posted by: Scobface at July 01, 2012 01:20 PM (IoNBC)
Posted by: stare decisis at July 01, 2012 01:20 PM (oZfic)
Posted by: NJRob at July 01, 2012 01:20 PM (FVp26)
Posted by: buzzion at July 01, 2012 01:20 PM (GULKT)
Or this little piggy.
and patty cake is right out.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at July 01, 2012 05:11 PM (CP+yl)
Bobbing for Apples and Twister are probably bad ideas too.
Posted by: buzzion at July 01, 2012 01:21 PM (GULKT)
Posted by: Scobface at July 01, 2012 01:24 PM (IoNBC)
Posted by: Scobface at July 01, 2012 01:25 PM (IoNBC)
Posted by: chai at July 01, 2012 01:28 PM (+3xW/)
There's no evidence Chief Justice John Roberts knows or cares anything about blogs, talk radio or any other source of information where right wing views and the facts right wingers consider relevant would be found.
Chief Justice John Roberts has said he has no over-arching, consistent philosophy. Whichever way the winds of respectable public opinion blows, he has nothing firm to put against it.
At most, he calls balls and strikes. But who wants to forfeit his good name among the respectable people, that is the (left wing) mass media establishment, over a ball or a strike?
Lighten up, it's just a game! Life goes on, as long as you've got your health and your good reputation with people that matter.
Posted by: Daybreaker at July 01, 2012 01:29 PM (wnEgH)
Posted by: stare decisis at July 01, 2012 04:42 PM (oZfic)
---
You didn't read my post, troll.
Posted by: mrp at July 01, 2012 01:44 PM (HjPtV)
Posted by: stare decisis at July 01, 2012 04:42 PM (oZfic)
---You didn't read my post, troll.
Posted by: mrp at July 01, 2012 05:44 PM (HjPtV)
I did and my post still stands, if you are so obtuse that you can't figure it out there is no hope for you.
Posted by: stare decisis at July 01, 2012 01:58 PM (oZfic)
Posted by: steevy at July 01, 2012 02:09 PM (Xb3hu)
Posted by: toby928© at July 01, 2012 02:20 PM (QupBk)
Posted by: stare decisis at July 01, 2012 05:58 PM (oZfic)
'stare decisis' = Latin, for 'let the decision stand'.
Once again, mission accomplished....in being intentionally irksome.
Posted by: wheatie at July 01, 2012 02:25 PM (MbB0O)
Posted by: buzzion at July 01, 2012 02:30 PM (GULKT)
Posted by: stare decisis at July 01, 2012 05:58 PM (oZfic)
'stare decisis' = Latin, for 'let the decision stand'.
Once again, mission accomplished....in being intentionally irksome.
Posted by: wheatie at July 01, 2012 06:25 PM (MbB0O)
Roberts is a huge fan on "stare decisis".....next week when you are trying to get back on board and trying to get people back in love, it will remind them not to fall back in love, they'll be stabbed in the back again.
Posted by: stare decisis at July 01, 2012 02:31 PM (oZfic)
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at July 01, 2012 04:55 PM (CP+yl)
Even if the troll gets a new hash, it is so easy identifiable in its comments, it's figured out pretty quickly.
Posted by: pint at July 01, 2012 02:34 PM (7g1yh)
I don't know, the way they were talking the last time wasn't the same as this time. I've had quite a few folks tell me "they can always cheat"...and make comments about how "Roberts would find a way to make it acceptable". That's vastly different from the last time around. Way more bold and in your face.
BTW, if you listen to the call in shows. Folks self identifying as "tea partiers" are saying their one worry, is that the dems/libs will cheat.
Posted by: stare decisis at July 01, 2012 02:34 PM (oZfic)
Posted by: buzzion at July 01, 2012 02:36 PM (GULKT)
Posted by: buzzion at July 01, 2012 06:36 PM (GULKT)
Get lost you pathetic pseudo latin rite Catholic.....
haha ask me if I care what you think>>>>
Posted by: stare decisis at July 01, 2012 02:37 PM (oZfic)
Posted by: buzzion at July 01, 2012 02:38 PM (GULKT)
Posted by: buzzion at July 01, 2012 06:38 PM (GULKT)
Two of my best friends are orthodox, have never been anti semetic, but the three of us just had a good laugh on you....
Hey but you are a lucky person, my priest friend is now reading your posts....
Posted by: stare decisis at July 01, 2012 02:40 PM (oZfic)
Posted by: stare decisis at July 01, 2012 02:41 PM (oZfic)
Posted by: buzzion at July 01, 2012 02:42 PM (GULKT)
Guess you don't like yourself very much, it shows.
Posted by: stare decisis at July 01, 2012 06:41 PM (oZfic)
Nobody knows the trouble I've seen, nobody knows the sorrow..
Posted by: ErikW at July 01, 2012 02:54 PM (jLL0v)
I can't help but wonder what Roberts (I won't use an honoriffic for him any more) has been promised in the upcoming People's Republic?
Or what he was threatened with.
Posted by: Advo at July 01, 2012 02:56 PM (t3EpL)
578....Roberts is a huge fan on "stare decisis".....next week when you are trying to get back on board and trying to get people back in love, it will remind them not to fall back in love, they'll be stabbed in the back again.
Posted by: stare decisis at July 01, 2012 06:31 PM (oZfic)
--------------
Yet again, (oZfic) admits that it comes here on a mission....to stir shit up, agitate, and cause discord amongst...."them".
Posted by: wheatie at July 01, 2012 03:03 PM (MbB0O)
Because we don't have rocks for brains like you clearly do.
Posted by: Earl at July 01, 2012 03:10 PM (nGLuq)
578....Roberts is a huge fan on "stare decisis".....next week when you are trying to get back on board and trying to get people back in love, it will remind them not to fall back in love, they'll be stabbed in the back again.
Posted by: stare decisis at July 01, 2012 06:31 PM (oZfic)
--------------
Yet again, (oZfic) admits that it comes here on a mission....to stir shit up, agitate, and cause discord amongst...."them".
Posted by: wheatie at July 01, 2012 07:03 PM (MbB0O)
Really, or is that your mission? I'm so sick of motives being impued to me that only exist in your minds.
I'm an independent. You don't like me cause I don't agree with you. I'm not a conservative but I'm not a lib/dem either. Nor a republican. I am part of the growing group of Americans who would like to see both parties dissolved so that we can start again, with a new batch of tea party nominees.
You sew enough discord among you without my help.
I mean, you aren't allowed to point out that Roberts is not the conservative you all touted him as? We aren't allowed to point out that many of us do not trust mittens with the repeal of this horrendously burdonsome law? We aren't allowed to point out that some of your alleged conservatives and republicans deviate from their alleged ideology? What's the point of hosting a site like this if people aren't allowed to discuss and disagree without personally attacking another poster?
Posted by: stare decisis at July 01, 2012 03:14 PM (oZfic)
Posted by: stare decisis at July 01, 2012 03:15 PM (oZfic)
Posted by: buzzion at July 01, 2012 03:17 PM (GULKT)
Posted by: buzzion at July 01, 2012 06:42 PM (GULKT)
You are totally nuts.....it's a little frightening....
Posted by: stare decisis at July 01, 2012 03:17 PM (oZfic)
Posted by: buzzion at July 01, 2012 03:25 PM (GULKT)
Posted by: pint at July 01, 2012 04:07 PM (7g1yh)
Posted by: NJRob at July 01, 2012 04:31 PM (FVp26)
Posted by: NJRob at July 01, 2012 04:31 PM (FVp26)
Posted by: MDr at July 01, 2012 04:35 PM (WZT1d)
Posted by: chai at July 01, 2012 05:36 PM (+3xW/)
Don't know any Carmelites, just Domicans, Marianists, Jesuits and some Holy Cross Brothers.
With all due respect, I agree with NJ Rob, we have a lot of cafeteria Catholics out there. They identify Catholic but they never really think about what it means to be a Catholic and how difficult it is to truly follow the faith.
Posted by: stare decisis at July 01, 2012 06:13 PM (oZfic)
You could be Greek Orthodox or Russian Orthodox but I'm thinking you are the new brand of Catholic who wants to go back to the latin mass and forget that Vatican II ever occurred.
Posted by: stare decisis at July 01, 2012 06:32 PM (oZfic)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at July 01, 2012 07:28 PM (i330i)
Posted by: dogfish at July 01, 2012 07:40 PM (N2yhW)
Thu 28 Jun 12 | 10:53 AM ET"
http://tinyurl.com/6qdn6xk
More and more I wish he were running. He gets it.
Interesting the Australian host parrots the democratic talking points and Rand Paul completely avoids his stupid question and continues to make his case.
Posted by: stare decisis at July 01, 2012 08:09 PM (oZfic)
Legal: legal [ at ] zerohedge.com
Posted by: stare decisis at July 01, 2012 08:37 PM (oZfic)
Posted by: chai at July 02, 2012 02:53 AM (+3xW/)
Yes the Latin Mass is beautiful, especially when sung. Have you noticed that they have made changes to our regular mass? Ostensibly to make the words closer to the original languages but I notice the people resisting. They don't want to say the changes. But, out of no where, in my church at least, comes "Agnus Dei"...which everyone knows or can easily learn. I knew there were going to be changes, there were all over the world. But, they didn't do a great job telling the faithful about the coming changes. They just sprang it on everyone, said the mass was changed, and hoped for the best. It's just adding to the inability to bring them in and keep them in the seats.
Tony Blair left office and immediately converted to Catholicism. Was expecting the same from GWB. Still think that conversion is coming.
"Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccáta mundi, miserére nobis.
Lamb of God, you take away the sin of the world: have mercy on us.
Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccáta mundi, miserére nobis.
Lamb of God, you take away the sin of the world: have mercy on us.
Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccáta mundi, dona nobis pacem.
Lamb of God, you take away the sin of the world: grant us peace."
Luciano: http://tinyurl.com/6qyefp7
Posted by: stare decisis at July 02, 2012 04:35 AM (oZfic)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2866 seconds, 739 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: Cicero at July 01, 2012 09:41 AM (6j180)