December 17, 2013
— Gabriel Malor Yesterday, a district court judge struck down the Obamacare contraception mandate as applied to the Catholic Archdiocese of New York and its constituent organizations as a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. You can read the decision here (PDF), but I wanted to highlight some important parts.
1. This is the first litigation to result in a final injunction against the contraception mandate for religious non-profit organizations that come within the Obama Administration's purported exemption to the mandate. The 7th, 10th, and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeals have all found the mandate to be an unacceptable burden on the free exercise of religion for for-profit businesses that don't come under the exemption. This case is important, though, because it recognizes that even the act of having to claim the exemption is an unacceptable burden on religion.
I explained in February how the Obama administration proposed to conjure contraception from thin air in order to make it available to the employees of religious organizations. What I didn't mention then was that, for this act of sorcery to work, the religious organizations would have to "self-certify" in order to direct that a third party provide contraception. The Archdiocese of New York, and many other religious organizations, pointed out that the act of self-certifying is itself a violation of its religious beliefs and sued.
2. Not even the Obama administration knows what its proposed regulations do. Very late in this case, the government realized that, although the Archdiocese and its constituent organizations are covered by the mandate, the regulations might not actually force a third party they designate to provide the objectionable contraception coverage. The judge was not amused:
The Government’s belated “realization” that the challenged regulations may not actually result in the provision of contraceptive coverage to plaintiffs’ employees is difficult to fathom. . . . It is unclear how citizens like plaintiffs . . . are supposed to know what the law requires of them if the Government itself is unsure. After almost 18 months of litigation, defendants now effectively concede that the regulatory tale told by the Government was a non-sequitur.
The judge found that, despite the administration's contortions to suggest the Archdiocese might not even be covered, the contraception mandate scheme was sufficiently burdensome to proceed to a decision.
3. The Obama administration doesn't take religious beliefs seriously. In an astonishing display of anti-religious sentiment, the administration argued that forcing religious organizations to designate a third party to provide contraception coverage to their employees isn't a big deal (legally: de minimis) because it's "just a form" to fill out, "a purely administrative task." The district court rightly found that whether a violation of religious freedom is small or large isn't for the courts to decide. It would be too easy to simply sweep away deeply-held religious beliefs under the claim that government action is merely "de minimis" infringement of rights.
There is no way that a court can, or should, determine that a coerced violation of conscience is of insufficient quantum to merit constitutional protection.
4. The Obama administration has handed out so many exceptions to the law, it can no longer claim the law serves a compelling purpose. In the past, courts have allowed the government to infringe religious rights if the government demonstrates a compelling interest and narrow tailoring, for example, income tax laws or criminal laws related to marijuana and peyote. But in this case, the administration was not able to claim that the contraception mandate serves a compelling purpose because it has been falling all over itself (largely for political reasons) to offer exceptions to the law.
The Government has not made a similar showing of a compelling interest in uniform enforcement of the Mandate, for the simple reason that enforcement of the Mandate is currently anything but uniform. Tens of millions of people are exempt from the Mandate, under exemptions for grandfathered health plans, small businesses, and “religious employers” like the Diocesan plaintiffs here. Millions of women thus will not receive contraceptive coverage without cost-sharing through the Mandate. Having granted so many exemptions already, the Government cannot show a compelling interest in denying one to these plaintiffs.
5. The Obama administration's belated argument that the religious organizations may not actually end up providing any contraception coverage fatally undermined the administration's case. This comes under the category of bad litigation strategies. As I mentioned up in the second item on this list, the administration realized near the end of the litigation that the third parties designated by the Archdiocese to provide coverage may not actually be required to provide contraception. The district court rightly noticed that if that argument is true, the mandate obviously serves no purpose.
Here, the Government implicitly acknowledges that applying the Mandate to plaintiffs may in fact do nothing at all to expand contraceptive coverage, because plaintiffsÂ’ [designated third party providers] arenÂ’t actually required to do anything after receiving the self-certification. In other words, the Mandate forces plaintiffs to fill out a form which, though it violates their religious beliefs, may ultimately serve no purpose whatsoever.
I have italicized the last portion of that quote for emphasis simply because, when you put it like that, the administration's argument is so obviously bad and hostile to religion.
6. The Obama administration thinks it has a general exception from complying with the Constitution. The administration, as it has frequently done with respect to disobeying laws it does not like, argued that it had to enforce the contraception mandate in such an infringing manner because it could not do it any other way. The district court pointed out the obvious flaw in this line of thinking:
The Government first argues that the alternatives above are infeasible because the defendants lack statutory authority to enact some of them. This argument makes no sense; in any challenge to the constitutionality of a federal law, the question is whether the federal government could adopt a less restrictive means, not any particular branch within it. It would set a dangerous precedent to hold that if the Executive Branch cannot act unilaterally, then there is no alternative solution. If defendants lack the required statutory authority, Congress may pass appropriate legislation.
Of course, we all know that President Obama cannot go back to Congress to fix this since Congress would most likely provide a wider exemption to the contraception mandate than Obama's HHS has provided via regulation, assuming Congress doesn't just start trimming out major portions of the law, altogether. This is a problem of the administration's own making, and there it will stay -- until the courts finish knocking it down, that is.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at
06:00 AM
| Comments (294)
Post contains 1129 words, total size 8 kb.
Posted by: BlueStateRebel at December 17, 2013 06:01 AM (7ObY1)
Posted by: Ribald Conservative riding Orca at December 17, 2013 06:01 AM (RFeQD)
Posted by: the littl shyning man at December 17, 2013 06:02 AM (Z2HBg)
Posted by: Buddha at December 17, 2013 06:03 AM (s/sIv)
Posted by: Penfold at December 17, 2013 06:03 AM (Fbt5B)
Posted by: MTF at December 17, 2013 06:04 AM (aG9Vk)
Posted by: --- at December 17, 2013 06:06 AM (MMC8r)
Posted by: President For Life Obama at December 17, 2013 06:07 AM (aG9Vk)
Posted by: Beckster at December 17, 2013 06:07 AM (kj0P/)
The purpose of this
Was to punish the churches
Not give Birth Control
The court makes a big deal out of how the rule infringes on religious liberty without providing birth control, as if this is a bug and not a feature. The entire purpose was to beat up on the religious institutions, using birth control as a convenient cudgel. The fact that the law was written as it was, where the actual provision of birth control was not even included, proves this fact.
The entire purpose was to get religious institutions to sign off on violating their religious concience, to eliminate the last principled objections to his pro choice agenda and to make every citizen complicit in his crimes.
Posted by: Haiku Guy at December 17, 2013 06:08 AM (bIy5N)
Posted by: Lewis Morris at December 17, 2013 06:08 AM (/Crba)
Posted by: Sandra Fluke at December 17, 2013 06:08 AM (NF2Bf)
Posted by: Val JarJar at December 17, 2013 06:09 AM (aG9Vk)
Posted by: Zombie Jerome Chef McElroy at December 17, 2013 06:09 AM (/Crba)
To be the fly on the wall in Judge Cogan's chambers when he gets ValJar's letter and the "proper" decision.
Posted by: Penfold at December 17, 2013 06:11 AM (Fbt5B)
Posted by: mugiwara at December 17, 2013 06:13 AM (W7ffl)
Posted by: The Smartest Woman in the World at December 17, 2013 06:17 AM (gvqyH)
Posted by: AMDG at December 17, 2013 06:17 AM (t7OO0)
Ace, or some coblogger, please throw out a little blurb to help people regarding the double billings by some of the exchanges.
simply put, if the people who were double billed, or erroneously billed, can't get through to the exchange for a refund on the first try, call your bank and dispute the charge. Your bank will give you a provisional credit for the charge and if they can't get it resolved the credit becomes permanent. If this occurs regulalry the exchanges bank will move t stop this nonsense or just yank their ability to debit accounts directly. The schadenboner I would get from that headline would be priceless.
Posted by: allenlou at December 17, 2013 06:18 AM (z/dJ6)
Posted by: Zombie Jerome Chef McElroy at December 17, 2013 06:18 AM (/Crba)
Barry: Unless you worship me.
Posted by: TheQuietMan at December 17, 2013 06:19 AM (1Jaio)
Naturally I finish posting a long-winded, rambling comment on the last thread, JUST in time for the new thread. This is how my day is going to go from here forward, isn't it?
Anyway, back up to read the actual post now.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/i][/s][/u][/b] at December 17, 2013 06:20 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: allenlou at December 17, 2013 06:20 AM (z/dJ6)
Posted by: Yip at December 17, 2013 06:20 AM (/jHWN)
Posted by: akula51[/b][/i][/s] at December 17, 2013 06:20 AM (Ob/LA)
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at December 17, 2013 06:20 AM (/Crba)
Posted by: DesiDad at December 17, 2013 06:21 AM (jMEPy)
Posted by: Mama AJ at December 17, 2013 06:21 AM (SUKHu)
Posted by: AMDG at December 17, 2013 06:21 AM (t7OO0)
Posted by: edj[/i] at December 17, 2013 06:21 AM (klzyR)
Posted by: no good deed at December 17, 2013 06:21 AM (HsJeN)
*Hee hee hee* Just wait until the appeal gets to me.
Posted by: Justice John "Smilin' Jack" Roberts
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 17, 2013 06:21 AM (kdS6q)
Posted by: Null at December 17, 2013 06:22 AM (DuH+r)
Posted by: Moonbat_One at December 17, 2013 06:22 AM (s/hs9)
Wait. I thought all of us peeps with actual principles and beliefs (you know, us mouthbreathing SoCons) were bad and had to be purged?
But now a victory of principle and belief is being upheld as a good thing?
I'm not certain what I should think of this, but I still can't shake the feeling that I am about to be ran over by a very nice truck soon...
Posted by: Azenogoth at December 17, 2013 06:23 AM (/qzu7)
Posted by: akula51[/b][/i][/s] at December 17, 2013 06:24 AM (Ob/LA)
Posted by: t-bird at December 17, 2013 06:25 AM (FcR7P)
DAAAYUMMM. That decision is all kinds of brutal towards the regime. But I've got to say that this is my "favorite" part.
After almost 18 months of litigation, defendants now effectively concede that the regulatory tale told by the Government was a non-sequitur.
Hey Obammy, how's it feel to lose your eyebrows? Cuz you just got BURNED, baby.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/i][/s][/u][/b] at December 17, 2013 06:26 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at December 17, 2013 06:26 AM (/Crba)
Posted by: Vic at December 17, 2013 06:26 AM (T2V/1)
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at December 17, 2013 06:27 AM (V3kRK)
Posted by: allenlou at December 17, 2013 06:28 AM (z/dJ6)
Posted by: eman at December 17, 2013 06:28 AM (AO9UG)
Posted by: Ed Anger at December 17, 2013 06:28 AM (tOkJB)
Anyway, back up to read the actual post now.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at December 17, 2013 10:20 AM (4df7R)
And a fine post it is/was, Hobbit. I actually read it - course I'm the guy who always comes late to the party/thread, a slow typist, and have to compose my thoughts before typing shit. My associates ( I like to call them "friends", but not in their presence), fondly call me hapless. It's a calling.
Posted by: tubal at December 17, 2013 06:29 AM (YEQ2h)
Good grief, Gabe, turning into some kind of SoCon Warrior, aren't you?
Next thing you know, you'll be working the phones for Santorum.
Posted by: J. Random FisCon at December 17, 2013 06:29 AM (YYJjz)
Posted by: eman at December 17, 2013 10:28 AM (AO9UG)
I think it's the reverse, actually. Obamacare is kicking snow at America, and America's fucking PISSED.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/i][/s][/u][/b] at December 17, 2013 06:29 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: Mama AJ at December 17, 2013 06:29 AM (SUKHu)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at December 17, 2013 06:30 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: Cicero Kid at December 17, 2013 06:30 AM (6fSty)
Posted by: Draki at December 17, 2013 06:31 AM (L8r/r)
Posted by: akula51[/b][/i][/s] at December 17, 2013 06:31 AM (Ob/LA)
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at December 17, 2013 10:26 AM (4df7R)
Well, it's not like Obammy really understands all these $10 words, so he really doesn't feel all that bad anyway.
Posted by: tcn at December 17, 2013 06:32 AM (fwcEs)
Posted by: Thunderb at December 17, 2013 06:32 AM (zOTsN)
Posted by: Lickmuffin at December 17, 2013 06:32 AM (oMNfV)
Posted by: Chris Matthews at December 17, 2013 06:33 AM (wXcOC)
The Obama administration doesn't take religious beliefs seriously.
They don't take Christian belief seriously. I'd bet a week's pay that they would have carved out some sort of exemption for wiccans, Far East hippie nonsense or Muslim scum.
I said it before and I repeat it - if the Democrat party thought they could get away with proscribing Christianity, they would do it in a heartbeat.
The Obama administration thinks it has a general exception from complying with the Constitution.
**puts hand on chin.**
Well, golly gee, Gabe, wherever could they have got such an idea?
Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at December 17, 2013 06:33 AM (zF6Iw)
Posted by: David Axelrod at December 17, 2013 06:34 AM (wXcOC)
This is why I come here.
Posted by: toby928© from the Phantom Zone at December 17, 2013 06:34 AM (evdj2)
Posted by: tcn at December 17, 2013 06:34 AM (fwcEs)
Posted by: Lewis Morris at December 17, 2013 10:08 AM (/Crba)
Mister Morris. . .what in hell goes on in New York?
Posted by: The Honorable John Hancock, President at December 17, 2013 06:34 AM (zF6Iw)
Posted by: eman at December 17, 2013 06:35 AM (AO9UG)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at December 17, 2013 10:30 AM (VtjlW)
-----------
I've been wondering about that with regards to people in the individual insurance market. How is it legal that they get slapped with the full force of the law a year earlier than everyone else?
Posted by: Long Haul Plucker at December 17, 2013 06:35 AM (ufVHp)
Not even the Obama administration knows what its proposed regulations do.
Obammy's just waiting for the newspapers to tell him what the regulations do, then he'll know.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/i][/s][/u][/b] at December 17, 2013 06:35 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: tubal at December 17, 2013 06:36 AM (YEQ2h)
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at December 17, 2013 06:36 AM (/Crba)
Posted by: Long Haul Plucker at December 17, 2013 10:35 AM (ufVHp)
Because..... TAX.
That's why.
Posted by: tcn at December 17, 2013 06:36 AM (fwcEs)
Posted by: polynikes at December 17, 2013 06:36 AM (m2CN7)
Posted by: Supreme CJ John Roberts at December 17, 2013 06:37 AM (/Crba)
Posted by: BumperStickerist at December 17, 2013 06:37 AM (NQyj0)
Posted by: Long Haul Plucker at December 17, 2013 10:35 AM (ufVHp)
Congrats! It's not!
Not that that stopped Obammy from doing it, even though he has no such power.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/i][/s][/u][/b] at December 17, 2013 06:37 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: Thunderb at December 17, 2013 06:37 AM (zOTsN)
Posted by: tcn at December 17, 2013 06:37 AM (fwcEs)
Contrast this with the Pope's decision yesterday to remove Raymond Burke and Justin Rigali from the Congregation of Bishops.
Two American Cardinals with reputations as conservatives, replaced by at least one guy who is a known "moderate."
The Pope is trying to surround the hierarchy of the Church with people who won't be so harsh on topics like contraception, abortion, and gay marriage.
Brave new world we're living in...
Posted by: BurtTC at December 17, 2013 06:38 AM (xCw24)
Posted by: toby928© from the Phantom Zone at December 17, 2013 06:39 AM (evdj2)
Posted by: tubal at December 17, 2013 06:40 AM (YEQ2h)
Posted by: Havedash at December 17, 2013 06:40 AM (gvqyH)
Posted by: Thunderb at December 17, 2013 06:41 AM (zOTsN)
A purely administrative task that infringes upon religious rights is unacceptable to this court.
So the significant and sometimes impossible administrative tasks that all gun owners must suffer are acceptable?
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at December 17, 2013 06:42 AM (QFxY5)
I'm going to have to read the decision in full but that part is just fantastic.
It gave me a downright "Pissy Chrissy Matthews tingle" feeling all up my leg.
It's a shame that judges can't just summarize their opinions with a quick, "You guys from the government are fucking idiots, this whole case is a fucking joke, and you'd better get out of my fucking courtroom before I have you thrown in jail for wasting the taxpayers' money with this bullshit. Oh, and your shit's all retarded."
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/i][/s][/u][/b] at December 17, 2013 06:42 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at December 17, 2013 06:42 AM (da5Wo)
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at December 17, 2013 10:42 AM (QFxY5)
Consider Illinois - ALL applicants for a concealed carry license "must" apply online.
Posted by: tubal at December 17, 2013 06:43 AM (YEQ2h)
Posted by: Supreme CJ John Roberts at December 17, 2013 06:44 AM (/Crba)
Posted by: rickb223 at December 17, 2013 06:45 AM (GjYxB)
Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at December 17, 2013 06:45 AM (GaqMa)
Posted by: Nip Sip at December 17, 2013 06:45 AM (0FSuD)
Posted by: BumperStickerist at December 17, 2013 06:45 AM (NQyj0)
Posted by: dfbaskwill at December 17, 2013 06:45 AM (fA3u5)
Posted by: Nip Sip at December 17, 2013 06:46 AM (0FSuD)
Posted by: Mikey NTH - Death Capades - ObamaCare on Ice! Sponsored by the Outrage Outlet at December 17, 2013 06:46 AM (hLRSq)
Posted by: rickb223 at December 17, 2013 06:47 AM (GjYxB)
Posted by: Brother Cavil at December 17, 2013 06:47 AM (naUcP)
So yet another judicial smackdown of the Obama Administration's attempts to assault religious freedom.
I would ask if they might possibly have learned their lesson now, but sadly I know the answer to that.
Posted by: rockmom at December 17, 2013 06:48 AM (aBlZ1)
How about this:
"What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at December 17, 2013 06:48 AM (QFxY5)
Posted by: Brother Cavil at December 17, 2013 06:48 AM (naUcP)
Posted by: Mikey NTH - Death Capades - ObamaCare on Ice! Sponsored by the Outrage Outlet at December 17, 2013 10:46 AM (hLRSq)
The only reason I want it to be dead and gone quickly is so that the people who are genuinely hurting because of this debacle can get some peace of mind. I don't care about the stupid progs who voted for Dinglefuck and chose to ignore all of our warnings about this clusterfuck; they can suffer for all I care. But so many people here at teh HQ and elsewhere in the conservative world are being hit hard by this monstrosity, and I want them to get some relief.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/i][/s][/u][/b] at December 17, 2013 06:49 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: Nancy Pelosi at December 17, 2013 06:49 AM (FcR7P)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 17, 2013 06:49 AM (pYXiI)
Posted by: Mary Cloggenstein from Brattleboro, Vermont at December 17, 2013 06:49 AM (5ZI7f)
>>>This is dragging out its agony which is really inhumane, but in this case I am enjoying its painful writhings.
It'll take about 3 years, at the closing days of which you'll see Sebelius screaming a version of "respeck mah authoritah!" before stepping down to little notice.
Posted by: Bigby's Semaphore Hands at December 17, 2013 06:50 AM (3ZtZW)
Posted by: rickb223 at December 17, 2013 06:50 AM (GjYxB)
Posted by: Thunderb at December 17, 2013 06:51 AM (zOTsN)
I beginning to think I will not make it to the 2016 primaries before I abandon the Party of stupid.
Posted by: Vic at December 17, 2013 06:51 AM (T2V/1)
Posted by: Brother Cavil at December 17, 2013 06:52 AM (naUcP)
Posted by: Bigby's Semaphore Hands at December 17, 2013 10:50 AM (3ZtZW)
After which, she will repurpose herself, no doubt, with a website, "Lady Kathleen's House of Discipline".
Posted by: tubal at December 17, 2013 06:52 AM (YEQ2h)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at December 17, 2013 06:53 AM (VtjlW)
That's why I come here.
I'd bet a week's pay that they would have carved out some sort of exemption for wiccans, Far East hippie nonsense or Muslim scum.
Muslims are exempt from the whole thing.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at December 17, 2013 06:54 AM (ZKzrr)
Posted by: JDPlumber at December 17, 2013 06:54 AM (yhJhK)
I figured that she'd open her own chain of late-term abortion abattoirs.
Posted by: toby928© from the Phantom Zone at December 17, 2013 06:54 AM (evdj2)
Posted by: akula51[/b][/i][/s] at December 17, 2013 06:54 AM (Ob/LA)
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at December 17, 2013 06:54 AM (V3kRK)
Just wait until we have to knock this little thing around again when tax time comes and some 'people' have not complied.
In the case of an individual who is seeking an exemption certificate under section 1311(d)(4)(H) from any requirement or penalty imposed by section 5000A, the following information:
In the case of an individual seeking exemption based on the individualÂ’s status as a
member of an exempt religious sect or division, as a member of a health care sharing ministry, as an Indian,
or as an individual eligible for a hardship exemption, such information as the Secretary shall prescribe.”
Senate Bill, H.R. 3590, pages 273-274
Will someone with more knowledge let me know if they have another section which specifically defines who is an exempt religious sect or is that to be determined. I know the Amish and Christian Scientists are exempt but can others also start to claim that or do they need to be specifically named in the ACA?
Posted by: polynikes at December 17, 2013 06:55 AM (m2CN7)
Posted by: Zombie Tiller The Killer at December 17, 2013 06:57 AM (/Crba)
Posted by: Vic at December 17, 2013 10:51 AM (T2V/1)
The POS has long since abandoned us, Vic. It's high time we catch up and act accordingly.
Posted by: Havedash at December 17, 2013 06:57 AM (gvqyH)
Posted by: Krebs v Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars [/i] [/b] [/s] at December 17, 2013 06:57 AM (R7uOf)
103 -
I don't profess to fully understand the best tactics, but my major objection to people saying "oh, let this law go into full effect so people can see what a mess it is, and then they'll vote Republican" is that we have no idea how this will shake out, and more importantly, since when is it the morally acceptable position to wish harm on people so they will learn the lesson we want them to learn?
Posted by: BurtTC at December 17, 2013 06:58 AM (xCw24)
Posted by: Thunderb at December 17, 2013 06:58 AM (zOTsN)
Posted by: akula51 at December 17, 2013 10:54 AM (Ob/LA)
Maybe it's:
American people = Face-sized Spider
Obamacare = Facecat
FIGHT!
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/i][/s][/u][/b] at December 17, 2013 06:58 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: SGT Ted at December 17, 2013 06:59 AM (CtKeI)
Posted by: Mary Cloggenstein from Brattleboro, Vermont at December 17, 2013 06:59 AM (5ZI7f)
Posted by: Thunderb at December 17, 2013 07:00 AM (zOTsN)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at December 17, 2013 07:00 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: Beagle at December 17, 2013 07:00 AM (sOtz/)
Posted by: rickb223 at December 17, 2013 07:00 AM (GjYxB)
Posted by: SGT Ted at December 17, 2013 10:59 AM (CtKeI)
And in so doing it requires telling the gubmint what your religion IS. That will come in so handy when it comes to figuring out who to ship to the camps. The Nazis would approve.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/i][/s][/u][/b] at December 17, 2013 07:01 AM (4df7R)
Because lawyered to bits isn't part of the problem?
Our fail leftward slower GOP determined to get their amnesty and be in 2nd place when the wheels fall off vs. squashing the Dems with this shitpile.
Posted by: DaveA[/i][/b][/s] at December 17, 2013 07:01 AM (DL2i+)
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at December 17, 2013 10:49 AM (4df7R)
I know they are, and I am sympathetic to what they are going through. Unfortunately the pride of one political party and of one man in particular refuses to do the right thing for these people and provide them with the relief they need. Repealing this would be good, and replacing it with nothing would be best, however it is not to be because of prideful people.
So I am left with enjoying the spectacle of the prideful ones having their pride cut into in little painful nicks dragging it all out over time.
Posted by: Mikey NTH - Death Capades - ObamaCare on Ice! Sponsored by the Outrage Outlet at December 17, 2013 07:01 AM (hLRSq)
I know the Amish and Christian Scientists are exempt but can others also start to claim that or do they need to be specifically named in the ACA?
****
I believe that the "Sisters of the Upper Diocese of Lower Peruvia Church of Pentecostal Devotionalism and Grill" is also exempt.
Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at December 17, 2013 07:01 AM (lHb9q)
128 -
If you are going to do the Mary sock, and that's a big IF, you should at least adopt the silly and ditzy tone of the "original" Mary. Otherwise, you just look like a typical lefty troll.
Posted by: BurtTC at December 17, 2013 07:02 AM (xCw24)
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at December 17, 2013 07:03 AM (/Crba)
The Pope is trying to surround the hierarchy of the Church with people who won't be so harsh on topics like contraception, abortion, and gay marriage.
Maybe there'll be a schism and Benedict can be Pope again.
Posted by: The Honorable John Hancock, President at December 17, 2013 07:03 AM (zF6Iw)
Posted by: Optimizer at December 17, 2013 07:03 AM (Mxt9o)
Posted by: rickb223 at December 17, 2013 07:04 AM (GjYxB)
Posted by: Thunderb at December 17, 2013 11:00 AM (zOTsN)
Mary better get busy and write a letter to the Miami Herald right now, denouncing that awful racist Leonard Pitts, Junior, who had the effrontery to use the NNNNN-word, and the SSSSS- word in the editorial section of my local Commie rag today!!!! The horror! Just because Mr. Pitts is of the chocolate persuasion should not matter, right Mary?Posted by: tubal at December 17, 2013 07:04 AM (YEQ2h)
>>>I don't profess to fully understand the best tactics, but my major objection to people saying "oh, let this law go into full effect so people can see what a mess it is, and then they'll vote Republican" is that we have no idea how this will shake out, and more importantly, since when is it the morally acceptable position to wish harm on people so they will learn the lesson we want them to learn?
My answer, not mainstream to this blog even, is that I recognise the GOP brand is so completely trashed that no matter how bad it gets many/most will not do 'something crazy like vote for a Republican' - a phrase I've heard often enough. It really is at the point where any interference done with the best of intentions is regarded as interloping by a bunch of racist idiot retards who never should be allowed to speak in public in the first place and should be pelted with literal shit should they dare to speak in public now.
So, seeing that, I'm happy to see them wail and gnash teeth and rend garments and such. Its morally acceptable for you to allow me some happiness in life.
Posted by: Bigby's Semaphore Hands at December 17, 2013 07:04 AM (3ZtZW)
The state and Feds wouldn't waive the lock requirement. The fire department wouldn't waive the unlock requirement. The zoning board wouldn't grant a variance to build an addition. An addition was necessary because the only wall that could be knocked out to make a different room was a load bearing wall so that couldn't be knocked down.
Isn't that something that should be having a lawsuit filed to settle? Or am I just being crazy in thinking that a practical use of the judicial system is ever done anymore.
Posted by: buzzion at December 17, 2013 07:04 AM (LI48c)
True. Mary Cloggenstein posts used to be kind of an art form. Now they're just dimwitted and obvious.
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at December 17, 2013 07:05 AM (KgpQn)
Posted by: rickb223 at December 17, 2013 11:04 AM (GjYxB)
*****
It's usually an insert in the hymnal.
Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at December 17, 2013 07:05 AM (lHb9q)
Posted by: NoBroccoli4U at December 17, 2013 07:05 AM (3p7iG)
Posted by: Failure Mercure at December 17, 2013 07:06 AM (yhJhK)
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at December 17, 2013 07:06 AM (/Crba)
I could almost hear the judge chortling and laughing as he slapped the government around.
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at December 17, 2013 07:06 AM (HIbcx)
since when is it the morally acceptable position to wish harm on people so they will learn the lesson we want them to learn?
I would say there's a difference between wishing harm on someone and wanting them to understand the consequences of their actions. Had Obammycare been repealed before it ever went into practice I'd ahve been happy. I didn't need for the idiot progs to suffer for their stupidity for me to be happy. But now that it's in effect I have no compunction about proclaiming how little I care about the progs' suffering, because WE TOLD THEM IT WOULD HAPPEN.
Sometimes you've got to touch the hot stove to figure out that your parents were right when they said you'd burn yourself.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/i][/s][/u][/b] at December 17, 2013 07:06 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: Brother Cavil at December 17, 2013 07:06 AM (naUcP)
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at December 17, 2013 07:07 AM (/Crba)
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at December 17, 2013 07:07 AM (ZKzrr)
That's the one whose sacraments include Jello shots, isn't it?
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at December 17, 2013 07:08 AM (KgpQn)
Posted by: Optimizer at December 17, 2013 07:08 AM (Mxt9o)
Your story is a lot worse than mine, but it reminds me of when i put a water heater in for a neighbor and the city inspector wouldn't pass it because there was no vent pipe to vent into the attic, but this was a closet in the garage built specifically for the heater so there was no ceiling to it, it all vented into the attic as it was. But nope, no pipe so no pass, so i went and got a cheap aluminium pipe and stapled it to the wall and he passed it.
Posted by: booger at December 17, 2013 07:08 AM (xRDdL)
Posted by: NoBroccoli4U at December 17, 2013 11:05 AM (3p7iG
But it won't, because that cowardly shit Roberts has already demonstrated that he will not allow the court to strike down the entirety of the law.
Posted by: buzzion at December 17, 2013 07:08 AM (LI48c)
Posted by: t-bird at December 17, 2013 07:08 AM (FcR7P)
===
404 Website - not secure. Rules, fines, and penalties apply to serfs only. "If Congress won't act, I will!" And Washington DC waxes fat on the suffering of the people.
Posted by: mrp at December 17, 2013 07:09 AM (HjPtV)
Posted by: Brother Cavil at December 17, 2013 07:09 AM (naUcP)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at December 17, 2013 07:10 AM (HIbcx)
Do we get Chamalla extract with that?
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at December 17, 2013 11:07 AM (/Crba)
*****
You can have chamalla da extract you want.
Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at December 17, 2013 07:10 AM (lHb9q)
132 and 143 -
The thing is though, there are people who DID NOT vote for these people who are being made to suffer by their actions. These people deserve representation in a democratic society, and they need to be fought for by the people who were ostensibly sent to Washington (and other capitols) to fight for them.
The Republican Party has no business being passive when it comes to fighting Obamacare, because there are people who voted for them who are suffering because of Obamacare.
It's as simple as that.
Posted by: BurtTC at December 17, 2013 07:10 AM (xCw24)
152 jeez you guys are reminding me of Cerebus now.
I'm sure the Cirinists and Illusionists are totes cool with the mandate as is. Not so sure about the Orthodox Tarimites.
Posted by: Bigby's Semaphore Hands at December 17, 2013 07:11 AM (3ZtZW)
Posted by: t-bird at December 17, 2013 07:11 AM (FcR7P)
An appeal of the zoning board decision was in the works when Boy BFF got fired. Eventually, that's what would have happened but considering it was in the Philadelphia area, it was a matter of making sure that wink wink nudge nudge the right hearing officers wink wink nudge nudge heard the matter. The hilarious end to that story is that Boy BFF was trying to be sure the facility was in compliance with all the various laws. He got fired Because Reasons. Well, from his recent conversations with the lovely people with the FBI and the US Attorney's office who are investigating his former bosses, he appears to have been the only one who cared about pesky things like that.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at December 17, 2013 07:11 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: John McCain at December 17, 2013 07:11 AM (Pr6hk)
124: " since when is it the morally acceptable position to wish harm on people so they will learn the lesson we want them to learn?"
It is my belief that some pain now is preferable to greater pain later.
The only lessons that are remembered are those that are taught by pain.
This has been known for millennia.
Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at December 17, 2013 07:13 AM (LJpVo)
Posted by: JEM at December 17, 2013 07:13 AM (o+SC1)
The hilarious end to that story is that Boy BFF was trying to be sure the facility was in compliance with all the various laws. He got fired Because Reasons. Well, from his recent conversations with the lovely people with the FBI and the US Attorney's office who are investigating his former bosses, he appears to have been the only one who cared about pesky things like that.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at December 17, 2013 11:11 AM (VtjlW)
Gee you mean a Democrat run city is full of corrupt officials trying to shakedown corrupt businessmen. Shocking.
Posted by: buzzion at December 17, 2013 07:14 AM (LI48c)
That's why Torquemada was such a great piano teacher.
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at December 17, 2013 07:14 AM (KgpQn)
Posted by: Brother Cavil at December 17, 2013 07:15 AM (naUcP)
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at December 17, 2013 11:14 AM (KgpQn)
***
Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at December 17, 2013 07:15 AM (lHb9q)
Posted by: t-bird at December 17, 2013 07:15 AM (FcR7P)
"This assumes that the various entities weren't just fucking with the facility to get it to close down."
Yeah, sounds like it. Cheaper than a Kelo action and a lot less traumatizing for the pols. Historic building? Primo target.
Posted by: mrp at December 17, 2013 07:15 AM (HjPtV)
The only lessons that are remembered are those that are taught by pain.
"If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball."
- The Exalted Philosopher Laureate Patches O'Houlihan
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/i][/s][/u][/b] at December 17, 2013 07:17 AM (4df7R)
Thanks for the clear summary and exposition, Gabe.
I face a dilemma. Seeing Judge Cogan's comments reminds me that, on occasion, federal courts actually do their jobs, and are manned by capable people who understand language, the law, and their role in the system.
But overall, and see specifically the O-Care SCOTUS atrocity, or Hamdan, or DOMA ruling, and on and on, the general rule is that the whole process is a breathtakingly unimpressive, unserious, tendentious bunch of bullshit that has made a mockery of the rule of law (from the judicial side - the executive branch side's lawlessness is now well recognized).
My favorite absurdity - and it is no less than that - is the "compelling interest" concept. Don't force me to dig out my Soviet Criminal Code (any version, Stalin's or the 1977 one) and translate all the sections where the essential Russian equivalent of "compelling state interest" is used as a bedrock of a restriction or mandate or govt. power.
This whole "compelling state interest" and "narrowly tailored" and "strict scrutiny" nonsense is a laughable disemboweling of the letter and spirit of the constitution, and of law itself. It amounts to one gigantic "never mind" clause that, in effect, empties the constitution of meaning, insofar as the document's primary animating principle is limiting state power over the individual.
It is darkly amusing to see once again what pathetic, sub-mediocre intellects and personalities now hold the once-highest and most prestigious positions in the country. But even that gallows humor is wearing thin. And as stated above, the whole system is so unserious and capricious and divorced from logic that even replacing these idiots with less cretinous ones still will leave us being ruled by such ridiculous figures as Kennedy and Sotomayor.
Posted by: non-purist at December 17, 2013 07:17 AM (afQnV)
Posted by: BurtTC at December 17, 2013 11:10 AM (xCw24)
Burt:
No Republican voted for this law, and the Republicans alone cannot repeal it. The Democrats in the Senate will not take up any repeal measure, and if they do the President will veto it. I really can't see what more the Republicans can do about this.
As for your other complaint, that people are getting hurt and they did not vote for the representatives who did pass this - I really do not know what the response to that is other than to say that yes, sometimes the candidate you would rather have in office doesn't win.
Posted by: Mikey NTH - Death Capades - ObamaCare on Ice! Sponsored by the Outrage Outlet at December 17, 2013 07:17 AM (hLRSq)
Posted by: Dandolo at December 17, 2013 07:17 AM (0itOz)
>>>since when is it the morally acceptable position to wish harm on people so they will learn the lesson we want them to learn?"
>>>It is my belief that some pain now is preferable to greater pain later.
Correct.
Unless provision of free heroin is the morally superior position? Becoz you know, its kinda painful when addicts don't have any, and oddly enough a lot of people want them to learn something from that.
Posted by: Bigby's Semaphore Hands at December 17, 2013 07:17 AM (3ZtZW)
Whoever primaries McCain should have a commercial consisting of that statement plus maybe a few obviously dumb things from his daughter Tits McGee.
Posted by: Ian S. at December 17, 2013 07:18 AM (B/VB5)
Whoever primaries McCain should have a commercial consisting of that statement plus maybe a few obviously dumb things from his daughter Tits McGee.
Posted by: Ian S. at December 17, 2013 11:18 AM (B/VB5)
Don't forget "Obamacare is the law of the land."
You can probably also throw in some of his bullshit flip flopping on amnesty and border security.
Posted by: buzzion at December 17, 2013 07:20 AM (LI48c)
161: "Cause and effect. Sometimes, "deserve" really does have something to do with it."
Truth is its own virtue. You should start a card company and get paid for this.
Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at December 17, 2013 07:20 AM (/qzu7)
I thought if one part was unconstitutional the whole law was as well?
Posted by: Dandolo at December 17, 2013 11:17 AM (0itOz)
The contraception mandate and its narrow religious exemptions are in a HHS regulation, not in the statute. Regulations, or portions thereof, can always be tossed by a court without touching the underlying law.
Posted by: rockmom at December 17, 2013 07:21 AM (aBlZ1)
Posted by: t-bird at December 17, 2013 07:21 AM (FcR7P)
Posted by: BlueStateRebel at December 17, 2013 07:21 AM (7ObY1)
Posted by: Dandolo at December 17, 2013 07:22 AM (0itOz)
Posted by: Mama AJ at December 17, 2013 07:22 AM (SUKHu)
Posted by: John Boehner at December 17, 2013 07:23 AM (XPZpj)
It is amateur put together by second rate legal minds with any argument that remotely resembled something that might work, that while not understanding the law nor the arguments they were making about it, hoped that in the wash a valid argument would come out someplace. E.g. Pure legal amateurism.
That's really the best they had so they had to go with it and hope they got a progressive judge that would find an excuse to put politics before law, and then pray the Supreme Court just didn't take the case.
I'd like it to be the latter, but it looks a lot like the former.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Laughing Maniacally While Throwing Matches. at December 17, 2013 07:23 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: polynikes at December 17, 2013 07:23 AM (m2CN7)
Posted by: Bigby's Semaphore Hands at December 17, 2013 07:23 AM (3ZtZW)
Posted by: Brothers of Chinchilla Fur and Post-Coital Glow at December 17, 2013 07:24 AM (XPZpj)
Posted by: Veronica Corningstone at December 17, 2013 07:24 AM (/Crba)
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at December 17, 2013 07:25 AM (O3C36)
Posted by: polynikes at December 17, 2013 07:26 AM (m2CN7)
It was OK under code to vent a gas appliance into the attic, instead of to outside? Wow.
Posted by: Ian S. at December 17, 2013 07:27 AM (B/VB5)
It's as simple as that.
Point is- there's really nothing of significance they can do.
Obama isn't going to wake up next week, miraculously see the light and agree to repeal Obamacare. It's his only major achievement. Without it, he has no legacy to speak of.
Where do we want the focus right now? On the failures of Obamacare, or those big meanie unreasonable Republicans tilting at windmills again?
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 17, 2013 07:27 AM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: Comanche Voter at December 17, 2013 07:28 AM (VAche)
Posted by: BlueStateRebel at December 17, 2013 07:29 AM (7ObY1)
Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at December 17, 2013 07:29 AM (GaqMa)
Case of the poisoned lottery winner has been settled but police still list it as a homicide.
http://tinyurl.com/k4sdbzm
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at December 17, 2013 07:29 AM (HIbcx)
Posted by: Brothers of Chinchilla Fur and Post-Coital Glow at December 17, 2013 07:29 AM (97jsO)
Posted by: Mr. T at December 17, 2013 07:30 AM (/Crba)
Mark my words loyal subjects, in my 4th and 5th (term lol) in the Monarchy of Barak, I will end religion and make a tree and the sun your new gods.
Well make that Demi-gods, after me of course and Money and health to be the seconds.
That will be all.
-EB I
Posted by: Emperor Barak I at December 17, 2013 07:30 AM (DVC2D)
There's a third option, which is a variant of your first one: Obama actually made up the case himself, and this is an actual example of his allegedly brilliant legal mind.
Posted by: Ian S. at December 17, 2013 07:30 AM (B/VB5)
Posted by: [/i]KG at December 17, 2013 07:31 AM (p7BzH)
Posted by: MTF at December 17, 2013 07:31 AM (97jsO)
Posted by: blindside at December 17, 2013 07:32 AM (WzWmY)
179 -
You're describing the position the Republican party has taken. Shrugging their collective shoulders, sitting back and letting government as usual take place, hoping that people will suddenly decide to vote for them next time because they didn't vote for the original bill.
Good plan.
Posted by: BurtTC at December 17, 2013 07:32 AM (xCw24)
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at December 17, 2013 07:34 AM (V3kRK)
I thought if one part was unconstitutional the whole law was as well?
They'll play the "judicial restraint" card. Even without a severability clause, there's little chance that SCOTUS would invalidate the entire law over such a narrow aspect of it.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 17, 2013 07:34 AM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at December 17, 2013 07:34 AM (HIbcx)
Posted by: Adriane... at December 17, 2013 07:34 AM (jdRXP)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at December 17, 2013 07:35 AM (aDwsi)
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at December 17, 2013 11:07 AM (ZKzrr)
--------
The definitive version (GrooveShark)
http://tny.gs/1hZanhZ
Posted by: Cold Rage at December 17, 2013 07:35 AM (w+Fue)
Posted by: BlueStateRebel at December 17, 2013 07:35 AM (7ObY1)
They are going to shoehorn it in between Acts, and Romans.
Posted by: ASK21 at December 17, 2013 07:36 AM (hppbQ)
Posted by: akula51[/b][/i][/s] at December 17, 2013 07:36 AM (Ob/LA)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at December 17, 2013 07:38 AM (aDwsi)
"Mr. Mom" and "Mrs. Doubtfire", although comedies, showed that a man can do all the nurturing stuff.
Posted by: Jimbo at December 17, 2013 07:38 AM (V70Uh)
Posted by: [/i]KG at December 17, 2013 07:38 AM (p7BzH)
Posted by: BlueStateRebel at December 17, 2013 07:39 AM (7ObY1)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at December 17, 2013 07:41 AM (aDwsi)
Posted by: akula51[/b][/i][/s] at December 17, 2013 07:41 AM (Ob/LA)
Which is funny, because the relevant sections of the Koran are more or less a mirror image of Revelations. Obama probably thinks he's the missing imam.
Posted by: Ian S. at December 17, 2013 07:42 AM (B/VB5)
Posted by: Romeo13 at December 17, 2013 07:42 AM (lZBBB)
The character fights his archenemies “plastic man, coal man, and "corporate man.”
Wait, so they played GTA V and decided to make a real Impotent Rage?
Posted by: Ian S. at December 17, 2013 07:42 AM (B/VB5)
If I lived in a big city, my assumption would be that all city inspectors are highly trained to focus on the important details of their assigned duties. If you know what I mean and etc. etc.
Posted by: mrp at December 17, 2013 07:43 AM (HjPtV)
Two American Cardinals with reputations as conservatives, replaced by at least one guy who is a known "moderate."
The Pope is trying to surround the hierarchy of the Church with people who won't be so harsh on topics like contraception, abortion, and gay marriage.
Brave new world we're living in...
Posted by: BurtTC at December 17, 2013 10:38 AM (xCw24)"
I think Francis is going to allow giving Holy Communion to folks that have remarried after divorce.
Posted by: Jimbo at December 17, 2013 07:43 AM (V70Uh)
Posted by: t-bird at December 17, 2013 11:21 AM (FcR7P)
A repeal measure cannot get onto the Senate floor for a vote because Harry Reid, as senate majority leader, controls the agenda. The Democrats in the Senate would have to revolt and remove Reid as Senate majority leader.
I do not see that happening yet.
Posted by: Mikey NTH - Death Capades - ObamaCare on Ice! Sponsored by the Outrage Outlet at December 17, 2013 07:44 AM (hLRSq)
Posted by: Capt. America, from his Porch at December 17, 2013 07:45 AM (lZBBB)
Posted by: rickb223 at December 17, 2013 07:46 AM (GjYxB)
And what's your Grand Plan, sport?
Another doomed-to-fail shutdown where the focus will not be on the failings of Obamacare, but instead on the poor children who can't visit the National Parks along with the grave, imminent danger that Republicans are putting the country in over the prospect of default?
Or perhaps some other equally futile distraction that gives the MSM an excuse to rally around the Obama flag instead of reporting about the failures of Obamacare and the lies told to defend it?
Don't you worry- if there's anybody in the country who still doesn't understand that Republicans are opposed to this monstrosity and it's suckage, they'll be reminded repeatedly in campaign ads this Fall.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 17, 2013 07:46 AM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: whoever at December 17, 2013 07:47 AM (zu9Ee)
Posted by: Heywood Jablowme at December 17, 2013 07:47 AM (jsWA8)
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at December 17, 2013 07:48 AM (/Crba)
That ship sailed when the country elected a guy who refused to prove his eligibility for the office, and nobody cared.
Posted by: whoever at December 17, 2013 11:47 AM (zu9Ee)
Shhhhhhhh! Don't mention that! Do you want to look like a Tea-Tard?
(snark off)
Posted by: Havedash at December 17, 2013 07:49 AM (gvqyH)
Posted by: mrp at December 17, 2013 07:50 AM (HjPtV)
Posted by: Romeo13 at December 17, 2013 07:50 AM (lZBBB)
How did everyone miss this ruling?
(It is Tues, right? )
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at December 17, 2013 07:52 AM (B0gqn)
Posted by: akula51[/b][/i][/s] at December 17, 2013 07:52 AM (Ob/LA)
Pass the Ryan budget without the blowjobs for Harry Reid in it? I mean, at this point they aren't even trying to appear Republican.
Posted by: Ian S. at December 17, 2013 07:52 AM (B/VB5)
The character fights his archenemies “plastic man, coal man, and "corporate man.”
I'd love to see what the good ole boys of the Mercury - Apollo era would think about today's NASA, Glenn asside. He's probably all for their liberal BS.
Posted by: Havedash at December 17, 2013 07:53 AM (gvqyH)
What all this means is that even if Republicans were to ever get back their reins of power, they would find it no easier to enact conservative laws and policies than it is now, supposing that they actually *want* to enact such. If they cannot stand on principle now, they will certainly not do so later.
Posted by: [/i]KG at December 17, 2013 07:53 AM (p7BzH)
Posted by: BurtTC at December 17, 2013 11:32 AM (xCw24)
Burt - what can the Republicans do? They don't have the votes in the Senate to repeal it and if they somehow got the votes in the Senate the President will veto any repeal. What, exactly, can the Republicans do about this?
All I can see that can actually be done is keep pointing out the problems and keep stating that the Democrats caused this. If you have something else that can be done, please share it.
Posted by: Mikey NTH - Death Capades - ObamaCare on Ice! Sponsored by the Outrage Outlet at December 17, 2013 07:53 AM (hLRSq)
That's partially true, and I agree there's too much blanket criticism of "The GOP" when it should be against individual Republicans who deserve it for their actions.
That said, you're leaving out an even bigger influence: The Voters.
Tell them you're cutting a wasteful Dept of Education program, and all they'll hear is "Republicans cutting education budget because they're mean and hate kids".
Sure, one could argue that they should do what's right without regard to electoral consequences, but then who replaces them?
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 17, 2013 07:53 AM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: Brass Bancroft at December 17, 2013 07:53 AM (2iHnw)
Posted by: Romeo13 at December 17, 2013 07:54 AM (lZBBB)
Posted by: Mikey NTH - Death Capades - ObamaCare on Ice! Sponsored by the Outrage Outlet at December 17, 2013 11:53 AM (hLRSq)
It's more like, what should they not do? Well, the Ryan budget is a pretty good example...
Posted by: [/i]KG at December 17, 2013 07:55 AM (p7BzH)
Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at December 17, 2013 07:56 AM (GaqMa)
Yeah, the heater itself vents through the roof, this was the vent for the closet it was housed in.
Posted by: booger at December 17, 2013 07:56 AM (xRDdL)
241 -
I suspect the Dems are not going to lose as many seats as you think they will. Oh, people may not vote for them like they have in the past, but that certainly does not mean they are going to vote for Republicans.
Option C is sitting at home.
Posted by: BurtTC at December 17, 2013 07:57 AM (xCw24)
Posted by: [/i][/b][/u][/s] Tami at December 17, 2013 07:57 AM (bCEmE)
How did everyone miss this ruling?
(It is Tues, right? )
Posted by: weft cut-loop at December 17, 2013 11:52 AM (B0gqn)
Probably the same way that we've yet to hear a description of the carjacking "thugs" who murdered the guy in NJ. I actually heard a news tard on Fox say people should be on the lookout for 2 armed thugs, but gave no description whatsoever of the thugs. Wonder why?
Posted by: Havedash at December 17, 2013 07:58 AM (gvqyH)
Posted by: Romeo13 at December 17, 2013 07:59 AM (lZBBB)
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 17, 2013 07:59 AM (oGiQr)
248 -
Keep pointing out? Keep stating?
All I see is the leadership of your party demonizing the Tea Partiers. How does that translate into them fighting the Democrats?
Posted by: BurtTC at December 17, 2013 07:59 AM (xCw24)
Ok.
Posted by: mrp at December 17, 2013 07:59 AM (HjPtV)
They could actually hold some press conferences and do some messaging of their own. I mean, for purposes other than slamming their own base. A couple of Ross Perot-style charts showing education spending vs. quality could sell the heck out of whatever cuts they want to do.
Posted by: Ian S. at December 17, 2013 08:00 AM (B/VB5)
Wasn't this POS passed without a "severability" clause? Wouldn't this mean that, normally, the whole goes down with the part?
Posted by: phaedrus at December 17, 2013 08:01 AM (k5lLF)
Posted by: Romeo13 at December 17, 2013 08:04 AM (lZBBB)
Posted by: Chief Clancy Wiggum at December 17, 2013 08:05 AM (/Crba)
263 -
That was certainly one of the arguments in 2112, but apparently John Roberts isn't all that concerned with what the law says. He's a big fan of letting things go the way they are going, so if the Prez decides not to enforce some components of the law, or create whole new ones out of nothing, Roberts seems to be pretty much ok with that.
Posted by: BurtTC at December 17, 2013 08:06 AM (xCw24)
262: " A couple of Ross Perot-style charts showing education spending vs. quality could sell the heck out of whatever cuts they want to do."
I tend to think that charts only work with adults.
The people that KEEP voting for these crap sammiches are the same ones that just transfer the utilties into someone else's name when they get shut off for non-payment, and who also see lottery tickets as their way out of the ghetto/barrio/trailer park.
And unfortunately, they now outnumber us. Demographics = Destiny.
Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at December 17, 2013 08:06 AM (/qzu7)
Posted by: wth at December 17, 2013 08:07 AM (wAQA5)
Posted by: Margarita DeVille at December 17, 2013 08:08 AM (dfYL9)
Question for a knowledgeable moron.
Wasn't this POS passed without a "severability" clause? Wouldn't this mean that, normally, the whole goes down with the part?
Posted by: phaedrus at December 17, 2013 12:01 PM (k5lLF)
I keep wondering about this too. They intentionally left out a severability clause in the legislation. I really doubt a judge would strike the whole thing based on a small part. The will just come up with some BS to justify not striking in.
I would be curious to hear from somebody with a lawyers background
Posted by: The Jackhole at December 17, 2013 08:09 AM (nTgAI)
Posted by: akula51[/b][/i][/s] at December 17, 2013 08:10 AM (Ob/LA)
If all of your money is going to pay for healthcare, it makes it kind of hard to donate to political causes, doesn't it?
Posted by: blindside at December 17, 2013 11:32 AM (WzWmY)
My vaguely semi-serious conspiracy theory is the reason we keep seeing these feints towards gun control is that the admin wants gun owners spending their money on guns and ammo and not on politics. Granted a lot of that money goes to the NRA and gun friendly pols but given the Searchlight Stranglers good NRA rating, some of that cash benefits their side.
I didn't say it was a GOOD theory. Just one I like to take out and noodle with every so often.
Posted by: J. Random Dude at December 17, 2013 08:10 AM (8OfdL)
See above. Gabe has chimed in with the bad news already.
Posted by: akula51 at December 17, 2013 12:10 PM (Ob/LA)
Thanks
Posted by: The Jackhole at December 17, 2013 08:11 AM (nTgAI)
>>>They could actually hold some press
conferences and do some messaging of their own. I mean, for purposes
other than slamming their own base. A couple of Ross Perot-style charts showing education spending vs. quality could sell the heck out of whatever cuts they want to do.
.
.
.Big problem with that is no one from any news network in the MSM will cover it or broadcast it. Libs own the media, and they will show everything about Republican in-fighting and intra-party wars and all, but they won't show much of anything else, certainly nothing that helps the Republican Party. Fox may show it, but that won't sway many people.
Posted by: Registered voter at December 17, 2013 08:11 AM (BGFPo)
Posted by: ontherocks at December 17, 2013 08:13 AM (42o0q)
269 -
If the leadership of the Republican party wanted to get a message out there, it would get out there. The fact that their message isn't out there pretty much proves they aren't interested in sending one.
People tend to hear conservatives when they speak up, but if you are Ted Cruz or Sarah Palin, and get attacked by people in both parties when you do, I would hardly blame the media for that.
Posted by: BurtTC at December 17, 2013 08:14 AM (xCw24)
Yeah, because CBS definitely didn't report on Benghazi, and nobody covered the ObamaCare failures.
The MFM is, surprisingly, in a position of being kind of lukewarm on TFG. The Republicans should be at least attempting to take advantage. If you assume failure, you will most certainly get it.
Posted by: Ian S. at December 17, 2013 08:14 AM (B/VB5)
Perhaps you should list out for us which Sacred Cows should never face spending cuts.
While we're at it, let everybody else add their personal Sacred Cows to the list.
Know what'll be left to cut? Approximately nothing.
The cut to military pensions only pertains to retirees under 62 years old (those still of working age), and then it's a 1% cut to cost of living increases.
Once they turn 62, those cuts no longer apply.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 17, 2013 08:15 AM (SY2Kh)
279 -
Yeah, I simply don't buy the notion that there is no room for the Republican position to get heard. The media has an interest in Obama, sure, but they also like selling newspapers and tv ads. If somebody in the R party was interested in being heard, the networks would find room for them on their shows.
Newt managed to do it, and he wasn't exactly loved by the media either. Reagan was famous for speaking over the media, directly to the people.
It can be done, but somebody in charge of the party has to want to do it. Apparently, they don't.
Posted by: BurtTC at December 17, 2013 08:19 AM (xCw24)
>>The cut to military pensions only pertains to retirees under 62 years old (those still of working age), and then it's a 1% cut to cost of living increases.
Once they turn 62, those cuts no longer apply.
.
.
.As one of those affected (my wife is also Retired Navy) I have zero issues with helping out if, and I mean if, everyone else that is getting a government check of any kind, takes a hit also. The food stamps people already took their hit earlier this year so that's two groups done leaving about 11eleventy bazillion to go.
Posted by: Registered voter at December 17, 2013 08:20 AM (BGFPo)
Posted by: BlueStateRebel at December 17, 2013 11:39 AM (7ObY1)
Every elementary school kid knows that Lloyd Garmadon is the Green Ninja, and he is a Lego-dude. NASA is fixing to get sued with this one.
Posted by: tcn at December 17, 2013 08:22 AM (fwcEs)
Posted by: ontherocks at December 17, 2013 08:23 AM (42o0q)
Posted by: Math at December 17, 2013 08:24 AM (lZBBB)
Fanfuckingtastic.
Thanks for the talking points, McBackStaffer.
Posted by: 13times at December 17, 2013 08:26 AM (fGPLK)
Posted by: AC at December 17, 2013 08:26 AM (u8cdA)
Let's see what that gets us besides some breathing room for a better country.
Posted by: ontherocks at December 17, 2013 12:23 PM (42o0q)
Cut. Jib. Newsletter.
Email and call ALL reps, current and future, please.
Posted by: tcn at December 17, 2013 08:27 AM (fwcEs)
Posted by: Romeo13 at December 17, 2013 08:28 AM (lZBBB)
Posted by: Meremortal, writing briefs at December 17, 2013 08:30 AM (1Y+hH)
Posted by: Mary Cloggenstein from Brattleboro, Vermont at December 17, 2013 09:07 AM (5ZI7f)
Keep pointing out? Keep stating?
All I see is the leadership of your party demonizing the Tea Partiers. How does that translate into them fighting the Democrats?
Posted by: BurtTC at December 17, 2013 11:59 AM (xCw24)
Congratulations. You didn't answer my question about what the Republicans can do about ObamaCare. I suspect you just want to vent on the Republicans for their venal habits (which is always appropriate to slag them for). Yep, some Republicans are really going after the Tea Partiers, and that has been reciprocated in the typical intra-party faction squabbling that always goes on.
There really isn't any point in taking this any further, is there?
Posted by: Mikey NTH - Death Capades - ObamaCare on Ice! Sponsored by the Outrage Outlet at December 17, 2013 09:08 AM (hLRSq)
Posted by: akula51[/b][/i][/s] at December 17, 2013 09:10 AM (Ob/LA)
Posted by: torabora at December 17, 2013 04:35 PM (1jp4v)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.3225 seconds, 422 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: EC at December 17, 2013 05:59 AM (GQ8sn)