June 25, 2012
— Gabriel Malor So today is hopefully the big day. Aside from Obamacare (which, don't get cocky) and U.S. v. Arizona (again, don't get cocky) the Court has four other argued cases pending. In a normal year, three of these would be major cases on everyone's radar, but they've been kind of drowned out by the two big cases.
United States v. Alvarez, on the constitutionality of the Stolen Valor Act. This one is a free speech case asking whether Congress violated the First Amendment by criminalizing lies about whether a person has received military medals or other honors.
Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs, on the constitutionality of life sentences for juvenile offenders. These are two cruel and unusual punishment cases asking whether it is permissible to sentence a fourteen year-old to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
The fourth case, First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards is about mortgage kickbacks and everyone's favorite issue: standing.
We will certainly have coverage when the Supreme Court starts issuing this morning at 10 Eastern.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at
03:33 AM
| Comments (400)
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.
Wow... everybody check out today?
It will be interesting to see what decisions the current court pukes up. With Kennedy in the mix it's always a toss up these days.
Whatever happens, I hope these big cases help folks remember what's at stake here. Obie cannot be allowed to pick another SCOTUS justice. It would be ummitigated disaster. You'd see 20 high profile cases a year, all aimed at accomplishing Leftist social revolution that was impossible for them via the ballot box.
Posted by: Reactionary at June 25, 2012 03:48 AM (xUM1Q)
Posted by: HoboJerky, profit of DOOM! at June 25, 2012 03:50 AM (ePYQF)
Posted by: nickless at June 25, 2012 03:59 AM (MMC8r)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 25, 2012 04:06 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: San Antonio Rose at June 25, 2012 04:07 AM (noqys)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 25, 2012 04:07 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: moki at June 25, 2012 04:08 AM (dZmFh)
Posted by: nickless at June 25, 2012 04:08 AM (MMC8r)
Are we talking a town "Jackson" or a person? And if it's a person, please tell me his name is Calivn. Because that would be awesome.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 25, 2012 04:08 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: San Antonio Rose at June 25, 2012 04:09 AM (noqys)
Posted by: Anna Puma at June 25, 2012 04:10 AM (jiPkH)
The Constitution? Wuzzat? I'd be surprised if all nine of the Supremes have even read all of it, much less that all of them consider it binding on their pronouncements. Sotomayor and Kagan are particularly suspect in this regard; I suspect both consider Bark Obama's Will as paramount.
Posted by: MrScribbler at June 25, 2012 04:11 AM (MQc8e)
She'll be rolled into session with a massive drug cocktail hooked up to her if a (R) is in the White House, just watch. She'll never quit.
Posted by: lowandslow at June 25, 2012 04:11 AM (GZitp)
Posted by: Anna Puma at June 25, 2012 04:12 AM (jiPkH)
You mean she will import from Cuba a Fidel Castro robo-tracksuit?
Posted by: Anna Puma at June 25, 2012 04:13 AM (jiPkH)
Posted by: Mr Pink at June 25, 2012 04:13 AM (4L9Qj)
Posted by: Charlie Gibson's wrinkled marble sack at June 25, 2012 04:13 AM (mxnUd)
Why stop there? Lying to fabricating documentation about military service in order to scam the US taxpayers into paying the frauds' military benefits.
The corruption of government business is the biggest and fastest growing monopolizing industry in America. As with Medicaid/medicare, easy come, easy go with the allocation of tax funds.
Posted by: maverick muse at June 25, 2012 04:14 AM (BAnPT)
Was just thinking of you watching the weather channel. You ok there? Tornadoes in your area.
Morning all!
Posted by: Tami at June 25, 2012 04:16 AM (X6akg)
Posted by: Sean at June 25, 2012 04:17 AM (E0rp6)
Posted by: nickless at June 25, 2012 04:17 AM (MMC8r)
For instance, the new blogger who's inserted himself into the Burger King bullshit not only pretended to be a Brig. General, but attended funerals and got work in Iraq because of it.
Can a person claim to be a policeman? an FBI agent? part of the Secret Service?
Nobody tells a lie such a these without expecting a gain.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 25, 2012 04:19 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: Vegan Meatball at June 25, 2012 04:22 AM (mxnUd)
Yeah, but not always financial gain, and, even then, the law (as I understand it) only makes it a crime to pretend you're a police officer if you attempt to exert the authority of same.
Claiming you were ex-SWAT to get a job will probably get you fired, once you're found out, but I don't think it carries criminal charges.
I completely agree that claiming to be a veteran, when you aren't, is low, and claiming awards you never won is even lower, but I don't know that they should be crimes in themselves.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 25, 2012 04:24 AM (8y9MW)
Stolen Valor Act might have been better as a fraud law. Basically passing yourself off as a military veteran to gain benefits like hiring preference for federal jobs, if someone is found guilty of such tack on $100k in fines and 10 years without parole.
It is the lowest of the low just ask Blumenthal the phony Vietnam vet who is a Democrat.
Posted by: Anna Puma at June 25, 2012 04:24 AM (jiPkH)
United States v. Alvarez - Unfortunately SVA will be struck down and needs to be re-crafted.
Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs - Expect a lot of legal dissembling and talk about circumstances. It won't be outright "cruel and unusual" it will be qualified, but permissible.
ObamaCare - Struck down whole cloth. It's a house of cards and justices will not try to rewrite it.
U.S. v. Arizona - Mostly found to be constitutional. Again, expect some discussion of qualifications/circumstances.
Posted by: EXILE at June 25, 2012 04:25 AM (O0lVq)
Speaking of rain, all praying morons might want to include the whole state of Colorado in their prayers for a while. Their State seems to be on fire.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 25, 2012 04:25 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 25, 2012 08:07 AM (piMMO)
There is such a thing as the proverbial bad seed. Though in my view, if something is so vile that life in prison is a suitable punishment, then the best thing to do is execute the offender. If a so-called "child" is capable of those heinous crimes, it's still the best thing to do. Unfortunate, but necessary.
Posted by: Reactionary at June 25, 2012 04:26 AM (xUM1Q)
Posted by: Anna Puma at June 25, 2012 04:26 AM (jiPkH)
Posted by: Why is drinking Coors like making love in a canoe? at June 25, 2012 04:27 AM (mxnUd)
I find myself agreeing. I'm not a fan of the death penalty for children, and I'm a stout believer that Redemption is always possible. However, if society has decided that something a child has done is so heinous that the only answer to protect society is to keep that child locked away forever, then it's better just to execute them.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 25, 2012 04:28 AM (8y9MW)
*****
Thanks for asking. We've been getting bands through here since Saturday with periodic storms and some gusts, and we're a long away from the storm itself. It will be like this most of the week unless it make a turn to the west.
We are under a tornado watch until this afternoon but local meteorologists say the chances are low.
Our Central and Southwest Florida morons are catching the brunt of it right now.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 25, 2012 04:28 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: ???? at June 25, 2012 04:29 AM (7+pP9)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 25, 2012 08:24 AM (8y9MW)
Agreed. Not all sleazy behavior can/should be criminalized. The prisons are over-full as it is. And our society isn't even that serious about punishing crimes against persons - crimes that hurt people. Spending court time on these reprobates seems like a misuse of resources.
Posted by: Reactionary at June 25, 2012 04:29 AM (xUM1Q)
moki's right. Fraud has never been protected speech. I suppose the fact that the SVA criminalizes the falsehood instead of requiring some type of confidence imparted or damages incurred from the party hearing the lie makes a difference, but I cant see what it would be.
Posted by: imp at June 25, 2012 04:30 AM (LrHKJ)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 25, 2012 04:30 AM (MCDCp)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 25, 2012 08:28 AM (8y9MW)
For me, it falls under what I call the "Old Yeller" principle of law. Old Yeller couldn't help that he went rabid. Wasn't his fault. He was truly a product of his environment. But he was still a serious danger to the health/lives of those around him, and he had to be put down. It was regrettable, but life is that way sometimes.
Posted by: Reactionary at June 25, 2012 04:31 AM (xUM1Q)
I don't like the Stolen Valor act.. I'm a bit of a free speech purist.
As offensive as it is, it shouldn't be a criminal act.
Posted by: Ben at June 25, 2012 04:31 AM (C2Y4l)
Nope, I missed that one.
I'll point out that a forest fire in the areas where they would actually take off do not make a good weapon of terror. We hate that they happen, and they're devastating to the people who live in their path, but a) they're really hard to direct, so they may do no good to set and b) they're not always that hard to put out (often, yes, but not always).
I can see AQ suggesting it in a "throw stuff against the wall" sort of way, but not because they think it would be terribly effective.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 25, 2012 04:32 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 25, 2012 04:33 AM (MCDCp)
Actually, let me add to my previous post. If the person lying about military service is financially benefiting from that lie, then he's committing fraud and it should be treated as fraud.
But if it's just some punk who talks about his military service in bars or buys and wears fake metals, then that shouldn't be against the law. Anyone who does that is pathetic and their own life is punishment enough.
Posted by: Ben at June 25, 2012 04:33 AM (C2Y4l)
I'll point out that a forest fire in the areas where they would actually take off do not make a good weapon of terror.
We beg to differ.
Posted by: Japanese Baloon Bombers at June 25, 2012 04:34 AM (7+pP9)
Posted by: nickless at June 25, 2012 04:34 AM (MMC8r)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 25, 2012 04:35 AM (MCDCp)
Wow... everybody check out today?
Posted by: Reactionary
Emotionally, yes. In our hearts we've got the fear that, even if we win a resounding victory today, any gains will eventually be bi-partisaned away.
Also, we don't even get to cheer, because Boehner and company have told us "no spiking the ball".
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at June 25, 2012 04:35 AM (kdS6q)
There was some genuine concern about the unbounded power the Thing concedes to the federal government...even from Sotomayor.
The lefties are on the verge of swallowing their tongues...and if it goes against us, I want to hear their rationalizations about all the venom flung at the Supremes in the run up.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at June 25, 2012 04:35 AM (B+qrE)
Also, we don't even get to cheer, because Boehner and company have told us "no spiking the ball".
Yes, because I take direction from that guy. Please.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at June 25, 2012 04:36 AM (B+qrE)
Posted by: Thunderb at June 25, 2012 04:37 AM (Dnbau)
Posted by: Japanese Baloon Bombers at June 25, 2012 08:34 AM (7+pP9)
I had those bastards right where I wanted them...
Posted by: Wild Bill Kelso at June 25, 2012 04:37 AM (B+qrE)
Posted by: Vegan Meatball at June 25, 2012 04:38 AM (mxnUd)
Posted by: Nancy Pelosi at June 25, 2012 04:38 AM (iYvMQ)
Since we're killing time right now, I'll repost this from the dead thread:
Is this something?:
DNC Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz Getting Booted
Back in April, the Shark Tank floated the likelihood that Democratic National Committee Chairwoman (DNC) Debbie Wasserman Schultz was perhaps on her way out as DNC Chairwoman. We now have learned that Wasserman Schultz will not be back as DNC Chairwoman after the November elections.
According to our source within the Democratic Party, who is also a close associate of Wasserman Schultz, the arrangements have already been made for her to leave DNC regardless if President Obama wins re-election or not.
http://tinyurl.com/8383syb
Who will miss her the most?
Posted by: Ed Anger at June 25, 2012 04:39 AM (7+pP9)
For instance, I read a comment one time that there must be 5 million ex Navy Seals from all the people claiming that status. Or take the case of that lying shitweasel in Connecticut Dick Blumenthal lying about his service in Vietnam. He still got elected to the Senate. These are lies too, no? Why should popping on a medal be much worse than these lies?
And by much worse, I do mean criminalized. So I hope the law is struck down. Let public outing and shaming be the preferred method of slapping these turds around. We don't need more criminal laws.
My .02 worth. And yes, I have room temp pudding on standby for the OblablaCare ruling.
Posted by: GnuBreed at June 25, 2012 04:39 AM (ccXZP)
Posted by: Nancy Pelosi at June 25, 2012 08:38 AM (iYvMQ)
Of all the great moments, and there would be many, this would be the greatest.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at June 25, 2012 04:39 AM (B+qrE)
Posted by: Mr Pink at June 25, 2012 04:40 AM (4L9Qj)
As I said (and no one has corrected me, so I'm running with it), I'm pretty sure "impersonating a police officer" is only a crime when you do so to exert the authority or exploit the trust (and not just in a "getting laid" sort of way) that a police officer has.
Claiming to be a cop and pulling people over? Crime.
Claiming to be a cop so someone will buy you beer and you can get laid? Not a crime.
Claiming to be a decorated war veteran for monetary gain? We already have laws against fraud.
Claiming to be a decorated war veteran so someone will buy you beer and you can get laid? Should not be a crime.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 25, 2012 04:40 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 25, 2012 04:41 AM (MCDCp)
Somewhat related:
Who else thinks Issa is waiting for Holder to deny the existence of something that he already has in hard copy?
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at June 25, 2012 04:42 AM (B+qrE)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 25, 2012 04:42 AM (MCDCp)
Nancy Pelsoi, "WWAAAHHH!! They actually read it!! WAARRAACCIISSTT!!!"
Followed by Nancy melting into a puddle.
Posted by: Anna Puma at June 25, 2012 04:42 AM (jiPkH)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 25, 2012 04:42 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Vegan Meatball at June 25, 2012 04:42 AM (mxnUd)
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at June 25, 2012 04:42 AM (B+qrE)
Posted by: Mama AJ at June 25, 2012 04:42 AM (SUKHu)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 25, 2012 04:43 AM (MCDCp)
Posted by: Anna Puma at June 25, 2012 04:43 AM (jiPkH)
****
The child was born to a 12year old mother then suffered terrible abuse. He is textbook for a serial killer.
Prior to killing his 2 year old sibling, he had already broken his leg.Then he was found to be sexually molesting his other sibling.
Even the photos are revealing. You don't see the fear of a child facing jail, instead, you look into his eyes and see two things: rage and death. That kid is dead inside.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 25, 2012 04:43 AM (piMMO)
Which is scummy, and low. People who do such things should be reviled. But I don't think that should be against the law, either.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 25, 2012 04:43 AM (8y9MW)
Okay... obviously I missed something. What?
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 25, 2012 04:44 AM (8y9MW)
Free speech should not mean being free from consequences.
Posted by: Anna Puma at June 25, 2012 04:45 AM (jiPkH)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 25, 2012 04:45 AM (piMMO)
And I'm not admitting to a secret stash of any utensils...
Posted by: Mama AJ at June 25, 2012 04:46 AM (SUKHu)
Posted by: Anna Puma at June 25, 2012 04:46 AM (jiPkH)
Posted by: Vegan Meatball at June 25, 2012 04:47 AM (mxnUd)
I'm also pretty much an absolutist on free speech.
However, if a stolen valor idiot happened to find himself in the middle of a Rolling Thunder procession...I'd advocate for their free speech rights, too.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at June 25, 2012 04:47 AM (B+qrE)
Posted by: DangerGirl at June 25, 2012 04:47 AM (DS2Ry)
Fox News broadcasting from a street just around the corner from me. We're already flooding.
You're safe until Jim Cnatore shows up. Then run like hell.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at June 25, 2012 04:48 AM (B+qrE)
Posted by: Anna Puma at June 25, 2012 04:48 AM (jiPkH)
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at June 25, 2012 04:49 AM (oVvUa)
Agreed. But fined or thrown in jail? Nope, can't see it.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 25, 2012 04:49 AM (8y9MW)
Our Central and Southwest Florida morons are catching the brunt of it right now.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 25, 2012 08:28 AM (piMMO)
=======================
Well stay safe!
Posted by: Tami at June 25, 2012 04:50 AM (X6akg)
Posted by: How does this thing work? at June 25, 2012 04:50 AM (7+pP9)
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at June 25, 2012 08:48 AM (B+qrE)
He's in Panama City at the moment......
Posted by: Tami at June 25, 2012 04:50 AM (X6akg)
Posted by: Mama AJ at June 25, 2012 04:50 AM (SUKHu)
I ended up leaving the thread before my rage got the best of me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_H._Lemmen
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 25, 2012 04:51 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: Retread at June 25, 2012 04:51 AM (I2fq9)
If the Court strikes down the individual mandate, I hope they strike the whole law. Just because people say striking the individual mandate makes the law unworkable does not take the law off the books. All the taxes and regulations and unfettered power granted to the HHS remain. Expecting Congress to repeal or fix the remainder of the law doesn't seem realistic.
Posted by: Nash Rambler at June 25, 2012 04:52 AM (vXucy)
If Obama does win on that the MSM will declare the election over - no need to vote - obama wins.
The weird part is that if Obamacare is overturned the economy will surge which will help Obama.
Posted by: Bill Mitchell at June 25, 2012 04:52 AM (hlUJY)
Posted by: Anna Puma at June 25, 2012 04:53 AM (jiPkH)
Posted by: HoboJerky at June 25, 2012 04:53 AM (ePYQF)
Posted by: Laurel vs. Hardy at June 25, 2012 04:53 AM (tcFym)
http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=138168
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 25, 2012 04:55 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: moki at June 25, 2012 08:08 AM (dZmFh)
Well not to get too far afield, if the police have the ability to lie to you during questioning, then I can't see how a lie could not be protected speech. Something always unsettles me when I think about the fact that law enforcement can lie without recrimination but if we do the same it's jail time for us.
Posted by: Lone Marauder, pre-denounced for your convenience SMOD 2012 at June 25, 2012 04:55 AM (eHBHk)
And I agreed with that. My comment was aimed at any who might still think Stolen Valor should be constitutional, as-is. I don't think it should.
Someone mentioned it being a sort of "kicker" in other cases, and I'd be okay with that, actually. Then the "crime" isn't saying that you're a war veteran, it's whatever the crime was- claiming military honors you never received is then more of an "aggravating circumstance."
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 25, 2012 04:58 AM (8y9MW)
The difference between a normal lie and perjury is that you don't go around taking a recorded verbal oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in every day life. Perjury isn't just about the lie, it's about (in essence) breaking a contract with the government.
I have every right to tell falsehoods. I even have every right to tell falsehoods with the intent that others will believe me. If I do so for monetary gain, we already have laws on the books against fraud. If I do it to get some other benefit, then there may be civil penalties, but there aren't (unless some other crime was committed) criminal ones.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 25, 2012 05:02 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 25, 2012 05:03 AM (8y9MW)
72DWS is a hotty. It's the crazy eyes that does it for me. I'd love to be whispering sweet nuttin's, knowing she could stick her tail stinger thru my neck at any moment.<<<<
That was awesome.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 25, 2012 05:04 AM (9yoHz)
Clearly they are not representatives of We The People.
Posted by: Fritz at June 25, 2012 05:05 AM (/ZZCn)
Posted by: Hopped up on Something at June 25, 2012 05:05 AM (bVT5I)
Hank. Johnson.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 25, 2012 05:07 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Anna Puma at June 25, 2012 05:08 AM (jiPkH)
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at June 25, 2012 05:11 AM (IEUSX)
Like the "hate crime" modifier prosecutors tack on if your victim is black or gay?
Posted by: Kinder, Gentler HeatherRadish™ at June 25, 2012 05:11 AM (/kI1Q)
Posted by: Vic at June 25, 2012 05:12 AM (YdQQY)
I have a bad feeling about this guy. That we have seen him. What do you think?
Posted by: Anna Puma at June 25, 2012 05:12 AM (jiPkH)
Posted by: Vegan Meatball at June 25, 2012 05:13 AM (mxnUd)
With the not so minor exception that claiming honors you didn't receive is an actual act which can be proven or disproven. Yes.
"Hate crimes" are bad because they require the jury to read the defendant's mind, and they assume guilt: that is, the defendant has to attempt to prove he didn't act based on "hate." Claiming to be something you aren't- such as a former SEAL is something that can be affirmatively shown.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 25, 2012 05:14 AM (8y9MW)
I have a nagging feeling we are in for some sort of nasty surprise on Obamacare.
Posted by: Bill Mitchell
I suggested that if he loses, Obama will just executive order everyone on to Medicare and dare the congress to not raise the taxes to keep the program from going bust.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at June 25, 2012 05:15 AM (kdS6q)
Posted by: HoboJerky, profit of DOOM! at June 25, 2012 05:17 AM (ePYQF)
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at June 25, 2012 09:15 AM (kdS6q)
How would that even be legal? Could he then Executive order all student loans paid off? or Mortgages? Seems an executive order should have nothing to do with spending money
Posted by: Red Shirt at June 25, 2012 05:18 AM (FIDMq)
Posted by: Vegan Meatball at June 25, 2012 05:18 AM (mxnUd)
To reiterate, today is the only day on which the Court is scheduled to sit to release opinions (as well as orders from last week's Conference), but it is very, very possible that it will add at least one more day. We don't know whether that will happen or what days they would be; the conventional wisdom is that they will finish up by Thursday at the latest, though.
Posted by: Vic at June 25, 2012 05:19 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Nash Rambler at June 25, 2012 08:52 AM (vXucy)
if the individual mandate is struck down, what about single payer, what are the differences in legal speak?
i agree taxes regulations . govt given the right to make decisions for me. i pray it's all struck down.
Posted by: willow at June 25, 2012 05:19 AM (TomZ9)
At some point it is cruel and unusual.
Posted by: HoboJerky, profit of DOOM! at June 25, 2012 09:17 AM (ePYQF)
That is why we have juries and not 9 black robes deciding guilt.
Posted by: Vic at June 25, 2012 05:19 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: sifty at June 25, 2012 05:20 AM (p39GY)
How would that even be legal?
Since when has the law mattered to him? He's been sidestepping the law ever since the GM bailout.
Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at June 25, 2012 05:20 AM (JxMoP)
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/06/how-did-jonathan-turley-come-up-with-19.html
Posted by: Anna Puma at June 25, 2012 05:20 AM (jiPkH)
... Well not to get too far afield, if the police have the ability to lie to you during questioning, then I can't see how a lie could not be protected speech.
...
Posted by: Lone Marauder, pre-denounced for your convenience SMOD 2012 at June 25, 2012 08:55 AM (eHBHk)
Lie to an FBI agent or Grand Jury, or even "misremember", and you'll find your ass in jail.
Posted by: Scooter Libby at June 25, 2012 05:20 AM (7+pP9)
Whatever they did to be convicted of a felony that carries a life-no-parole sentence was cruel, too.
Posted by: Kinder, Gentler HeatherRadish™ at June 25, 2012 05:23 AM (/kI1Q)
Posted by: food tester at June 25, 2012 05:23 AM (oZfic)
A real hot button for me.
Flag burning is in NO WAY an expression of free speech. It is wilful and malicious desecration of our national symbol, and by extension a denial of this country and that which it was founded on.
I have once had someone attempt to burn a flag in my presence, and still have that flag in my possession. Don't care a bit about how you may dance around with the subject, it is bad law, and must be rectified.
Posted by: irongrampa at June 25, 2012 05:24 AM (SAMxH)
Since when has the law mattered to him? He's been sidestepping the law ever since the GM bailout.
Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at June 25, 2012 09:20 AM (JxMoP)
i would say libya was an indication of his propensity to break and wreak havoc on following predictable standards.
Posted by: willow at June 25, 2012 05:24 AM (TomZ9)
If they strike down the whole law you will hear Democrats howling about the loss of preventive care, the loss of the "keep your kid on your insurance until they're 26", the loss of "no pre-existing conditions," and any other issue that polls well. They won't take about the mandate. Following this, Boner and his bumbling crew will talk about how there were some good things in the law but the Democrats were never interested in finding common ground, etc., and how we need to start over and good a good law that helps everyone, yadda yadda yadda. And then maybe shed a few tears.
Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at June 25, 2012 05:24 AM (JxMoP)
Posted by: Billy Bob, the guy who drinks in SC at June 25, 2012 05:26 AM (yl043)
That's why I'm trying to preempt them. Those things are terrible, and will destroy the health insurance industry.
And, as sanguine as some people are about that notion, remember that what won't happen is that we'll go back to everyone paying their own way- no, we'll move to single payer toot-sweet.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 25, 2012 05:27 AM (8y9MW)
In DC two blocks from Supreme Court, might head over to see the show
Take a football just in case.
Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at June 25, 2012 05:27 AM (JxMoP)
Posted by: willow at June 25, 2012 05:27 AM (TomZ9)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 25, 2012 05:27 AM (8y9MW)
I thought that was insane. My post from yesterday:
And speaking of the WaPO they want to resurrect efforts to pack the court again, aka FDR. This is an incredibly bad article by an idiot.
I have an idea, lets expand the court drastically and remove appointment of justices from Washington and assign it to the States. Each State gets one justice to be assigned as they see fit. Also add the provisions that any justice can be recalled at any time for any reason given a vote of 60% in their home State or 75% nationwide.
Posted by: Vic at June 25, 2012 05:28 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: nickless at June 25, 2012 05:30 AM (MMC8r)
At some point it is cruel and unusual.
****
Then you set a review period at 21 years of age: full psych eval, etc...
I have serious doubts that a 12 year old who breaks bones, sexually abuses a sibling, and eventually kills a two year old is going to be reformed. In fact, I bet he promptly injures someone in juvy.
His tragic life may have destroyed him, which is a crying shame, but destroyed he is nonetheless.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 25, 2012 05:31 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 25, 2012 05:31 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: willow at June 25, 2012 09:19 AM (TomZ9)
****
Not speaking as a lawyer, but the end game for the left is government as the single payer. There would be no need for insurance companies and their unnecessary profits. Presumably it would be funded from taxing 49% of the people at a 110% tax rate.
Posted by: Nash Rambler at June 25, 2012 05:33 AM (vXucy)
That's why I'm trying to preempt them. Those things are terrible, and will destroy the health insurance industry.
And, as sanguine as some people are about that notion, remember that what won't happen is that we'll go back to everyone paying their own way- no, we'll move to single payer toot-sweet.
What's tragic is that if the system actually was "pay your own way" you would probably see a lot of these things tried. Companies would assess the situation and if there's money to be made, someone will offer a plan. Even the "keep your kid on your plan" option because that's no different than auto insurance. You want to insure your 30 year old son on your auto insurance, knock yourself out. I am guessing that the main reason this has never applied in health insurance is because in most cases the employer is paying most of the bill and they aren't willing to pay for adult children who should already be employed and covered under their own employer's plan.
Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at June 25, 2012 05:34 AM (JxMoP)
Posted by: phoenixgirl, team dagny at June 25, 2012 05:35 AM (Ho2rs)
This. Cruel and Unusual had much more to do with brandings and public torture than it had to do with the death penalty or any type of incarceration. If the point of the Justice System is to protect society from those of its members who would abuse the protection society provides (I largely believe it is), then the fact a monster is only 12 years old may be very sad, but it makes them no less a monster, and makes it no more "cruel" for society to protect itself from him than it would be to execute at 24 year old, or a 44 year old.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 25, 2012 05:35 AM (8y9MW)
Tour de France I guess? And "Frank!!" sounds too much like Hot Lips and Ferret Face..
Posted by: Anna Puma at June 25, 2012 05:37 AM (jiPkH)
Actually, exactly the opposite. You should really read my posts (no, really) but the short version is that employers would love to do that- having adults between the ages of 19 and 25 or so is incredibly good for your group's risk distribution.
The insurance companies don't offer that, because they need those young adults on private plans, or on "Fully Insured" group plans to help spread their own risk.
However, if it was "pay your own way" what you would see is a lot of other cost savings. Things like a la carte plans, and the old "Major Med" or "Umbrella" policies.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 25, 2012 05:39 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Thunderb at June 25, 2012 05:39 AM (Dnbau)
Posted by: Barak Obama, remixed at June 25, 2012 05:41 AM (RLTt1)
Posted by: Barak Obama, remixed at June 25, 2012 05:42 AM (RLTt1)
Posted by: food tester at June 25, 2012 05:42 AM (oZfic)
Posted by: Lauren at June 25, 2012 05:43 AM (Lp4Go)
Posted by: Underground Vulgarian at June 25, 2012 05:43 AM (SI8HJ)
It IS another step in the process of nationalizing healthcare in the US and another step in the overall conversion of the US into a communist country.
Posted by: Vic at June 25, 2012 05:43 AM (YdQQY)
Gonna lose a lot of federal revenue if there's no evil corporation profits (or stock profits, or shareholder dividends) to tax.
Pinkos don't think shit through--yeah, I know, we're all shocked.
Posted by: Kinder, Gentler HeatherRadish™ at June 25, 2012 05:44 AM (/kI1Q)
Pinkos don't think shit through--yeah, I know, we're all shocked.
Posted by: Kinder, Gentler HeatherRadish™ at June 25, 2012 09:44 AM (/kI1Q)
Not to mention the number of insurance company employees laid off.
Posted by: Tami at June 25, 2012 05:45 AM (X6akg)
If they just strike down the mandate and leave the rest, the taxes and regulations are in place. Obama and his crew will leave them in place. Congress won't get rid of them because the Senate is full of squishes. Obama and crew will gladly let the remnants of the law bankrupt us, and then declare the ensuing crisis requires single payer.
This is my prediction of what will happen. I think the individual mandate will be struck down 6-3 (one of the libs will surprise us on that). However, Kennedy will search for his sack, find it's not there, and vote with the libs 5-4 that the law is severable and so everything else that's bad will survive.
Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at June 25, 2012 05:45 AM (JxMoP)
A lot more than that would remain in place. There are Hella provisions for persuading you to make better health care choices in the name of saving all of us tax dollars on your health expenditures. Think Bloomberg on steroids and given the Constitutional seal of approval for all of his whims.
Posted by: Barak Obama, remixed at June 25, 2012 05:46 AM (RLTt1)
Posted by: Underground Vulgarian at June 25, 2012 05:46 AM (SI8HJ)
All those people released from their evil greedy corporate jobs, free to pursue their creative hobbies, hang out at soup kitchens, and spend more time with their cats. That's a win, wingnuts!
Posted by: Kinder, Gentler HeatherRadish™ at June 25, 2012 05:47 AM (/kI1Q)
Not to mention the other "poison pills." Dependent coverage, pre-existing coverage, guaranteed issue. Those three things, if left alone and no mandate will absolutely destroy the insurance industry leading to (yep, you guessed it) single payer.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 25, 2012 05:47 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Anna Puma at June 25, 2012 05:48 AM (jiPkH)
Don't forget the 100+ new federal bureaucracies, over half of which discriminate based on race or gender.
Posted by: Kinder, Gentler HeatherRadish™ at June 25, 2012 05:48 AM (/kI1Q)
Posted by: Underground Vulgarian at June 25, 2012 05:49 AM (SI8HJ)
****
The statement from his own public defender:
Mason said his client was at a disadvantage from day one, after being born to a 12-year-old mother, Susana, now his co-defendant. Fernandez was physically and mentally abused by many adults in his life, said Mason.
But he admitted his client should be off the streets for now. "Right now, probably society wouldn't be safe." emphasis mine
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 25, 2012 05:49 AM (piMMO)
LOL, standing, how does that work. Based on the case involving Chrysler and the Indiana retirement fund with preferred stock it means what ever the assholes on a federal court decide. Of course, if the retirement fund is paid off by the crooked SOBs in this administration using out money so they will not take it to a higher court it doesn't get a chance.
Posted by: Vic at June 25, 2012 05:50 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Hanging in There at June 25, 2012 05:50 AM (7+pP9)
Posted by: Anna Puma at June 25, 2012 05:51 AM (jiPkH)
Posted by: nickless at June 25, 2012 05:51 AM (MMC8r)
Posted by: Lemming of the BDA at June 25, 2012 05:51 AM (tcFym)
Posted by: The cow at June 25, 2012 05:51 AM (O/RV5)
Can't help but agree with you. Even so, it appalls me that these Black-Robed Lords see it as their duty to find what isn't there. If it doesn't say -- in so many words -- that "this provision is severable," how the hell can Kennedy or any other member of the Court find that it is?
In my yoot, when I studied stuff, it was my understanding that the Supremes' role was to rule on the Constitutionality of what was placed before them. If they find it within their power to make shit up out of thin air, they are no better than Bark Obama.
Posted by: MrScribbler at June 25, 2012 05:52 AM (MQc8e)
On the SVA, where the Medal of Honor is concerned, recipients get several benefits (higher pension, uniform allowance, etc.), so couldn't somebody impersonating that one at least be charged with attempted fraud (to receive the benefits)?
Posted by: Zharkov at June 25, 2012 05:52 AM (tpm8m)
I'm going with 4.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 25, 2012 05:52 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Kinder, Gentler HeatherRadish™ at June 25, 2012 09:44 AM (/kI1Q)
****
Just curious, does Kinder, Gentler mean you have decided to let your bosses live?
Posted by: Nash Rambler at June 25, 2012 05:52 AM (vXucy)
Posted by: Red Shirt at June 25, 2012 05:52 AM (FIDMq)
Posted by: nickless at June 25, 2012 05:53 AM (MMC8r)
Those three things, if left alone and no mandate will absolutely destroy the insurance industry leading to (yep, you guessed it) single payer.
The sad part is that the mandate was going to do that over time while removal of the mandate just speeds everything up, although I suppose that could be better in that a slow train wreck gets people accustomed to bad ideas and makes it more difficult to remove them. What infuriates me is that everything about this is so predictable: this law was from the start intended to fail in its stated purpose (reform of the system) while at the same time it would succeed in its actual purpose (destruction of the private system so as to replace it with a 100% public system).
Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at June 25, 2012 05:53 AM (JxMoP)
Posted by: Anna Puma at June 25, 2012 05:54 AM (jiPkH)
I dunno about plan. Maybe an instinctual thing. You know, I've met the County guy in charge of implementing the social/legislative aspects of ObamaCare - the heinous arm-twisty "we're gonna make your lives miserable for your own good" parts - and he's the kind of guy that won't talk to anyone who isn't part of his project. No good morning, doesn't acknowledge you're in the room, nada. But you get him talking and its all about fine control based on 'science', dude. Total gauleiter.
Posted by: Barak Obama, remixed at June 25, 2012 05:54 AM (RLTt1)
187 I predict Ocare will be the last case and will be delivered paper airplane method as they bolt for the exits
Posted by: Red Shirt
***
I agree, the Court will be long gone in undisclosed locations when Ocare decision is handed down.
Posted by: David of PA at June 25, 2012 05:55 AM (tPdIW)
My guess: depends on whether she'd still have a job without them.
Posted by: Retread at June 25, 2012 05:56 AM (I2fq9)
Okay, so 6 pending decisions, plus announcement of Cert for next session. What's the over/under on how many decisions we actually get today?
I'm going with 4.
Same here. They'll announce the cases that Malor highlighted above. The two that everyone's interested in will be announced on Wednesday or Thursday.
Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at June 25, 2012 05:57 AM (JxMoP)
Posted by: Lincolntf at June 25, 2012 05:57 AM (HethX)
Posted by: Soothing Soap Opera Voiceover at June 25, 2012 05:58 AM (uy2sX)
Posted by: Underground Vulgarian at June 25, 2012 05:58 AM (SI8HJ)
Posted by: Anna Puma at June 25, 2012 05:58 AM (jiPkH)
Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at June 25, 2012 09:57 AM (JxMoP)
Wouldn't want to draw it out or dramatize it now would they?
Posted by: Red Shirt at June 25, 2012 05:58 AM (FIDMq)
It's a nightmare.
Posted by: NEPA Dissident at June 25, 2012 05:58 AM (7+pP9)
At the moment, I need them to lean on the people three weeks behind on my inputs.
Posted by: Kinder, Gentler HeatherRadish™ at June 25, 2012 05:59 AM (/kI1Q)
I hope SCTOUS says "We can't understand this mess so we are striking it all down. And remand it all back to Congress to be reworked."
Posted by: Anna Puma at June 25, 2012 06:00 AM (jiPkH)
Posted by: rockmom at June 25, 2012 06:00 AM (NYnoe)
Posted by: Lincolntf at June 25, 2012 06:00 AM (HethX)
Posted by: polynikes at June 25, 2012 06:01 AM (32Scy)
Yes. He talked about how "the difficult" things are the kinds of things we "need to do", like taking away kids that are obese, prosecuting wilful smokers etc. He intends to begin in the poorest areas of our city in order to achieve parity of life expectancy with the suburbs. Its kind of like the 'broken windows' approach to law enforcement applied to healthcare.
Posted by: Barak Obama, remixed at June 25, 2012 06:02 AM (RLTt1)
Posted by: Break the Blog at June 25, 2012 06:02 AM (7+pP9)
Yes. He talked about how "the difficult" things are the kinds of things we "need to do", like taking away kids that are obese, prosecuting wilful smokers etc. He intends to begin in the poorest areas of our city in order to achieve parity of life expectancy with the suburbs. Its kind of like the 'broken windows' approach to law enforcement applied to healthcare.
--------
And at Nuremberg he will merely say he was following orders. Mein Gott.
Posted by: Anna Puma at June 25, 2012 06:03 AM (jiPkH)
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at June 25, 2012 06:03 AM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: Break the Blog at June 25, 2012 10:02 AM (7+pP9)
If the hamsters ace uses survived the election, their server should survive
Posted by: Red Shirt at June 25, 2012 06:03 AM (FIDMq)
Posted by: Tami at June 25, 2012 06:03 AM (X6akg)
Posted by: Vic at June 25, 2012 06:04 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Greg at June 25, 2012 06:04 AM (bN5ZU)
That is absolute bull shit. Kennedy hates punishing crime.
Posted by: Vic at June 25, 2012 06:05 AM (YdQQY)
And Greg is full of shit!
Posted by: Tami at June 25, 2012 06:05 AM (X6akg)
Posted by: Greg at June 25, 2012 10:04 AM (bN5ZU)
Why don't you go gargle a gargantuan bucket of penises?
Posted by: Lone Marauder, pre-denounced for your convenience at June 25, 2012 06:06 AM (/bVuS)
Posted by: maddogg at June 25, 2012 06:06 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: Kinder, Gentler HeatherRadish™ at June 25, 2012 06:07 AM (/kI1Q)
Posted by: Anna Puma at June 25, 2012 06:07 AM (jiPkH)
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at June 25, 2012 06:08 AM (d0Tfm)
In an unrelated note, I'm nervous as fuck.
Posted by: JC at June 25, 2012 06:08 AM (KDDG+)
He intends to begin in the poorest areas of our city in order to achieve parity of life expectancy with the suburbs. Its kind of like the 'broken windows' approach to law enforcement applied to healthcare.
Perhaps not coincidentally, it's also the part of the city that is the least likely to cause problems for the government. Those people don't vote and don't give money to political campaigns, so they government will roll over them and not give it a second thought.
Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at June 25, 2012 06:08 AM (JxMoP)
Posted by: grognard, team dagny at June 25, 2012 06:08 AM (NS2Mo)
Posted by: Mr Pink at June 25, 2012 06:08 AM (4L9Qj)
Well, if it's upheld, this means Tea Party fever has to return. Better for the party imo.
Posted by: HoboJerky, profit of DOOM! at June 25, 2012 06:08 AM (xAtAj)
Posted by: Waterhouse at June 25, 2012 06:08 AM (Brjev)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 25, 2012 06:09 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: grognard, team dagny at June 25, 2012 10:08 AM (NS2Mo)
Well they can still go to prison for 25+ years. Plenty of time out of the game. I really doubt it will change change behavior.
Posted by: HoboJerky, profit of DOOM! at June 25, 2012 06:09 AM (xAtAj)
Posted by: Kinder, Gentler HeatherRadish™ at June 25, 2012 10:07 AM (/kI1Q)
***
Yeah, better to just follow trusted folks on Twitter. I don't care if I have to wait an extra 30 seconds to learn the decision.
Posted by: Nash Rambler at June 25, 2012 06:09 AM (vXucy)
Posted by: Brother Cavil presents at June 25, 2012 06:10 AM (GBXon)
Posted by: HoboJerky, profit of DOOM! at June 25, 2012 06:11 AM (xAtAj)
Posted by: food tester at June 25, 2012 06:11 AM (oZfic)
Posted by: The Most Interesting Man in the World at June 25, 2012 06:11 AM (ngD76)
Posted by: eman at June 25, 2012 06:11 AM (ejmiE)
Posted by: Kinder, Gentler HeatherRadish™ at June 25, 2012 10:07 AM (/kI1Q)
same here
i am predisposed towards negative feoutcomes/feelings in the last couple of years
Posted by: willow at June 25, 2012 06:11 AM (TomZ9)
Well, I guess all gang-bangers now know (even more than before) to get their killing out of the way while they are minors.
Or the state just changes its laws on how much time must be served before being eligible for parole, then sentence the little bastards to life and keep them ineligible for parole until they're in their 60s.
Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at June 25, 2012 06:11 AM (JxMoP)
Posted by: Brother Cavil presents at June 25, 2012 06:12 AM (GBXon)
But I don't want eveyone sucking each others dicks anyway. Just on principle.
Posted by: eleven at June 25, 2012 06:12 AM (KXm42)
Posted by: indigo child at June 25, 2012 06:12 AM (xXhWA)
Young teens just became even more valuable to gang recruiters.
Posted by: Kinder, Gentler HeatherRadish™ at June 25, 2012 06:13 AM (/kI1Q)
Posted by: Brother Cavil presents at June 25, 2012 06:13 AM (GBXon)
Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at June 25, 2012 06:15 AM (Ec6wH)
Posted by: The littl shyning man at June 25, 2012 06:15 AM (PH+2B)
Posted by: grognard, team dagny at June 25, 2012 06:16 AM (NS2Mo)
Posted by: ChampionCapua at June 25, 2012 06:16 AM (KZi9D)
Posted by: Anna Puma at June 25, 2012 06:16 AM (jiPkH)
Posted by: Tami at June 25, 2012 06:17 AM (X6akg)
Posted by: The Most Interesting Man in the World at June 25, 2012 06:17 AM (ngD76)
Posted by: Various State and Local Political Operatives at June 25, 2012 06:17 AM (kqqGm)
Posted by: Brother Cavil presents at June 25, 2012 06:17 AM (GBXon)
Posted by: maddogg at June 25, 2012 06:17 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: Tami at June 25, 2012 06:18 AM (X6akg)
/sarc
Posted by: Lone Marauder, pre-denounced for your convenience at June 25, 2012 06:18 AM (/bVuS)
Posted by: eleven at June 25, 2012 06:19 AM (KXm42)
It was improper for the lower courts to enjoin Section 2(B), which requires police officers to check the legal status of anyone arrested for any crime before they can be released.
-----
Posted by: Anna Puma at June 25, 2012 06:19 AM (jiPkH)
Posted by: nickless at June 25, 2012 06:19 AM (MMC8r)
Posted by: Tami at June 25, 2012 06:20 AM (X6akg)
Posted by: Tami at June 25, 2012 06:20 AM (X6akg)
So says commenter on scotusblog.
Posted by: MrScribbler at June 25, 2012 06:20 AM (MQc8e)
Posted by: Anna Puma at June 25, 2012 06:21 AM (jiPkH)
There are ongoing proceedings on Section 2(B) and whether it involves racial profiling; that issue was NOT before the Court today.
Posted by: Tami at June 25, 2012 06:21 AM (X6akg)
Posted by: mama winger at June 25, 2012 06:21 AM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: eman at June 25, 2012 06:21 AM (ejmiE)
Posted by: mejoresturkey at June 25, 2012 06:21 AM (PeB4U)
Justice Scalia would uphold the Arizona statute in toto.
Posted by: Tami at June 25, 2012 06:21 AM (X6akg)
Justice Scalia would uphold the Arizona statute in toto."
.....via liveblog SCOTUS
Posted by: food tester at June 25, 2012 06:22 AM (oZfic)
Posted by: Paul Zummo at June 25, 2012 06:22 AM (Ud5vq)
Posted by: Dirks Strewn at June 25, 2012 06:22 AM (VLifP)
Posted by: MaureenTheTemp at June 25, 2012 06:22 AM (4/5f7)
...what?
Posted by: Brother Cavil presents at June 25, 2012 06:22 AM (GBXon)
The "check your papers" piece seems to stand, which is a big thing. I'm not sure what the sections they struck down were, though, so I don't know for sure.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 25, 2012 06:23 AM (8y9MW)
Plain english on AZ,
The Feds govern immigration, including whether or not to enforce the law.
Concurrent jurisdiction over immigration crimes took a dive
Posted by: imp at June 25, 2012 06:23 AM (LrHKJ)
Attention whores
Posted by: Tami at June 25, 2012 06:23 AM (X6akg)
Posted by: Underground Vulgarian at June 25, 2012 06:23 AM (SI8HJ)
Posted by: Lone Marauder, pre-denounced for your convenience at June 25, 2012 06:24 AM (/bVuS)
via liveblog
Posted by: food tester at June 25, 2012 06:24 AM (oZfic)
Reuters used the phrase "defeat for Obama" on Twitter.
Barry has four campaign events today.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/schedule/president
Posted by: Kinder, Gentler HeatherRadish™ at June 25, 2012 06:24 AM (/kI1Q)
Posted by: Brother Cavil presents at June 25, 2012 06:24 AM (GBXon)
Posted by: Sotomayor at June 25, 2012 06:24 AM (BAnPT)
Posted by: soothing soap opera voiceover at June 25, 2012 06:25 AM (hNLFW)
Posted by: Paul Zummo at June 25, 2012 06:26 AM (Ud5vq)
Posted by: Tonic Dog at June 25, 2012 06:26 AM (X/+QT)
Attention whores
They are still human beings after all, subject to the same frailties that we all have. There also may be a "get the hell out of Dodge" factor involved.
Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at June 25, 2012 06:26 AM (JxMoP)
Thus ends today's sweat session
Posted by: Brother Cavil presents "Waiting for Godot, SCOTUS Edition" at June 25, 2012 06:26 AM (GBXon)
Justice Scalia began his dissent by saying that he would uphold all parts of the Arizona law. ----
Posted by: Anna Puma at June 25, 2012 06:26 AM (jiPkH)
Posted by: Thunderb at June 25, 2012 06:26 AM (Dnbau)
The AZ opinion is a loss for us. Complete occupation of the field = complete preemption. Not even complimentary laws.
Posted by: imp at June 25, 2012 06:26 AM (LrHKJ)
Justice Scalia is not only dissenting from the bench, but he has produced a written copy of the bench statement for the press. It is 7 pages long.
Posted by: Tami at June 25, 2012 06:27 AM (X6akg)
...what?
----
My take on this is if an illegal crosses the border into Texas then moves to New Jersey, the crime, illegal entry, was committed in Texas and not in New Jersey. Further, it is a federal crime, not a state crime, so a federal court would have to try it.
Posted by: WalrusRex at June 25, 2012 06:27 AM (Hx5uv)
Justice Scalia is not only dissenting from the bench, but he has produced a written copy of the bench statement for the press. It is 7 pages long.
Posted by: Anna Puma at June 25, 2012 06:27 AM (jiPkH)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 25, 2012 10:23 AM
Read the opinion. A quick scan suggests -- hell, it SCREAMS -- that the Feds have full power over immigration, so fuck you, Arizona.
Also, SB1070 can be revisited, so they'll weed out the last racist, Anti-Our-Brown-Brothers provision next year.
Posted by: MrScribbler at June 25, 2012 06:27 AM (MQc8e)
so can we have a brief synopsis of what transpired re AZ?
you know, in i'm a 6 year old language?
Posted by: willow at June 25, 2012 06:27 AM (TomZ9)
Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at June 25, 2012 10:26 AM (JxMoP)
Wait....you mean they're NOT 'Supreme'?!
Posted by: Tami at June 25, 2012 06:28 AM (X6akg)
via liveblog
Posted by: food tester at June 25, 2012 06:28 AM (oZfic)
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at June 25, 2012 06:28 AM (/kI1Q)
Posted by: Waterhouse at June 25, 2012 06:28 AM (Brjev)
Posted by: Tami at June 25, 2012 06:28 AM (X6akg)
Posted by: davidinvirginia at June 25, 2012 06:29 AM (tuyMA)
Posted by: joncelli, heartless Con and all around unpleasant guy at June 25, 2012 06:29 AM (RD7QR)
so if the Feds have complete power over immigration should the FED than be held responsible for for any costs , criminal or financial that the decision brings/
can we all collectively sue the fed for jobs loss, or tax hikes or criminal activity brough about by the decion like election law, fraud in voting etc?
Posted by: willow at June 25, 2012 06:29 AM (TomZ9)
Don't give them ideas, dammit.
Posted by: trainer in Jersey at June 25, 2012 06:29 AM (IVoJS)
Posted by: Paul Zummo at June 25, 2012 06:29 AM (Ud5vq)
Posted by: eman at June 25, 2012 06:30 AM (ejmiE)
Illegals can do as they damn please, since the wonderful Federal Government is in charge of the laws and all. Never mind that the Feds can't be bothered to {i]enforce the laws.
Arizona can check illegals' papers, but they can't take any action on what they find.
Posted by: MrScribbler at June 25, 2012 06:30 AM (MQc8e)
Yahoo headline says the SCOTUS "gutted" the AZ immigration law. Others say Obama suffered a defeat. WTF?
Can someone please descipher the legalese for us English-only speakers?
Posted by: Jaws at June 25, 2012 06:30 AM (4I3Uo)
Assuming Roberts authors the majority opinion on healthcare, that doesn't tell us much as to how it will be decided. It could be he is leading a 5-4 in favor of striking Obamcare in whole or in part, or it could be that Kennedy took the liberal position and Roberts wanted to make sure it was crafted as narrow as possible. Stay tuned. Thanks for keeping the country in suspense Supreme Court. Just release the opinion already.
Posted by: SH at June 25, 2012 06:31 AM (gmeXX)
Wait....you mean they're NOT 'Supreme'?!
It is pretty silly, isn't it? It's almost like these people are some ancient oracles and we are expected to await breathlessly while our betters read the signs and tell us what everything means.
Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at June 25, 2012 06:31 AM (JxMoP)
Posted by: talk about a tease at June 25, 2012 06:31 AM (HOOye)
Posted by: Brother Cavil presents at June 25, 2012 06:31 AM (GBXon)
On net, the #SB1070 decision is a significant win for the Obama Administration. It got almost everything it wanted.
Posted by: Anna Puma at June 25, 2012 06:32 AM (jiPkH)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 25, 2012 06:32 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: Roman Polanski at June 25, 2012 06:32 AM (KwWC/)
On net, the #SB1070 decision is a significant win for the Obama Administration. It got almost everything it wanted.
Posted by: Tami at June 25, 2012 06:32 AM (X6akg)
Posted by: food tester at June 25, 2012 06:32 AM (oZfic)
Posted by: SH at June 25, 2012 06:33 AM (gmeXX)
Posted by: Killface at June 25, 2012 06:33 AM (BDd0G)
Almost no chance that Justice Kagan will recuse from health care, having participated in the case all along.
Posted by: Anna Puma at June 25, 2012 06:33 AM (jiPkH)
Posted by: eman at June 25, 2012 06:33 AM (ejmiE)
via liveblog
Posted by: food tester at June 25, 2012 06:34 AM (oZfic)
Posted by: weft cut-loop at June 25, 2012 10:31 AM (famk3)
They struck down everything but the paper check, and even then they will allow it to come back up to them and it will have to be narrowly applied (according to SCOTUSblog). I count that a total loss but I might be a bit of a pessimist.
Posted by: joncelli, heartless Con and all around unpleasant guy at June 25, 2012 06:34 AM (RD7QR)
Posted by: Tami at June 25, 2012 06:34 AM (X6akg)
As part of Scalia's statement in dissent, he is commenting on the president's announcement about suspending deportation of illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children -- something that was not part of the case.
Posted by: Anna Puma at June 25, 2012 06:34 AM (jiPkH)
Posted by: Thunderb at June 25, 2012 06:35 AM (Dnbau)
Posted by: talk about a tease at June 25, 2012 06:35 AM (HOOye)
Posted by: Anna Puma at June 25, 2012 06:37 AM (jiPkH)
Posted by: Underground Vulgarian at June 25, 2012 06:37 AM (SI8HJ)
Posted by: Islamic Rage Boy at June 25, 2012 06:37 AM (e8kgV)
Posted by: SH at June 25, 2012 06:37 AM (gmeXX)
Discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces immediate human concerns. Unauthorized workers trying to support their families, for example, likely pose less danger than alien smugglers or aliens who commit a serious crime.
WTF does that have to do with whether or not the law is being enforced???
"feelings, got to have feelings" Hey you fking idiot, the purpose of the SC is ot to determinewherther a law is 'good" or whether a law is "fair". It is to determine if the law is Constitutional and if so, is it being enforced correctly.
Posted by: Vic at June 25, 2012 06:37 AM (YdQQY)
via liveblog...
Posted by: food tester at June 25, 2012 06:39 AM (oZfic)
Posted by: Retread at June 25, 2012 06:39 AM (I2fq9)
SCOTUSblog
Posted by: Anna Puma at June 25, 2012 06:39 AM (jiPkH)
Posted by: talk about a tease at June 25, 2012 06:39 AM (HOOye)
From the opinion authorship, health care is almost certainly being written by CJ Roberts, perhaps in part with Justice Kennedy.
Doesn't the majority write the opinion?
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 25, 2012 06:39 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: SH at June 25, 2012 06:41 AM (gmeXX)
Posted by: joncelli, heartless Con and all around unpleasant guy at June 25, 2012 06:41 AM (RD7QR)
Posted by: food tester at June 25, 2012 06:41 AM (oZfic)
Or another Eeyore spaz with no sense of proportion...
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at June 25, 2012 06:41 AM (famk3)
Posted by: Vic at June 25, 2012 06:42 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: exdem13 at June 25, 2012 06:42 AM (1GunI)
Posted by: eman at June 25, 2012 06:43 AM (ejmiE)
Posted by: chemjeff at June 25, 2012 06:47 AM (LK3ef)
Posted by: eman at June 25, 2012 06:48 AM (ejmiE)
Posted by: eman at June 25, 2012 06:50 AM (ejmiE)
Posted by: Mainah at June 25, 2012 06:51 AM (659DL)
http://tinyurl.com/6o6cuc4
Posted by: food tester at June 25, 2012 06:53 AM (oZfic)
"Scalia: If securing its territory
in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we
should cease referring to it as a sovereign State."
Hell, the states haven't been particularly soverign since the Wilson administration. Some would say it died in the Civil War.
While we're at it, the name "United STATES" is getting to be as accurate as the "DEMOCRATIC Peoples' REPUBLIC of (North) Korea".
I'm thinking "Obamastan" has a nice ring to it.
Posted by: Jaws at June 25, 2012 06:59 AM (4I3Uo)
Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2012 07:05 AM (Xb3hu)
*Delurking*
At the glacial rate they're issuing months old rulings, these fossils could issue their decrepit decision in time to be announced at the State of The Union 2013 speech, or maybe with the commencement of the 2016 X Games Half Pipe competition.
This ass draggery is ridiculous. Get it over with, one way or the other, you ass dragging bureaucrats.
Sheesh.
*Relurking*
Posted by: Nobody home but the sandman at June 25, 2012 07:20 AM (7qlme)
*delurk*
Healthcare on Thursday at 10:00. Let's hope that goes better.
Posted by: joncelli, heartless Con and all around unpleasant guy at June 25, 2012 10:41 AM (RD7QR)
Let's hope the sweethearts can find time to actually issue the damned decision this calendar year. God, I hate bureacrats, judge or otherwise.
*relurk*
Posted by: Nobody home but the sandman at June 25, 2012 07:22 AM (7qlme)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.281 seconds, 528 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: mean bastard from the south at June 25, 2012 03:37 AM (NhPqf)