August 05, 2013
— andy Sigh.
You can't even get through the first paragraph of the piece of crap WaPo piece linked above without getting bombarded with lies, but I'll fisk a little of it anyway.
First, let's set the stage. All purchases of guns from or through federally licensed firearms dealers (FFLs) are subject to the Brady Act, which established the background check requirement (Note: a permit is allowed to substitute for a NICS check in certain states). All of them.
And the BATFE provides the following helpful tidbit about interstate private sales in language so plain even a reporter should be able to understand it: "Please note that if a private person wants to obtain a firearm from a private person who resides in another State, the firearm will have to be shipped to an FFL in the buyerÂ’s State. The FFL will be responsible for record keeping."
Private sales between individuals residing in the same state do not require a background check. The left's rallying cry against all such sales used to be "gun show loophole", regardless of where the sale actually took place, but since that didn't work, it looks like it's time to try "Internet loophole".
So, on to the first graf ...
The marketplace for firearms on the Internet, where buyers are not required to undergo background checks, is so vast that advocates for stricter regulations now consider online sales a greater threat than the gun show loophole.
Oh, my aching head. If you buy from an FFL or out-of-state seller over the Internet, you have to undergo a background check. If you buy from an in-state private seller, you don't. How f'ing hard is this?
More help from BATFE: "A person may only acquire a firearm within the personÂ’s own State, except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licenseeÂ’s premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides."
A new study by Third Way , a centrist think tank with close ties to the Obama administration ...
Hahahahaha. Centrist. Is there really any reason to read on?
Hell, even Politico's dutiful recitation of the "study" results called the group "left-leaning".
The study focused on Armslist.com — a popular classified site similar to Craigslist.org that facilitates private sales of firearms ...
Study of ad listings for private sales of firearms, some of which aren't subject to background checks, shockingly concludes some firearms are being sold without background checks.
... and ammunition based on location — and analyzed listings in 10 states where senators voted against a background checks compromise this spring.At any given time, more than 15,000 guns were for sale in those states, according to the study, and more than 5,000 of them were semi-automatic weapons.
There are, what, 200 million guns in the U.S.? And semi-automatic firearms have been mass-produced for over a century. Sounds like a really huge problem we're talking about here.
Nearly 2,000 ads were from prospective buyers asking to buy specifically from private sellers, where no background checks are required.
As we've established, it's impossible to know whether a background check would be required based on this information alone; the location of the buyer and seller are critical factors. But are there any other reasons one might want to buy from a private seller? Avoiding the dealer markup and sales taxes are two that quickly spring to mind. Oh, also, it's illegal for a private seller to sell a gun to anyone they know or suspect to be disqualified from owning one (scroll down to "(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition ...").
“At this point, this is the biggest loophole in the background check system,” said Lanae Erickson Hatalsky, director of social policy and politics at Third Way.
And there's the helpful political framing for WaPo's policy position statement disguised as news.
Background checks — designed to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons, domestic violence perpetrators or the severely mentally ill — are mandatory for gun sales at retail stores, but not at gun shows ...
Once again, background checks are required for gun show sales by an FFL (or by an individual to a resident of another state through an FFL).
... or for private sales, such as between neighbors and family members.
This one's rich ... they picked a subset of private sales that would largely be conducted in-state through personal contact (where you're very likely to know if the prospective buyer is a disqualified person) as examples supporting their broad (read "incorrect") statement that all private sales are exempt from background checks ... in an article about the "Internet loophole".
The piece goes on like this, conveniently obscuring the fact that a single subset of gun sales - intrastate private sales - isn't subject to Federal background check laws.
And then comes the state law aspect. They mention that 17 states have "closed the gun show loophole" while strongly implying that zero states have closed this newer, deadlier, "Internet loophole" when they're the same damned thing.
Meanwhile, as a resident of the People's Republic of Massachusetts, I have to document all private sales of firearms (of which I may perform four per year) and make sure they're to a lawful purchaser who, by virtue of the fact that I'm required to file his FID/LTC number on the transfer form, has undergone a background check and has not subsequently become disqualified.
But, hey, never let facts get in the way of a good story when you have guns to ban.
Posted by: andy at
12:47 PM
| Comments (125)
Post contains 991 words, total size 7 kb.
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith [/i] [/b] [/s] [/u] at August 05, 2013 12:50 PM (qyfb5)
Posted by: yankeefifth at August 05, 2013 12:50 PM (Z9EHQ)
Posted by: no good deed at August 05, 2013 12:51 PM (WmLrU)
Posted by: pep at August 05, 2013 12:52 PM (6TB1Z)
Easy come easy go
Posted by: yankeefifth at August 05, 2013 04:50 PM (Z9EHQ)
I wonder if Apple will get most favored platform coverage from the WaPo now? Front page stories on price fixing might abound going forward.
Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes C'est Magnifique at August 05, 2013 12:52 PM (kXoT0)
Posted by: George Orwell, the least interesting commenter in the world at August 05, 2013 12:53 PM (mukPq)
Posted by: Phil Laîcheaux at August 05, 2013 12:53 PM (4AeTK)
Posted by: Mætenloch at August 05, 2013 12:53 PM (pAlYe)
Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes C'est Magnifique at August 05, 2013 12:53 PM (kXoT0)
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith [/i] [/b] [/s] [/u] at August 05, 2013 12:54 PM (qyfb5)
Posted by: yankeefifth at August 05, 2013 12:54 PM (Z9EHQ)
Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at August 05, 2013 12:55 PM (Ec6wH)
Posted by: AmishDude at August 05, 2013 12:55 PM (T0NGe)
Posted by: pep at August 05, 2013 12:56 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: Gem State-visiting Moron at August 05, 2013 12:56 PM (sAicm)
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at August 05, 2013 12:56 PM (/kI1Q)
Wouldn't be surprised if many FFLs are onboard with this crap.
Posted by: Rufus T. Firefly at August 05, 2013 12:57 PM (ymovd)
Posted by: yankeefifth at August 05, 2013 04:54 PM (Z9EHQ)
I wish the Koch brothers would just go ahead and write a check for the remaining papers on the block. Fire everyone and let the fun begin--pay only for well researched and sourced stories and pay enormous bonuses for scoops. When 95-98% of all the journalists are unemployed, including the high dollar hacks who have been resting on their imaginary laurels for decades, then print news could get interesting again.
Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes C'est Magnifique at August 05, 2013 12:58 PM (kXoT0)
Posted by: © Sponge at August 05, 2013 12:58 PM (xmcEQ)
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/Fascism.html
In economics, fascism was seen as a third way between laissez-faire capitalism and communism. Fascist thought acknowledged the roles of private property and the profit motive as legitimate incentives for productivity—provided that they did not conflict with the interests of the state.
Hrm.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at August 05, 2013 12:58 PM (/kI1Q)
Posted by: Vic at August 05, 2013 12:59 PM (lZvxr)
Posted by: pep at August 05, 2013 12:59 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: yankeefifth at August 05, 2013 01:00 PM (Z9EHQ)
laissez-faire capitalism and communism.
That's where the centrist label comes into play. See, it's right there in the middle.
Posted by: no good deed at August 05, 2013 01:00 PM (WmLrU)
Posted by: George Orwell, the least interesting commenter in the world at August 05, 2013 01:00 PM (mukPq)
Posted by: George Orwell, the least interesting commenter in the world at August 05, 2013 01:01 PM (mukPq)
Posted by: Idaho Spudboy at August 05, 2013 01:02 PM (sB09V)
Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectal at August 05, 2013 01:03 PM (wR+pz)
Posted by: President For Life Obama at August 05, 2013 01:03 PM (B5y+v)
Posted by: HoboJerky at August 05, 2013 01:03 PM (DFR46)
Posted by: The littl shyning man at August 05, 2013 01:04 PM (PH+2B)
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at August 05, 2013 04:56 PM (/kI1Q)
-
The third way is a method to get to communism without having to go through democracy or socialism first.
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at August 05, 2013 01:04 PM (vOq2q)
Presented as a palate cleanser...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvlQYi5LoYM&feature=youtu.be
Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes C'est Magnifique at August 05, 2013 01:04 PM (kXoT0)
Never. Posted by: The littl shyning man at August 05, 2013 05:04 PM (PH+2B)
Why would they give up? They keep winning.
Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes C'est Magnifique at August 05, 2013 01:05 PM (kXoT0)
Posted by: yankeefifth at August 05, 2013 01:06 PM (Z9EHQ)
So many commenters agreeing that background checks should be done.
Posted by: bonhomme at August 05, 2013 01:06 PM (WhJf8)
Posted by: Judge Chamberlain Haller at August 05, 2013 01:07 PM (/Crba)
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith [/i] [/b] [/s] [/u] at August 05, 2013 01:07 PM (qyfb5)
Posted by: rickb223 at August 05, 2013 01:08 PM (xorT2)
Posted by: hello, it's me also a creep-assed cracka.. at August 05, 2013 01:09 PM (9+ccr)
Posted by: UWP at August 05, 2013 01:09 PM (r98SZ)
Hell, even gang-bangers can't figure out how to hold a handgun, and they do it for a living.
But my daddy taught me how when I was six, and I am smart enough to remember all by myself.
Posted by: tcn at August 05, 2013 01:10 PM (RnmNY)
Posted by: 2nd Amendment Mother at August 05, 2013 01:11 PM (L4CWX)
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith [/i] [/b] [/s] [/u] at August 05, 2013 01:11 PM (qyfb5)
Posted by: Jimmie Wing at August 05, 2013 01:11 PM (/Crba)
Posted by: rickb223 at August 05, 2013 05:08 PM (xorT2)
I hope so, but, I do not expect to see it in my lifetime.
Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes C'est Magnifique at August 05, 2013 01:12 PM (kXoT0)
Posted by: bonhomme at August 05, 2013 05:06 PM (WhJf
Until it's their own backs that are being checked.
Posted by: tcn at August 05, 2013 01:12 PM (RnmNY)
I admit I don't like internet transactions of firearms within a state without a background check. But because these dickwads will take a mile if you give them an inch, I reluctantly will not advocate to change that at this time.
I'm hoping that the seller will be prudent in who he sells to.
Posted by: polynikes at August 05, 2013 01:13 PM (m2CN7)
I wonder what Lally Weymouth will do now to justify her use of oxygen. It must be tough to go from being an "opinion-maker" to just another trust fund whore.
Posted by: pep at August 05, 2013 01:13 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: alexthechick - Welcome mighty SMODlets! at August 05, 2013 01:13 PM (VtjlW)
Posted by: Lincolntf at August 05, 2013 01:13 PM (ZshNr)
Recent examples are legitimate advertising expenses deducted from gross profits and the ever present buisness expense of drilling for oil and coming up with a dry hole deducted as a buisness expense.
But writing off $5,000 as a damn CREDIT is not a loophole.
Posted by: Vic at August 05, 2013 01:14 PM (lZvxr)
Posted by: zsasz at August 05, 2013 01:14 PM (MMC8r)
Posted by: RWC at August 05, 2013 01:14 PM (fWAjv)
Posted by: Frank Castle at August 05, 2013 01:14 PM (/Crba)
Vapors, all of it.
Posted by: tcn at August 05, 2013 01:14 PM (RnmNY)
Posted by: zsasz at August 05, 2013 05:14 PM (MMC8r)
I have posted this twice, he was a blond yoot.
Posted by: Vic at August 05, 2013 01:15 PM (lZvxr)
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at August 05, 2013 01:16 PM (eHIJJ)
Posted by: Country Singer at August 05, 2013 01:16 PM (5ae6g)
Posted by: Carlos Danger and his mighty dagger at August 05, 2013 01:16 PM (dvRYt)
Posted by: pep at August 05, 2013 01:17 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: Lincolntf at August 05, 2013 01:17 PM (ZshNr)
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at August 05, 2013 01:18 PM (/Crba)
Just tell yourself you're on an Adkins diet.
Posted by: pep at August 05, 2013 01:18 PM (6TB1Z)
That problem's been fixed: https://tinyurl.com/2xd3mq
Posted by: Country Singer at August 05, 2013 01:18 PM (5ae6g)
Remember when gays just wanted to come out of the shadows and not be hated. Check, that was reasonable, so it came to be. Then it was out and proud. Check, that was pushy and strange, but nothing to fight, so it came to be. Then they wanted their partners to get health insurance and so forth. Check, expensive, but, what the hell--if they want to pay the family rate--OK, so it came to be. Well, then it was I want to marry my partner. Check, no one wanted it, but, no one wanted to be the one to say no, so it came to be. Now, it's "I insist that everyone celebrate my marriage to my partner--if they do not want to let me use their church or they refuse to bake my cake or they do not want to arrange my flowers--that's discrimination and I will damn well sue and I will win".
All the way out of the shadows and acting like bullies in what 20-30 years.
Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes C'est Magnifique at August 05, 2013 01:19 PM (kXoT0)
According to the article in WaPo (the only one I'll read), Bezos doesn't even get the HQ building nor many of the WaPo properties. The Grahams are loathsome and unethical, but they apparently have some smarts. Or at least smart lawyers. Yeah, eat it, AmishDude.
Posted by: pep at August 05, 2013 01:20 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: polynikes at August 05, 2013 01:20 PM (m2CN7)
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith [/i] [/b] [/s] [/u] at August 05, 2013 01:21 PM (qyfb5)
Posted by: pep at August 05, 2013 01:21 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: Billy Jeff C. at August 05, 2013 01:22 PM (5ae6g)
Posted by: alexthechick - Welcome mighty SMODlets! at August 05, 2013 05:13 PM (VtjlW)
Yes, it was such a pity that the Ravage destroyed your firearms in the Great Snit of 2012.
Just like it was simply awful that the cleaning lady stole mine. (She really did steal one).
Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes C'est Magnifique at August 05, 2013 01:23 PM (kXoT0)
Posted by: wooga at August 05, 2013 01:23 PM (qAONj)
I do!
Posted by: Billy Jeff C.
Well, when your alternative is Hillary.....
Posted by: pep at August 05, 2013 01:24 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: HoboJerky at August 05, 2013 01:24 PM (DFR46)
Posted by: AmishDude at August 05, 2013 01:25 PM (T0NGe)
Posted by: HoboJerky at August 05, 2013 05:24 PM (DFR46)
Then the tragic boating accident in the Chesapeake took them all from you...forcing you to begin again.
Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes C'est Magnifique at August 05, 2013 01:25 PM (kXoT0)
( my assumed stat.. sounds right, no? )
Posted by: Yip at August 05, 2013 01:26 PM (/jHWN)
I understand that when it's my fortune at risk, I want smart, canny people representing me. Nobody forced Bezos to buy.
Posted by: pep at August 05, 2013 01:26 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: alexthechick - Welcome mighty SMODlets! at August 05, 2013 01:26 PM (VtjlW)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at August 05, 2013 01:27 PM (hlx7X)
Exception is If the gun is on the curio list and the buying has a curio/relic license
Also if the transaction is in state. That is where the no background check required comes into play.
Posted by: polynikes at August 05, 2013 01:27 PM (m2CN7)
Posted by: wooga at August 05, 2013 01:27 PM (qAONj)
Posted by: zsasz at August 05, 2013 01:28 PM (MMC8r)
One thing is for sure, it was a "resident".
Posted by: pep at August 05, 2013 01:28 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: Lincolntf at August 05, 2013 01:29 PM (ZshNr)
Posted by: AmishDude at August 05, 2013 01:29 PM (T0NGe)
I'll give you $250M for that brat.
Posted by: Jeff Bezos at August 05, 2013 01:30 PM (6TB1Z)
http://tinyurl.com/m4zqoy9
"John Boehner Is ‘Purposely Suppressing Anything About Benghazi'"
Posted by: Aslan's Girl at August 05, 2013 01:30 PM (KL49F)
Posted by: Tuna at August 05, 2013 01:31 PM (M/TDA)
Tell you what, sparky. I'll use the English language the way I intend. I'm fairly good at it.
Posted by: Jeff Bezos at August 05, 2013 01:31 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: polynikes at August 05, 2013 01:31 PM (m2CN7)
Posted by: HoboJerky at August 05, 2013 01:31 PM (DFR46)
Posted by: zsasz at August 05, 2013 01:31 PM (MMC8r)
Posted by: Lincolntf at August 05, 2013 01:31 PM (ZshNr)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at August 05, 2013 01:31 PM (hlx7X)
Posted by: Harrison Bergeron at August 05, 2013 01:38 PM (JQuNB)
Posted by: alexthechick - Welcome mighty SMODlets! at August 05, 2013 01:42 PM (VtjlW)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at August 05, 2013 05:31 PM (hlx7X)
Their other problem is that most of us have read enough history to know that Auschwitz, Bergen Belsen, and Dachau were real and that people really did round up all those that they considered expendable and kill them--men, women, pregnant women, children, and babies. Stalin's gulags were full of political prisoners, not to mention the 7 million he killed in the Ukraine. In case we forgot, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge reminded us a couple of decades later, that ruthless dictators can and will round people up and exterminate them.
Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes C'est Magnifique at August 05, 2013 01:42 PM (kXoT0)
Sales to friends and family are completely different.
Posted by: Yip at August 05, 2013 01:43 PM (/jHWN)
That is why they hate Christianity so much--it is a competing religion. They wisely leave Islam alone, because those nutz will cut a bitch.
-----------
I think they really hate Christianity because deep down, they know that it's exactly what they claim to be. They claim to have the secrets to a happy life. So does Christianity. They claim to have the secrets to a successful and stable civilization. So does Christianity. They claim to be tolerant of all others, even those that they disagree with (bear with me; actions vs words here). So does Christianity. The difference is that their claims don't seem to work out all that well with the reality of their actions and results. Christianity, on the other hand, has finally managed to prove over the last few hundred years that when people love their neighbors like they love themselves, then good things tend to happen both to individual people and to society as a whole.
Jews, who are also very much aware of the two great commandments, tend to draw similar sorts of ire.
Posted by: junior at August 05, 2013 01:44 PM (UWFpX)
If a private person ...wait if you have a federal firearms license are you still a private person?
So you buy a firearm from a private person, off the internet, but if you do that you have to have it shipped to a FFL person, unless the private seller will deliver it to you personally? Or if you go to the private person to pick it up?
If the private person has a store is that person still a private person? or a store unrelated to the sale of fire arms? Like say a grocery, and the guy selling is the produce manager, would you have to do a background check? and how would you know the tire guy at your favorite tire store has a gun he wants to sell? Is there like a special mark he puts on his hat? If he puts up a little folded card on the counter top saying 'gun for sale' is he still a private person or will he have to do a background check?
Wasn't the gun show loop hole closed? Or does that not apply to private persons who happen to be at a gun show? Are you still a private person at a gun show? or nearby a gun show, like in the parking lot, or in the same town?
How do you find these private persons who don't have to do a background check if they sell you a firearm? You put a bumper sticker on your car? Wear a sign around your neck,"private person looking for a private person"? If you walk the streets with a sign is that not advertising? and if you advertise are you still a private person?
Posted by: Baffled in Brunswick at August 05, 2013 01:45 PM (O8h3k)
Posted by: HoboJerky at August 05, 2013 01:45 PM (s3v99)
True, there is no one more paternalistic and chauvinistic than a True Blue Liberal. They know best and they are completely intolerant of any other belief system.
Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes C'est Magnifique at August 05, 2013 01:46 PM (kXoT0)
True, there is no one more paternalistic and chauvinistic than a True Blue Liberal. They know best and they are completely intolerant of any other belief system.
---------------
Pretty much. But I suspect that one of the reasons why they don't raise as much of a fuss over Islam is due to the utter and complete disaster that countries with a majority Islam population seem to become almost without even trying. As a result, it's not as big of a threat as Christianity. The latter appears to produce safe, stable, and functioning societies. The former...
Posted by: junior at August 05, 2013 01:53 PM (UWFpX)
In CA, where the climate is unbelievably perfect and the electorate and political classes unbelievably vile and idiotic, all private sales must of course go through an FFL.
Speaking of CA gun idiocy, a blood-boiling thing just happened to me. So I've been shopping around (for one of those FFL-mediated private sales) to get a Ruger SR22 pistol, as I don't have a .22 semi-auto, want one, and I've heard/read great things about it.
So, due to an utterly immaterial change in the production design of the slide on this pistol (and, I guess Ruger's failure so far to pay the bribe, er, fee to have it "tested" again with the "new" design), this fucking pistol is suddenly no longer legal to sell commercially in CA. Note that if you have a handgun in various models, the only difference being the finish on the metal (blued, stainless, pink, whatever), the different models are treated separately and must be "tested" for "safety" by the CA guvamint. No, I'm not kidding. Of course all the guns pass - they are somehow safe in 49 other states and 180+ countries, so they won't be "unsafe" here - but the manuf. has to pay the bribe and go through the paperwork to get/keep their handguns on the approved roster. Currently a court case pending that could take out the roster. It better. Of all the idiotic, indefensible crap that CA voters impose on their best citizens, the gun "control" nonsense is probably the worst.
Back to background checks. Subversive thought. Most gun-owners probably support "common sense" regulation, represented by background checks that will weed out hardened criminals and violent psychos from buying guns. But stop for a second, and think about it - just how much difference, in the real world, do you think this has actually made since 1968? No actual data for this, we must speculate based on available info and common sense and logic. Doing that, knowing that very few guns used in crimes are acquired legally as it is ...... seems to me even the vanilla background check system, per se, is almost entirely a worthless ritualistic goat-rope.
Posted by: non-purist at August 05, 2013 02:28 PM (afQnV)
polynikes, exactly - private sellers should have a cheap available background check option to run on potential buyers
As I speculated (reasonably) above, legal firearms sales of all kinds and "gun violence" have almost no overlap (shaded area) on any Venn diagram. Simply different topics. Doing your own checks and being responsible would be/is fully sufficient to meet public safety objectives.
Which brings me back to Yip's (and my) point - background checks, at first glance, sort of define the "um, yeah, common sense" sort of control most people thing sounds reasonable. My point isn't that all background checks are, per se, unreasonable. It's just that the 97% (probably) of all firearms sales that are subject to some sort of background check are would not be problematic WITHOUT the background checks.
Run the anecdotal-level scenario in your heads. Oh right, some gang-bangers and career criminals would walk up to the counter and buy their handguns at a gun store. But very few. And, if they didn't, they'd still commit the same number of the same type as they do today - using guns they already get outside the background-check world.
Perhaps an academic point. But even the most "common sense" gun control is, in all likelihood, a completely pointless exercise that actually makes zero difference in public safety or the use of guns in crime. Sort of makes a nice framework/context element to ponder the evil idiocy of the Himalayan range of other "gun control" crap that the country labors under.
Not that I ponder such things much any more. I am literally to the point where even getting my filtered news highlights via the blogs (Capital Hill health insurance waiver issue below, case in point) my anger and alienation are becoming all-consuming.
Posted by: non-purist at August 05, 2013 02:45 PM (afQnV)
After all, we don't live in a country. We live in a running joke.
Posted by: Thatch at August 05, 2013 02:50 PM (qYvEa)
Posted by: Tom In Korea at August 05, 2013 03:11 PM (oJkTX)
We seem to have this part of the blog to ourselves, Thatch, but I like your stuff.
Of all the discouraging, outrageous, pernicious developments of the last few years (and yes, it goes back beyond that, but it wasn't as histrionic and jaw-dropping as it has become), the collapse of the judiciary is near or at the top.
Of course the judiciary was never meant as a major guard-rail for constitutional order - it usurped that role. But the obvious down-side to its usurpation has been - duh! - that it just appoints itself as a second super-legislature/executive. The health care decision is ridiculous, and more consequential than most, but it's really a matter of degree, not kind.
Heard Sen. Mike Lee put it well the other day. He noted how the SCOTUS had amended the health care debacle TWICE - and of course (so far) the administration had then amended it twice. All of this completely, indefensibly, laughably illegal and unconstitutional. Roll that around on your tongue a bit for a taste - one fucking sitting senator with the brains and guts to make rather obvious observations about what can be described without hyperbole as the formal unravelling of constitutional order and rule of law in the US.
Posted by: non-purist at August 05, 2013 03:18 PM (afQnV)
Posted by: zsasz at August 05, 2013 03:31 PM (MMC8r)
Posted by: Chris at August 05, 2013 05:19 PM (TPIPV)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.201 seconds, 253 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: wooga at August 05, 2013 12:50 PM (qAONj)