Ace of Spades HQ

December 27, 2013

Some Obamacare Stuff
— Gabriel Malor

Some of ya'll asked some questions in the comments to my Obamacare and Religion post.

Emile Antoon Khadaji asked:

Does ACA's purported lack of severability come into play with any of these challenges?

Short answer: no.

Long answer: no, of course not. For some reason, the question of severability has been batted around since the first Obamacare lawsuits. I'm not sure where the idea started that the statute needs a severability clause or it all fails if any single part of it is found unconstitutional, since that has never been the law. There are, quite simply, no consequences from the lack of a severability clause. The courts will still try to preserve as much of a duly passed law they can, if any one part of it is found unconstitutional.

For example, should the contraception mandate be held unconstitutional, that obviously doesn't affect the Medicaid mandate, the individual mandate, the subsidies, the exchanges, etc. etc. On the other hand, should the subsidies be knocked down in that litigation, it's possible (not probable, but possible) that the individual mandate itself as well as the exchanges will fall, since the Obama administration has argued that one can't survive without the other. Note, even if the individual mandate were to fall in this manner, many other parts of Obamacare would survive, including the Medicaid expansion, numerous taxes, etc.

Frumious Bandersnatch asks:

Excellent post, Gabe. Some of the comments provoke me to make a bleg.
There's a lot of hate in the horde for Roberts. (There are elements of the horde that have no forgiveness for apostasy. No matter how brilliant a Peggy Noonan column is there will be five comments saying the scrunt still has Obama's dribble on her chin from 0.
Roberts called OCare a tax, when O had insisted it wasn't a tax. That was a big fuck you to Obama. What is u pardonable around here is that Roberts didn't sieze an opportunity to get the right result (he coulda killed it dead!) by striking down the signature law of a (then) popular president. So he said, fuck you, it's a tax, have fun with it. And he let a structurally flawed monstrosity launch itself into the world where its flaws and failings can be exposed and attacked by other actors. And that's working.
So, here's my bleg. If you share this general sentiment can you make a post about it that's a lot smarter than I could do?

Sorry. I don't share that sentiment. Chief Justice Roberts wrote an outstanding decision in the Obamacare case and then lost his nerve. Justice Scalia signed his name to Roberts' first opinion, Justice Kennedy read it from the bench as their joint dissent -- an act signalling deep disapproval of Roberts' actions. Roberts wrote a new decision holding that the individual mandate passes constitutional muster as a tax, something that wasn't even in the realistic expectation of any of the parties and that decision is now the law of the land.

There's one thing to like about the Chief Justice's decision and that's the determination that the individual mandate was not authorized under the Commerce Clause. That's good. Conservatives have been trying to rein in Congress' Commerce Clause overreach for decades. So we got that. But justifying the individual mandate as a tax was so patently a dodge by the Chief Justice that it damaged the Court's legitimacy in all eyes -- which was exactly what the Chief was trying to avoid.

I don't think there's any reason to believe the Chief Justice was playing n-dimensional chess. It appears, particularly given the gibberish in the tax portion of his decision, that he simply lost his nerve. As I wrote shortly before the decision, ironically defending Roberts from the accusation that he was an activist judge, "The Roberts Court doesn't even come close to overturning the number of laws that its three predecessors did. . . . One could even creditably call the Roberts Court the most restrained, incrementalist Court of the modern era." Alas, Roberts turned out to be too incrementalist for my taste.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 06:22 AM | Comments (185)
Post contains 688 words, total size 4 kb.

1 John Roberts can kiss my grits!

Posted by: Killerdog at December 27, 2013 06:24 AM (iz8V5)

2 OK, a more polite version of what I was thinking yesterday (and for the record, thank you for explaining your reasoning re: severability): If severability clauses or the lack thereof are effectively meaningless, why are they so frequently included in legislation?

Posted by: Brother Cavil at December 27, 2013 06:25 AM (naUcP)

3 "...There are, quite simply, no consequences from the lack of a severability clause. The courts will still try to preserve as much of a duly passed law they can, if any one part of it is found unconstitutional." How can they legally do that? If so, then why even have a severability clause in the first place? Makes no sense at all.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 27, 2013 06:27 AM (olDqf)

4 If the court had struck down OCare, all we would be hearing would be how conservatives killed a law that would have helped everyone. Thanks to Roberts we got to see just how disastrous the law is, instead of giving the libs a chance to rewrite it.

Posted by: Norcross at December 27, 2013 06:28 AM (tmDTL)

5 How can they legally do that? If so, then why even have a severability clause in the first place? Makes no sense at all. --- Since when has law or the Constitution actually entered into court decisions in this country?

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at December 27, 2013 06:28 AM (/Crba)

6 4 If the court had struck down OCare, all we would be hearing would be how conservatives killed a law that would have helped everyone. Thanks to Roberts we got to see just how disastrous the law is, instead of giving the libs a chance to rewrite it. Posted by: Norcross at December 27, 2013 10:28 AM (tmDTL) Or, as Steve Miller once sang, "Â…you gotta go through Hell before you get to HeavenÂ…"

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 27, 2013 06:29 AM (olDqf)

7 "No matter how brilliant a Peggy Noonan column is there will be five comments saying the scrunt still has Obama's dribble on her chin from 0."

She's not brilliant at all. She's a scrunt and still has Obama's dribble on her chin.

Posted by: SFGoth at December 27, 2013 06:29 AM (NYAei)

8 I saw Severability Clause open for Phil Collins at the Odium in 1998.

Posted by: chiefjaybob at December 27, 2013 06:29 AM (rrsBM)

9 Good analysis Gabe. It is the simplest explanation of what happened with Roberts. But I still want to know why he lost his nerve. If he caved under the threat of the left promising to attack the opinion eleventy times as hard as they went after Citizens United, that would mean he was bullied into making a decision he thought was wrong. And what would that say about the Chief Justice?

Posted by: duke at December 27, 2013 06:29 AM (d3clc)

10 CJ Roberts decided to Let It Burn.

Of course, if ObamaCare had been struck down we would all be treated to the ear-splitting whine from the Left wailing about the 'hyper-political court' and all of the missed blessings of ObamaCare. Instead everyone gets a lesson in what such a shambling monster really looks like.

A useful - though painful - lesson.

Posted by: Mikey NTH - Don't Wait to the Last Minute to Purchase that Special Someone a Squabble Set! at December 27, 2013 06:30 AM (gmoEG)

11 I saw Severability Clause open for Phil Collins at the Odium in 1998. The venue is the Odeon. Odium is a measure of disdain. ...eh, it fits. Carry on.

Posted by: Brother Cavil at December 27, 2013 06:30 AM (naUcP)

12 Or, as Steve Miller once sang, "Â…you gotta go through Hell before you get to HeavenÂ…" --- Random note- That particular song was on the Clear Channel "Do Not Play" after 9/11, when they effectively banned any songs which had lyrics about airplanes, crashes, violence, etc.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at December 27, 2013 06:30 AM (/Crba)

13 Gabe, another good post. However, there is a silver lining to the ruling that it is a tax. Roberts argued that since the $ was too small to directly influence behavior, it was a tax and not a mandate/fee/penalty/Snarf. By definition then, the individual mandate cannot work as anything more than wishful thinking or a Sunstein nudge. If the mandate penalty/tax increases to the point where it is in fact economically rational to pay for insurance than to pay the penalty/tax, then according to the rationale of the Court, it is no longer a tax but a penalty. It leaves open the opportunity for re-litigation should it continue to crumble.

Posted by: AMDG at December 27, 2013 06:31 AM (t7OO0)

14 What happened to Roberts? Well, my friends, if you have nothing to hide...

Posted by: NSA at December 27, 2013 06:31 AM (hFL/3)

15 Roberts could have saved America. Instead, he nailed the coffin shut. Our only short-term hope is that with his finger in the wind, and seeing the ruination all around us, he makes up something that will undo the monstrosity he helped shit into existence.

Posted by: Jack Nine at December 27, 2013 06:31 AM (0h8aq)

16 5 Since when has law or the Constitution actually entered into court decisions in this country? Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at December 27, 2013 10:28 AM (/Crba) That's why I said, how can they "LEGALLY" do it. I know they are ignoring, rewriting, making up out of whole cloth whatever the fuck they want. I am merely asking, in purely technical terms, how if there is no severability clause, can they not throw the whole thing out? Why have that clause for any law in the first place?

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 27, 2013 06:31 AM (olDqf)

17 And what would that say about the Chief Justice? --- That he either needs to be removed or that the right needs to plan its own attacks to get shithead to vote correctly.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at December 27, 2013 06:31 AM (/Crba)

18 Justice Scalia signed his name to Roberts' first opinion, Justice Kennedy read it from the bench as their joint dissent -- an act signalling deep disapproval of Roberts' actions. Roberts wrote a new decision holding that the individual mandate passes constitutional muster as a tax..
---

I had not known Robert's had written a first opinion.
i will now have to scour the internet.

Posted by: willow at December 27, 2013 06:32 AM (nqBYe)

19 I want to know where the Congress even gets the power to set the minimum standards for insurance policies. If state commissions can control which companies and which policies can be sold in their state, it would seem that it's an intra-state issue.

Posted by: toby928© Texan by birth, Moron by the grace of Ace at December 27, 2013 06:33 AM (QupBk)

20 12 Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at December 27, 2013 10:30 AM (/Crba) The big kerfluffle at my college radio station was play the song with "funky SHIT" or "funky KICKS going down in the cityÂ…"

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 27, 2013 06:34 AM (olDqf)

21 "You can't fool me. There ain't no such'a thing as Severability Clause." Zombie Chico Marx...

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 27, 2013 06:35 AM (olDqf)

22 What really urks me , is we have such a high bar (where is the top?) to reach standing as individuals .

Posted by: willow at December 27, 2013 06:35 AM (nqBYe)

23 And of course what will destroy private insurance in this law is the must issue and community rating portions. I don't even see those being challenged anywhere.

Posted by: toby928© Texan by birth, Moron by the grace of Ace at December 27, 2013 06:35 AM (QupBk)

24 No, there is nothing to like about Robert's decision. Do not exclaim joy over the kernel of corn you find . . .

Posted by: Count de Monet at December 27, 2013 06:35 AM (BAS5M)

25 So...Robert's threw out the baby with the bath water and is only a little bit of a c-sucker.

I see.

Posted by: dananjcon at December 27, 2013 06:35 AM (wmU4G)

26 Posted by: toby928Â© Texan by birth, Moron by the grace of Ace at December 27, 2013 10:33 AM (QupBk) Since Wickard v. Fillburn, the word "intra-state" doesn't mean anything.

Posted by: AMDG at December 27, 2013 06:36 AM (t7OO0)

27 That particular song was on the Clear Channel "Do Not Play" after 9/11, when they effectively banned any songs which had lyrics about airplanes, crashes, violence, etc. WTF does big ol' Jed's putting a light on have to do with airplanes?

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at December 27, 2013 06:36 AM (V3kRK)

28 3 J.J. Sefton at December 27, 2013 10:27 AM (olDqf)

JJ we are discussing the logic and morals of the Legal class...

imagine a bunch of retards fucking a door knob...

you're there.

That's it...essentially the entire field is devolving into a game of "Justification" the RPG

Posted by: sven10077 at December 27, 2013 06:36 AM (9jfyN)

29 18 I had not known Robert's had written a first opinion. i will now have to scour the internet. Posted by: willow at December 27, 2013 10:32 AM (nqBYe) OH YES, my fried! He initially made the correct decision and Ruth Baader-Meinhoff wrote the dissent. Scalia and Kennedy both blew a fucking gasket on Roberts and had to rewrite their initial opinion and change it to the dissent. If you read them, you can almost see where the white out was used.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 27, 2013 06:37 AM (olDqf)

30 Personally I think Roberts was blackmailed when word got out of his original decision and he ended up just getting damn lucky (and when it comes to it - all conservatives did too) that Obama and his group of bungling idiots didn't know what the hell they were getting themselves into.

But that's just me.

Posted by: H Badger at December 27, 2013 06:37 AM (n/0Nw)

31 7 SFGoth at December 27, 2013 10:29 AM (NYAei)

Quite some rivers once crossed never wash off...

Piggy crossed one.

Posted by: sven10077 at December 27, 2013 06:37 AM (9jfyN)

32 They should really be calling it robertscare

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 27, 2013 06:38 AM (t3UFN)

There's a lot of hate in the horde for Roberts. (There are elements of the horde that have no forgiveness for apostasy. No matter how brilliant a Peggy Noonan column is there will be five comments saying the scrunt still has Obama's dribble on her chin from 0.

Noonan's sin wasn't apostasy, it was idiocy. Any reasonably bright person could have seen, from Barky's murky past, racist, treasonous friends and utter lack of any legislative record except jumping at the chance to murder babies, that he shouldn't have come within miles of the Oval Office.

He was Denzel Washington to her - a bright, smooth-talking black man. So she squirted in her panties, turned off her brain and helped foist this clown on us. She, like "Creases" Brooks, should be mocked and reviled at every opportunity. She deserves it in spades.

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at December 27, 2013 06:38 AM (zF6Iw)

34 24 No, there is nothing to like about Robert's decision. Do not exclaim joy over the kernel of corn you find . . . Posted by: Count de Monet at December 27, 2013 10:35 AM (BAS5M) Agreed. I had that argument with a friend of mine who was ecstatic that now our wise elected officials can roll back the Leviathan because it's all taxes. I laughed so hard I nearly had an aneurysm.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 27, 2013 06:38 AM (olDqf)

35 No, if Roberts would have struck down the mandate / tax, then Congress would have had to come up with another solution since national healthcare was out of the bag and would not have been tabled. As it is now, ACA or not, the court says that the government can force me to purchase anything they want whether I need it or not.

Posted by: polynikes at December 27, 2013 06:38 AM (m2CN7)

36 Since Wickard v. Fillburn, the word "intra-state" doesn't mean anything. So it would appear, but why then has the state insurance commission form of extortion not been overthrown as an infringement on interstate commerce?

Posted by: toby928© Texan by birth, Moron by the grace of Ace at December 27, 2013 06:38 AM (QupBk)

37 So the severability clauses are only applicable to contract law and not constitutional law? Askin' for a friend.

Posted by: Count de Monet at December 27, 2013 06:39 AM (BAS5M)

38

John Roberts and Peggy Noonan, sitting in a tree

K-I-S-S-I-N-G

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 27, 2013 06:39 AM (kdS6q)

39 Screw John Roberts. Item One Day One of the Cruz/Paul/Jindal Administration: Repeal The Thing. Item Two: Expand the Supreme Court to Eleven Justices.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here)-also drooling imbecile incapable of doing algebra or something at December 27, 2013 06:39 AM (659DL)

40 Yes, Noonan was wrong about Obama and I share the frustration that the Noonan's and Buckley's couldn't see Obama's problems; especially since they weren't difficult at all to see. But read her "When Character was King" about the Reagan administration. Awesome. I'll cut her a little slack just for that. And since she did finally see the light on Obama, she has written some good stuff. The point (to me) about arguing this stuff is to try to get people to come to a correct conclusion. People get frustrated when others don't see the light (I remember when Ace jumped on the Romney bandwagon before others were ready to do so; that led to some heated exchanges). So know she's seen the light. Are we going to offer her a jovial "welcome to the party, pal," or continue to call her an Obama bootlicker?

Posted by: duke at December 27, 2013 06:40 AM (d3clc)

41 And of course what will destroy private insurance in this law is the must issue and community rating portions. I don't even see those being challenged anywhere. Posted by: toby928Â© Texan by birth, Moron by the grace of Ace at December 27, 2013 10:35 AM (QupBk) ***** Exactly. There are so many flawed assumptions in the law as written. The failure of young healthy individuals to opt in is merely the very first phase of what will be a series of failures compounded at each step. It's kind of like making a six-rail bank shot in pool. It doesn't matter how good a player you are, it just isn't going to happen.

Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at December 27, 2013 06:40 AM (g4TxM)

42 27
That particular song was on the Clear Channel "Do Not Play" after 9/11, when they effectively banned any songs which had lyrics about airplanes, crashes, violence, etc.

WTF does big ol' Jed's putting a light on have to do with airplanes? Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT

LOL, I always thought it was "Big ol' Jed at a lineup".

Posted by: SFGoth at December 27, 2013 06:40 AM (NYAei)

43 Serfs get to glean the harvested fields after the crops are on their way to the castle.

Posted by: eman at December 27, 2013 06:41 AM (EWsrI)

44 28 Posted by: sven10077 at December 27, 2013 10:36 AM (9jfyN) Sven, I realize that. My question is purely academic. In a sane and rationale world, what is the purpose of a severability clause? To wit, if a law or even a part thereof is found unconstitutional at the SCOTUS, does a lack of said clause nullify the whole thing? That's all I want to know.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 27, 2013 06:41 AM (olDqf)

45 Re: Noonan She's a Beltway animal. No, I do not forgive those who, despite every sign to the contrary, rushed to carry water for that guy.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here)-also drooling imbecile incapable of doing algebra or something at December 27, 2013 06:41 AM (659DL)

46 Can anybody explain how Chief Justice Roberts didn't violate the 9th Amendment by declaring the "penalty" a "tax" ?

Posted by: Dr. Josef Mengele at December 27, 2013 06:41 AM (e8kgV)

47 39 Item Two: Expand the Supreme Court to Eleven Justices. Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here)-also drooling imbecile incapable of doing algebra or something at December 27, 2013 10:39 AM (659DL) Meh. Dissolve the entire Federal government except for the DoD and any other entity that is covered in the constitution.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 27, 2013 06:42 AM (olDqf)

48 No, if Roberts would have struck down the mandate / tax, then Congress would have had to come up with another solution since national healthcare was out of the bag and would not have been tabled. As it is now, ACA or not, the court says that the government can force me to purchase anything they want whether I need it or not. Posted by: polynikes at December 27, 2013 10:38 AM (m2CN7) Well not necessarily. By the time of the Court decision, the Dems NO longer controlled Congress, the Republicans did

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 27, 2013 06:43 AM (t3UFN)

So know she's seen the light. Are we going to offer her a jovial "welcome to the party, pal," or continue to call her an Obama bootlicker?

Posted by: duke at December 27, 2013 10:40 AM (d3clc)

She deliberately closed her ears to the warnings, all because of damp panties and eye-clawing envy of Palin. Just like Juan "I'm a war hero!" McStain, she's worn out her credibility. Fuck her.

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at December 27, 2013 06:43 AM (zF6Iw)

50 36 Since Wickard v. Fillburn, the word "intra-state" doesn't mean anything. So it would appear, but why then has the state insurance commission form of extortion not been overthrown as an infringement on interstate commerce? Posted by: toby928Â© Texan by birth, Moron by the grace of Ace at December 27, 2013 10:38 AM (QupBk) The answer to that is the same reason the insurance companies jumped into bed with SCOAMF in the first place. I don't mean his magical schvantz, either.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 27, 2013 06:44 AM (olDqf)

51 And since she did finally see the light on Obama, she has written some good stuff.

Posted by: duke

You want "finally seeing the light"??? Ask Franz von Papen about finally seeing the light.

Posted by: SFGoth at December 27, 2013 06:44 AM (NYAei)

Item One Day One of the Cruz/Paul/Jindal Administration: Repeal The Thing.

Item Two: Expand the Supreme Court to Eleven Justices.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here)-also drooling imbecile incapable of doing algebra or something at December 27, 2013 10:39 AM (659DL)

Item Three: Begin the Hangings.

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at December 27, 2013 06:44 AM (zF6Iw)

53 Peggy Noonan's writing is too superfluous for me even when she is correct. It's as if she is concentrating more on style than substance and overdoes it.

Posted by: polynikes at December 27, 2013 06:44 AM (m2CN7)

54 44 J.J. Sefton at December 27, 2013 10:41 AM (olDqf)

Once upon a time this nation revered contracts and "law"....

you had a severance to save law that was skirting the horizon of Constitutionality on a point but was on solid ground elseways.

Now with new and improved ACTIVIST court you pass the zaniest shit you can and the Men and Women in Black play a game of Scategories to figure out what shit sticks....

Posted by: sven10077 at December 27, 2013 06:44 AM (9jfyN)

55 Posted by: toby928Â© Texan by birth, Moron by the grace of Ace at December 27, 2013 10:38 AM (QupBk) Short answer: because they all did it. Since every state had their own rules on what insurance had to cover, there weren't plans being sold across state lines, so it didn't hit the level of interstate commerce. States can make rules that affect interstate commerce, as long as 1) it affects in-state and out-of-state companies the same (generally) and 2) the federal government hasn't already taken the field by putting in interstate regulations, OR 3) the federal government specifically gives the states the power to regulate a certain element of interstate commerce. In this case, it's a mix of both. Companies like BCBS have different offices in each state because it's easier that way, but it's a national company probably from Delaware.

Posted by: AMDG at December 27, 2013 06:44 AM (t7OO0)

56 Build a million bridges they'll never call you a bridge builder, Suck ONE dick...You're a cock sucker!

Posted by: Peggy Noonanan at December 27, 2013 06:44 AM (wmU4G)

57 Noonan is a fool and we have no duty to suffer fools.

Posted by: eman at December 27, 2013 06:46 AM (EWsrI)

58 As it is now, ACA or not, the court says that the government can force me to purchase anything they want whether I need it or not.
Posted by: polynikes at December 27, 2013 10:38 AM (m2CN7)

or can afford it or not. But exactly, They can use this to stab us repeatedly for the future.

Posted by: willow at December 27, 2013 06:46 AM (nqBYe)

59 Apropos of nothing, aren't we looking at the "Dairy Cliff" again this new year? I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not paying $7 a gallon for milk.

Posted by: toby928© Texan by birth, Moron by the grace of Ace at December 27, 2013 06:46 AM (QupBk)

60 54 Now with new and improved ACTIVIST court you pass the zaniest shit you can and the Men and Women in Black play a game of Scategories to figure out what shit sticks.... Posted by: sven10077 at December 27, 2013 10:44 AM (9jfyN) In the words of Alex DeLarge, "As clear as an unmuddied lake, oh my brother."

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 27, 2013 06:46 AM (olDqf)

61 59 Apropos of nothing, aren't we looking at the "Dairy Cliff" again this new year? I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not paying $7 a gallon for milk. Posted by: toby928Â© Texan by birth, Moron by the grace of Ace at December 27, 2013 10:46 AM (QupBk) The government can subsidize Candy Samples.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 27, 2013 06:47 AM (olDqf)

62 In the words of Alex DeLarge, "As clear as an unmuddied lake, oh my brother." --- How long until we see a bit of the red red kroovy on tap, oh me brothers?

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at December 27, 2013 06:47 AM (/Crba)

63 Posted by: polynikes at December 27, 2013 10:38 AM (m2CN7)

But you NEED health insurance!!!!!!11!!!

Posted by: Washington Nearsider at December 27, 2013 06:47 AM (fwARV)

64 51 You want "finally seeing the light"??? Ask Franz von Papen about finally seeing the light. Posted by: SFGoth at December 27, 2013 10:44 AM (NYAei) That was the muzzle blast from a Luger. Suddenly, it all went dark and silentÂ…

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 27, 2013 06:48 AM (olDqf)

65 59 Apropos of nothing, aren't we looking at the "Dairy Cliff" again this new year? I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not paying $7 a gallon for milk.

Posted by: toby928Â© Texan by birth, Moron by the grace of Ace at December 27, 2013 10:46 AM (QupBk)

I loved milk as a kid (errr, NPI), but other than when stuck at the United red carpet club during breakfast, I haven't had it in over 10 years. I don't eat cereal and I get all nutrients it has from other sources.

Posted by: SFGoth at December 27, 2013 06:48 AM (NYAei)

66 Thank you, Gabriel, for your insight. Given the information that has slipped out (most likely from off the record interviews with Scalia), it seems obvious that the Chief Justice changed sides very late in the process and that the "it's a tax" construct was hastily prepared.

That does beg the question, though. If the Chief Justice "lost his nerve", that implies that he feared something. But what?

Losing the affection of the beautiful and seductive Linda Greenhouse? Watching as millions poured into the streets and demanded to be forced into Bronze plans?

So it's some sort of blackmail, right?

Posted by: Stevie G at December 27, 2013 06:48 AM (x/lJo)

67 Peggy Noonan's writing is too superfluous for me even when she is correct. It's as if she is concentrating more on style than substance and overdoes it. Ever listen to her speak? It's easily an order of magnitude worse.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at December 27, 2013 06:48 AM (V3kRK)

68 has toby finally been freed?

Posted by: willow believing she sees a Free'r toby at December 27, 2013 06:48 AM (nqBYe)

69 62 How long until we see a bit of the red red kroovy on tap, oh me brothers? Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at December 27, 2013 10:47 AM (/Crba) "Give that man a Kewpie Doll!!"

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 27, 2013 06:48 AM (olDqf)

70 64 51 You want "finally seeing the light"??? Ask Franz von Papen about finally seeing the light.
Posted by: SFGoth at December 27, 2013 10:44 AM (NYAei)

That was the muzzle blast from a Luger. Suddenly, it all went dark and silentÂ…

Posted by: J.J. Sefton

Actually, he died in 1969 at the age of 89.

Posted by: SFGoth at December 27, 2013 06:48 AM (NYAei)

71 Massachusetts and Vermont officials will withhold payments from the contractor behind the statesÂ’ malfunctioning Obamacare exchanges, the Boston Globe reported Thursday.

CGI Group is the main contractor in charge of both MassachusettsÂ’ and VermontÂ’s state exchanges, as well as the federal site HealthCare.gov.

Â“CGI has consistently underperformed, which is frustrating and a serious concern,Â” said Jason Lefferts, a spokesman for the Massachusetts exchange. Â“We are holding the vendor accountable for its underperformance and will continue to apply nonstop pressure to work to fix defects and improve performance.

Posted by: Edward Snowden at December 27, 2013 06:48 AM (e8kgV)

72
The case for Barack Obama, in broad strokes:

He has within him the possibility to change the direction and tone of American foreign policy, which need changing; his rise will serve as a practical rebuke to the past five years, which need rebuking; his victory would provide a fresh start in a nation in which a fresh start would come as a national relief.

He climbed steep stairs, born off the continent with no father to guide, a dreamy, abandoning mother, mixed race, no connections. He rose with guts and gifts. He is steady, calm, and, in terms of the execution of his political ascent, still the primary and almost only area in which his executive abilities can be discerned, he shows good judgment in terms of whom to hire and consult, what steps to take and moves to make.

Peggy Noonan Oct 2008, before the election. After the election she really let her love light shine.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 27, 2013 06:49 AM (kdS6q)

73 "Roberts could have saved America. Instead, he nailed the coffin shut." I'm not that dead yet.

Posted by: Semi-Zombie America at December 27, 2013 06:49 AM (4z+35)

74 63 Washington Nearsider at December 27, 2013 10:47 AM (fwARV)

Now the reason I started raging at my TV the moment the dumbass upheld the fucking guy's fucking law...

"you also need air to breathe and clean air costs money"

That's why Pass it to know what is in it Caucus has passed the "cleaner air you breathe act" forcing you to pay fifteen dollars a day for breathing American air.....

don't laugh...Pelosi isn't.

Posted by: sven10077 at December 27, 2013 06:49 AM (9jfyN)

75 Instead everyone gets a lesson in what such a shambling monster really looks like.

A useful - though painful - lesson.

Lessons to those incapable or disinclined to learn are horribly tedious to those who already knew the truth.

Posted by: DaveA[/i][/b][/s] at December 27, 2013 06:49 AM (DL2i+)

76 70 Actually, he died in 1969 at the age of 89. Posted by: SFGoth at December 27, 2013 10:48 AM (NYAei) I'm thinking of Ernst "the German Reggie Love" Roehm.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 27, 2013 06:50 AM (olDqf)

77 so.

what will now happen with all the Doc's and refusing to sign on?

will this misery flow further in demands from their persons?

Posted by: willow believing she sees a Free'r toby at December 27, 2013 06:50 AM (nqBYe)

78 73 I'm not that dead yet. Posted by: Semi-Zombie America at December 27, 2013 10:49 AM (4z+35) Yes, but you're not at all well, old thingÂ…

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 27, 2013 06:50 AM (olDqf)

79 has toby finally been freed? ♫ If I leave here tomorrow Would you still remember me? ♫

Posted by: toby928© Texan by birth, Moron by the grace of Ace at December 27, 2013 06:51 AM (QupBk)

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 27, 2013 10:49 AM (kdS6q)

That made me almost loose my lunch and I haven't even had it yet.

Posted by: polynikes at December 27, 2013 06:51 AM (m2CN7)

81 77 willow believing she sees a Free'r toby at December 27, 2013 10:50 AM (nqBYe)

What will happen?

The State as the State is wont to do will use its powers of coercion to hold their licensure hostage engaging in defacto wage and price controls and skirting the edge of slavery.

I pray for a break-up b/c I am structurally against slavery.

Posted by: sven10077 at December 27, 2013 06:52 AM (9jfyN)

Posted by: toby928Â© Texan by birth, Moron by the grace of Ace at December 27, 2013 10:51 AM (QupBk)

**holds up lighter**

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at December 27, 2013 06:52 AM (zF6Iw)

83 74 Posted by: sven10077 at December 27, 2013 10:49 AM (9jfyN) George Harrison's "Tax Man" come to life. I really want to (REDACTED) Nancy Pelosi.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 27, 2013 06:52 AM (olDqf)

84 76 70 Actually, he died in 1969 at the age of 89.
Posted by: SFGoth at December 27, 2013 10:48 AM (NYAei)

I'm thinking of Ernst "the German Reggie Love" Roehm.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton

He never saw the light. He went down heiling the furer, didn't think ol' Adolf was behind it. It was a smart move on AH's part though.

Posted by: SFGoth at December 27, 2013 06:52 AM (NYAei)

85 ♫ If I leave here tomorrow Would you still remember me? ♫ Ah, but did you ever open for Skynyrd?

Posted by: Brother Cavil at December 27, 2013 06:53 AM (naUcP)

86 "Smarter than Peggy Noonan" is a line that helps pad out my resume. It also happens to be true.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at December 27, 2013 06:53 AM (0lW+J)

87 85 Ah, but did you ever open for Skynyrd? Posted by: Brother Cavil at December 27, 2013 10:53 AM (naUcP) The Zombies. Not those zombies, the other zombies.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 27, 2013 06:53 AM (olDqf)

88 Ah, but did you ever open for Skynyrd?

I knew a girl who would open for... never mind, TMI.

Posted by: Blanco Basura at December 27, 2013 06:54 AM (4WhSY)

89 He never saw the light. He went down heiling the furer, didn't think ol' Adolf was behind it. It was a smart move on AH's part though.

Posted by: SFGoth at December 27, 2013 10:52 AM (NYAei)

He was too preoccupied with his boy toys.

Posted by: polynikes at December 27, 2013 06:54 AM (m2CN7)

90 86 86 "Smarter than Peggy Noonan" is a line that helps pad out my resume. It also happens to be true. Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at December 27, 2013 10:53 AM (0lW+J) A haploid sea slug is smarter than Peggy Noonan.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 27, 2013 06:54 AM (olDqf)

91 One more point: All the "conservatives" that claim to have seen the light? They also pretned that they never said the kind kinds of things that Noonan wrote up until just over a year ago about Obama.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here)-also drooling imbecile incapable of doing algebra or something at December 27, 2013 06:55 AM (659DL)

92 11. The Odeum is in Villa Park, IL

Odium, not so sure.

Posted by: Scanner Dan at December 27, 2013 06:56 AM (T4Ab6)

93 89 He was too preoccupied with his boy toys. Posted by: polynikes at December 27, 2013 10:54 AM (m2CN7) How do you say "Harry Reid" in German? Einengender Scheinwerfer

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 27, 2013 06:56 AM (olDqf)

94 89 He never saw the light. He went down heiling the furer, didn't think ol' Adolf was behind it. It was a smart move on AH's part though.
Posted by: SFGoth at December 27, 2013 10:52 AM (NYAei)

He was too preoccupied with his boy toys. Posted by: polynikes

For those unfamiliar with the "Night of the Long Knives" (not to be confused with the "Night of Broken Glass"), it was Hitler's massacre (using the SS) of the SA -- the brown shirts/storm troopers -- which was becoming: 1) too big for the comfort of the army (more than 100,000 brown shirts); and 2) too violent in the street for the comfort of the German middle class. In fact, Roehm wanted the SA to replace the army. When Roehm wouldn't tone it down and get off his fantasy, then he and the SA hierarchy got it.

Posted by: SFGoth at December 27, 2013 06:57 AM (NYAei)

95 Sorry. I don't share that sentiment. Chief Justice Roberts wrote an outstanding decision in the Obamacare case and then lost his nerve. Justice Scalia signed his name to Roberts' first opinion, Justice Kennedy read it from the bench as their joint dissent -- an act signalling deep disapproval of Roberts' actions. Roberts wrote a new decision holding that the individual mandate passes constitutional muster as a tax, something that wasn't even in the realistic expectation of any of the parties and that decision is now the law of the land. Bingo. Plus there's that whole pesky thing about how if it is a task it wasn't passed with the proper procedure for passing a tax. Here's (part of) my fury with the whole elections have consequences bullshit Roberts threw out there. Since the Supreme Court thinks it's supreme, then that power has no point if the Supremes won't say FYNQ to "signature" pieces of legislation. Either something is constitutional or it's not. That it is the signature achievement of blah blah blah whatever cakes should be irrelevant. You declared yourselves supreme. You said you had the power to strike things down no matter what. Well, if you're not going to use it Because Elections, then that power is meaningless, isn't it?

Posted by: alexthechick - Become a STOMPY charter member today! at December 27, 2013 06:57 AM (VtjlW)

96 toby of course we would.

sven i wonder if people will then rise up against the coercion. It would show a thing.
It is not only demanding my wages at costs prohibitive and harmful to our family personally, But actually punishing or demanding Others have to Work to keep the govt out of their lives ,or have coercive threats against their own livlihoods?

will people in more numbers actually realize healthcare is NOT free and actual people are being threatened with their futures ?

Posted by: willow at December 27, 2013 06:57 AM (nqBYe)

97 did congress go back after the Robert's decision and mandate it a Tax?

i have forgotten .

Posted by: willow at December 27, 2013 06:59 AM (nqBYe)

98 91 One more point:

All the "conservatives" that claim to have seen the light? They also pretned that they never said the kind kinds of things that Noonan wrote up until just over a year ago about Obama. Posted by: Circa

This lawyer/420-connoisseur/pro-choice/pro-marriagethatshallnotspeakitsname/agnostic Jew never had one moment's thought that Obama wasn't pretty much everything everyone here thinks he is.

Posted by: SFGoth at December 27, 2013 07:00 AM (NYAei)

Peggy Noonan walks into a bar and orders a savoury, yet distinct in its attitude, wine with a hint of conflict that portends an experience that one may or may not recover yet desires it ever so much.

Posted by: polynikes at December 27, 2013 07:00 AM (m2CN7)

100 Well, if you're not going to use it Because Elections, then that power is meaningless, isn't it? There are a great many things about our peculiar republic that are being assigned to the scrap heap in the guise of modernity.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here)-also drooling imbecile incapable of doing algebra or something at December 27, 2013 07:00 AM (659DL)

101 95 Alexthechick - Become a STOMPY charter member today! at December 27, 2013 10:57 AM (VtjlW)

All kidding and faux Crypticism aside ma'am I concur.

The question becomes how much of CJ Roberts' deference was based on "Don't pick on the black kid" and how much was based on a specious deference to the notion that Presidents as a whole are entitled to "uh er I REALLY WANT THIS unconstitutional clusterfuck we'll shorthand to signature legislation"?

I fear the latter truth be told and you cannot have a Constitutional Republic if every stupid fucker to get elected gets his one free swing at the Constitution.

Posted by: sven10077 at December 27, 2013 07:00 AM (9jfyN)

102 I should have said "in the name of modernity."

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here)-also drooling imbecile incapable of doing algebra or something at December 27, 2013 07:01 AM (659DL)

103 10 CJ Roberts decided to Let It Burn.

Of course, if ObamaCare had been struck down we would all be treated to the ear-splitting whine from the Left wailing about the 'hyper-political court' and all of the missed blessings of ObamaCare.* Instead everyone gets a lesson in what such a shambling monster really looks like.

A useful - though painful - lesson.
=======
No.

The leftists only know escalation.

And they would have demanded increasing the number of Justices.

Not even FDR was popular enough to win support for that.

But the JEF would be forced by his core to go along.

Meaning the JEF would be more hated now than had the Piss-Yellow Coward John Roberts struck it down.

*There has never been majority support for Obaaamacare. There is no way, "Had you let us have our way with a law you didn't like, everything would be great now" is going to play beyond the 35% hard-core leftists. And that would also put Hillary! running in 2016 as "I promise to bring back Obaaamacare but with single-payer--like I wanted to in the 90's!" Yeah, that'd be a winner.

Posted by: RoyalOil at December 27, 2013 07:02 AM (VjL9S)

104 you cannot have a Constitutional Republic if every stupid fucker to get elected gets his one free swing at the Constitution. Effin profound that.

Posted by: toby928© Texan by birth, Moron by the grace of Ace at December 27, 2013 07:02 AM (QupBk)

105 There are a great many things about our peculiar republic that are being assigned to the scrap heap in the guise of modernity.

The notion of republic being the most significant of them.

Oligarchies have no need for the trappings of republics.

Posted by: Purp[/i][/b][/s] at December 27, 2013 07:02 AM (70Unk)

106 Why do you people hate blacks and our black president. Better then that idiot clownboy Bush that only wanted to start wars .........

Posted by: Chrissy Liebowitz at December 27, 2013 07:03 AM (iB0Q2)

107 Presidents and leadership ...living, breathing ,moving it's laws around for us constitution

Posted by: willow at December 27, 2013 07:04 AM (nqBYe)

108 72 Peggy Noonan Oct 2008, before the election. Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 27, 2013 10:49 AM (kdS6q) Was there a single word of truth in that? "No connections". That's a hot one.

Posted by: rickl at December 27, 2013 07:04 AM (zoehZ)

109 I fear the latter truth be told and you cannot have a Constitutional Republic if every stupid fucker to get elected gets his one free swing at the Constitution. --- "ONE" free swing at the Constitution? There's an affirmative action joke waiting to be made about how many he's gotten.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at December 27, 2013 07:05 AM (/Crba)

110 Regarding Peggy Noonan: it is a matter of trust. If you had a friend or family member who went completely insane for a time, no matter how well they seem to have recovered, you are always going to remember and be wary of that person's actions.

Noonan is like that person you know who spent some time in a cult or became convinced of something everyone else knew was nonsense at a glance. The trust never comes back completely. The relationship may be cordial but you remain wary of giving certain responsibilities to that person and give their statements a greater degree of scrutiny than before their time of madness.

Posted by: Epobirs at December 27, 2013 07:05 AM (bPxS6)

111 If Gabe had a blog I would avoid it.

Posted by: nip at December 27, 2013 07:05 AM (jI23+)

112
Pro tip to the "living, breathing constitution" crowd.

Living, breathing things always die.

You are playing with matches here.

Posted by: fixerupper at December 27, 2013 07:06 AM (nELVU)

113 One man with courage makes a majority, one man without makes it a tax.

Posted by: Joe at December 27, 2013 07:06 AM (QFnhZ)

114 Oligarchies have no need for the trappings of republics. All the voices from history that have given us guidance on what to trust and distrust are ignored. Calls to base one's notions of reality in reality itself are called extreme. The very fabric of the rule of law is assaulted and greeted with a yawn. There are tough lessons ahead on almost every policy front and ignoring them will not be an option.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here)-also drooling imbecile incapable of doing algebra or something at December 27, 2013 07:07 AM (659DL)

115 109 Brandon in BR at December 27, 2013 11:05 AM (/Crba)

Barky gets eleventy because "momjeans" or as I once said in fatigue "our first woman President"

Posted by: sven10077 at December 27, 2013 07:07 AM (9jfyN)

116 The entire premise of this post is invalid because "y'all" is misspelled.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at December 27, 2013 07:08 AM (QFxY5)

117 Pro tip to the "living, breathing constitution" crowd. Oh, they have long since given up that rhetorical angle. The Constitution itself now makes the nation ungovernable.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here)-also drooling imbecile incapable of doing algebra or something at December 27, 2013 07:08 AM (659DL)

118 as far as the Peggy Noonan angst.

It was Her duty to the public to have vetted this guy.
How else are the Public to make a wise decisions when we had the JournalistS not actually do their job?

when they thought being polite and accepting of a grossly unamaerican style ideological candidate was more mature, wise, (wanna not be shunned from the cocktail party circuit)

Posted by: willow at December 27, 2013 07:08 AM (nqBYe)

119 Not being a lawyer and all, I have, hopefully, a question that can be answered in a manner I can understand. Gabe had a post yesterday on the ACA and the mandates for birth control, and the lawsuits against the government based on 1st amendment principles. My question is, why would it violate freedom of religion principles to force companies to provide birth control etc yet it does not violate a person's freedom of religion to force them to photograph a gay wedding, or bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding, etc. In other words, when can the government force you to violate your first amendment rights and when can't they?

Posted by: Jon in TX at December 27, 2013 07:09 AM (K8ws3)

120 Oh, they have long since given up that rhetorical angle. The Constitution itself now makes the nation ungovernable.

----

Like I said..... and THEY killed it.

Down that path lies chaos.

Posted by: fixerupper at December 27, 2013 07:10 AM (nELVU)

121 But justifying the individual mandate as a tax was so patently a dodge by the Chief Justice that it damaged the Court's legitimacy in all eyes -- which was exactly what the Chief was trying to avoid.

Consider that for Obama's entire political career, he has succeeded by digging up dirt on the opposition and neutralizing them.

Chief Justice Roberts wasn't trying to avoid damaging the Court's legitimacy. He was trying to avoid hurting his adopted kids and losing his job.

Posted by: Herp McDerp at December 27, 2013 07:10 AM (7QRNd)

122 "...you cannot have a Constitutional Republic if every stupid fucker to get elected gets his one free swing at the Constitution."

Posted by: sven10077 at December 27, 2013 11:00 AM (9jfyN)

yup!

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at December 27, 2013 07:10 AM (QFxY5)

123 The Constitution itself now makes the nation ungovernable. --- Funny how this nation is "ungovernable" every time there is a Dem in the White House. Carter, Clinton, Obama... Nope, no stupid fucking plans that don't work being tried by those three.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at December 27, 2013 07:10 AM (/Crba)

124 Vista Workers Told Their U.S. Health Plan Fails Test

WASHINGTON Â— The Obama administration has told Vista volunteers and other AmeriCorps workers that their government-provided health coverage does not measure up to the standards of the new health care law, and that they may be subject to financial penalties unless they obtain insurance elsewhere.

Posted by: Gov Susana Martinez at December 27, 2013 07:11 AM (e8kgV)

125 The notion of republic being the most significant of them. Oligarchies have no need for the trappings of republics. Posted by: Purp at December 27, 2013 11:02 AM (70Unk) Bingo bango. This whole laws for thee but not for me viewpoint that is taking over on every level is quite worrisome indeed. Insty's been pounding the middle class anarchy theme for ages. Honestly, why on earth am I paying my bills and paying my taxes and working and trying to play by the rules when the rule keepers sure as hell don't do that.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at December 27, 2013 07:11 AM (VtjlW)

126 alex tea. sorry for delay. my mind is flitting about aimlessly with only brief moments of lucidity.

Posted by: willow at December 27, 2013 07:11 AM (nqBYe)

127 There's one thing to like about the Chief Justice's decision and that's the determination that the individual mandate was not authorized under the Commerce Clause. That's good. ... But justifying the individual mandate as a tax was so patently a dodge by the Chief Justice that it damaged the Court's legitimacy in all eyes Which is also good.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 27, 2013 07:11 AM (xSegX)

128 In other words, when can the government force you to violate your first amendment rights and when can't they? --- When they damn well feel like it, apparently.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at December 27, 2013 07:11 AM (/Crba)

129 "did congress go back after the Robert's decision and mandate it a Tax? i have forgotten ." Robert's "out" for his convoluted decision was that the IRS was the collection point for the "penalty". The IRS , as far as I know, collects taxes, interest on late taxes, penalties on not paying taxes, etc. I think true "fines" or straight up penalties levied by the government for direct criminal activity go directly to the Treasury, which is not how this was designed. The lying Congress called it a penalty and the lying Chief Justice called their bluff and called it a tax. Shifty poker players all.

Posted by: Jen at December 27, 2013 07:12 AM (D5cum)

130

114 ... That is my silver lining right there. All these fuckers, GOP and Dem alike, who just blindly cheer for their team ... And can't be bothered with the details ... Are in for a great big surprise.

I'll suffer the collateral damage just to say the I Told You So.

Posted by: ScoggDog at December 27, 2013 07:12 AM (0l6Mz)

131 Honestly, why on earth am I paying my bills and paying my taxes and working and trying to play by the rules when the rule keepers sure as hell don't do that. --- Because stompy boots and a gun are far more effective than stompy boots and no gun because the government seized it for nonpayment of "protection money".

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at December 27, 2013 07:12 AM (/Crba)

132 11 The venue is the Odeon. Odium is a measure of disdain.

...eh, it fits. Carry on.
Posted by: Brother Cavil at December 27, 2013 10:30 AM (naUcP)

92 11. The Odeum is in Villa Park, IL

Odium, not so sure.

Posted by: Scanner Dan at December 27, 2013 10:56 AM (T4Ab6)

Look, there was a lot of acid smoked at that concert. I'm lucky I remember it, let alone the name of venue and how to spell it.

Posted by: chiefjaybob at December 27, 2013 07:12 AM (rrsBM)

133 There should be a lot of hate for Roberts. He was wrong and he cost people and this country a lot of money and robbed us of personal choice. He also insinuated the federal govenrment even deeper into our lives. Why did he do it? I think he bought into Catholic "social justice" bullshit. Well, fuck you.

Posted by: Bean Pies, ey? at December 27, 2013 07:12 AM (Qev5V)

134 Thank you, willow. *narrows eyes* Did BC not do a proper job of taking care of you? In other words, when can the government force you to violate your first amendment rights and when can't they? Posted by: Jon in TX at December 27, 2013 11:09 AM (K8ws3) Can't sleep. Lemon test will eat me.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at December 27, 2013 07:12 AM (VtjlW)

135 Insty's been pounding the middle class anarchy theme for ages. Honestly, why on earth am I paying my bills and paying my taxes and working and trying to play by the rules when the rule keepers sure as hell don't do that.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at December 27, 2013 11:11 AM (VtjlW)

and don't think a few are not observant of that fact.

it's bad as a cohesive society to witness this.

Posted by: willow at December 27, 2013 07:12 AM (nqBYe)

136 #66

One possibility that has been raised is the origin of his adopted children and whether legal issues relating to that may have been used as leverage against him.

Posted by: Epobirs at December 27, 2013 07:13 AM (bPxS6)

137 Carter, Clinton, Obama... Nope, no stupid fucking plans that don't work being tried by those three. I would trade in this crowd RIGHT NOW, NO QUESTIONS for Bubba and the entire Arkansas mafia.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here)-also drooling imbecile incapable of doing algebra or something at December 27, 2013 07:13 AM (659DL)

138 In other words, when can the government force you to violate your first amendment rights and when can't they? When an activist judge considers you an unperson, government force is fine.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 27, 2013 07:13 AM (xSegX)

139 She deliberately closed her ears to the warnings, all because of damp panties and eye-clawing envy of Palin. Just like Juan "I'm a war hero!" McStain, she's worn out her credibility. Fuck her. Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at December 27, 2013 10:43 AM (zF6Iw) I understand the sentiment; I have a hard time dealing with Sean Hannity (I think he sometimes does more harm than good). He's one of the few "conservatives" in such a prominent position who gets out-argued by the left. When faced with a seemingly plausible argument, he retreats to his laundry list of talking points rather than offering the obvious refutation. So I get that's where you are on Noonan. But I see the Noonan types as necessary to swinging things back our way. People are getting hit in the face with reality. It will get worse after January 1. People who qualify for huge subsidies in their monthly payments will be shocked when they realize they actually have to pay their $5,400.00 deductible before they get their "free" healthcare. It is helpful when Noonan starts souring on Obama, and you then get the USA today and occasional WaPo piece telling the truth. I'll take the help, even when it comes from an unwelcome source. That's the idea behind a preference cascade. The more voices that say the emperor has no clothes, the better.

Posted by: duke at December 27, 2013 07:14 AM (d3clc)

140 Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 27, 2013 10:50 AM (olDqf)

Night of The Long Knives!

Hitler didn't fuck around with his political opponents.

Obama is jealous.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at December 27, 2013 07:14 AM (QFxY5)

141 Turkey military says will not get involved in political crisis Published: 12.27.13, 16:19 / Israel News The Turkish military said on Friday it would not get involved in the political turmoil sparked by a high-level corruption probe targeting the very core of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's government. "The Turkish Armed Forces do not want to get involved in political debates," the military said in a statement posted on its website. (AFP) To bad, you once had balls

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 27, 2013 07:14 AM (t3UFN)

142 137 Carter, Clinton, Obama... Nope, no stupid fucking plans that don't work being tried by those three. I would trade in this crowd RIGHT NOW, NO QUESTIONS for Bubba and the entire Arkansas mafia. --- Apparently that offer isn't valid until 2016.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at December 27, 2013 07:14 AM (/Crba)

143

The words "hate" and "apostasy" should not even be part of a discussion about serious topics (well, worldly topics). Noonan? Any other "pundit"? They rarely do more than state the obvious when they're correct - rest of the time, as in her case most of the time, they're jaw-droppingly clueless. As I've said before, I cannot understand why people read, listen to, or care about the views of 99% of these people 99% of the time.

As to Roberts and the Court, Gabe at least and at last puts into words what I never hear put into words: Roberts, ostensibly (and incomprehensibly, in his own terms) seeking to protect the institution, beclowned the institution. Well, finally and irretrievably beclowned. The indictment on this score runs to before Roberts was born, of course, and if you want to cheat and skip most of the record just take a gander at Kennedy's orwellian nonsense in Hamdan, where words are, literally and seemingly almost for fun and vandalism purposes, explicitly redefined as their opposites. Or (sorry, Gabe), the hilarious "rulings" in the Prop. 8 case by Walker, or the similar bizarre rant by (again) Kennedy in DOMA. Those instances are actually instructive in showing how a court that acts literally as the perverse will and bigotry of one person can damage not just itself but society at large (as tyrannical freedom-destroying caprice from on-high tends to do).

And to those still nurturing (inexplicably) any hope or respect for their fellow citizens (well, citizens in a technical sense, though not really a substantive sense any longer), behold the astonishing naivete of those thinking "well now people will experience how bad O-care is, and that will teach us". Wow. Not that it matters - doubtful that such ridiculous tactical "reasoning" was part of Roberts' debacle - but folks, get a clue. There's not a single massive life-changing economy-weakening freedom-destroying initiative in 50 years that has gone away because it was a disastrous failure. Not one. They survive, are redefined, have rules changed to make them "work", or just grind along in obscurity towards apocalypse, causing damage all the time (welfare, ag price supports, Medicare/Medicaid, disability, and on and on).

Massive failures that are killing society do NOT neccessarily get changed, much less ended.

Besides, how stupid and frivolous a view of government is it that would have absurd unconstitutional nonsense imposed on the populace - de-legitimizing, as the SCOTUS has done to itself, the institutions supposedly guarding liberty and order along the way - just to "teach a lesson," and in the very naive hope that the populace and the political elements preying and scheming on ignorance, greed, bigotry, and the authoritarian instinct will "learn" the right lesson? The constitution and SCOTUS' entire legitimacy come from PREVENTING such things. Thus, that legitimacy is tarnished, probably beyond recovery (and we're just talking this one element of lawlessness here, we haven't even touched on the rest).

Posted by: non-purist at December 27, 2013 07:14 AM (afQnV)

144 District Judge Roger Vinson:
"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void."

vs.

Gabriel Malor:
"I'm not sure where the idea started that the statute needs a severability clause or it all fails if any single part of it is found unconstitutional, since that has never been the law."

Posted by: RoyalOil at December 27, 2013 07:14 AM (VjL9S)

145 Jen thank you for the answer.

alex he might have but i found reason to sign off in pretty short time , why share my misery over something so silly on an imprtant day to so many.

so a wise moment. (rare as they are)

Posted by: willow at December 27, 2013 07:15 AM (nqBYe)

146 My question is, why would it violate freedom of religion principles to force companies to provide birth control etc yet it does not violate a person's freedom of religion to force them to photograph a gay wedding, or bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding, etc. In other words, when can the government force you to violate your first amendment rights and when can't they?

Posted by: Jon in TX at December 27, 2013 11:09 AM (K8ws3)

Apparently the photographer or baker have no right, as they provide a service to the public, to refuse a customer. To do so is like Selma all over again. If they don't like it, get another job.

Or something like that. There's always some tortured logic thrown about as to why you have no right to object to the pink SS.

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at December 27, 2013 07:15 AM (zF6Iw)

147 on EXTREME weather in the USA:

# of tornadoes 804 lowest on record (for context 50th percentile = 1,291)

# of forest fires...lowest since 1984

so there's that to think about

Posted by: ed gibbon at December 27, 2013 07:15 AM (4eNxd)

148 96 willow at December 27, 2013 10:57 AM (nqBYe)

Sorry I was late in responding to you Willow.

I don't know anymore.

I used to take for granted I had a pretty good plumb of the morals of the majority of the American people, I no longer labor under this illusion had I been correct I would not have erred as badly in my wargaming 1996 and 2012 as I did.

I will not tolerate being a slave and in not wanting to be a slave I cannot abide the enslavement of people and their skills with the fig leaf of "but it is necessary eleventy!"

I hope you are correct, I fear I am.

Posted by: sven10077 at December 27, 2013 07:15 AM (9jfyN)

149 Or something like that. There's always some tortured logic thrown about as to why you have no right to object to the pink SS. --- How are we supposed to identify them for sure? Will they start wearing some badges so we can tell, such as pink triangles?

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at December 27, 2013 07:16 AM (/Crba)

150 Why did he do it? I think he bought into Catholic "social justice" bullshit. Well, fuck you.

----

Nope.... I think Gabe nailed it.

He wanted to avoid a big dust up between the Judiciary and the other two branches controlled by Democrats.

He lost his nerve. But... the fuck you part??? Spot On.

Posted by: fixerupper at December 27, 2013 07:17 AM (nELVU)

151 110 Regarding Peggy Noonan: it is a matter of trust. If you had a friend or family member who went completely insane for a time, no matter how well they seem to have recovered, you are always going to remember and be wary of that person's actions.

Noonan is like that person you know who spent some time in a cult or became convinced of something everyone else knew was nonsense at a glance. The trust never comes back completely. The relationship may be cordial but you remain wary of giving certain responsibilities to that person and give their statements a greater degree of scrutiny than before their time of madness.
Posted by: Epobirs

Nicely stated. No, I will never give her words any consideration, ever again. It's like Orca Winfrey. She helped sell America on a Chicago con man. They will never have my trust back and I will ignore them and others. Forever....

Posted by: backhoe at December 27, 2013 07:17 AM (ULH4o)

152 "The Turkish Armed Forces do not want to get involved in political debates," the military said in a statement posted on its website. (AFP) To bad, you once had balls It means they're not unified and if they move against Erdogan, there will be revolting from within the ranks.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 27, 2013 07:18 AM (xSegX)

153 # of forest fires...lowest since 1984

Posted by: ed gibbon at December 27, 2013 11:15 AM (4eNxd)

This is actually not good at all.

let natural fires burn the undergrowth. That is much healthier for forests than fighting every fire until there is enough fuel to create an unmanageable fire that destroys much more.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at December 27, 2013 07:18 AM (QFxY5)

154 122 "...you cannot have a Constitutional Republic if every stupid fucker to get elected gets his one free swing at the Constitution." Posted by: sven10077 at December 27, 2013 11:00 AM (9jfyN) yup! Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at December 27, 2013 11:10 AM (QFxY5) The Constitution is a piÃ±ata with a whole mess of green cards and food stamps inside. Hit harder than Kate Upton greased and hurled over wall at Sing Sing.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 27, 2013 07:18 AM (olDqf)

155 Nood podcast thread.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at December 27, 2013 07:18 AM (/Crba)

156 CNN just had on one of the CO pot peddlers. A businesswoman, if you will. She had that pot drawl, if you know what I mean. Her monotone voice trails off at the end of the sentence and stretches out the last syllable of the last word for an extra second. I found it funny. And it's a sign. A sign of the end.

Posted by: soothsayer at December 27, 2013 07:19 AM (YQS42)

157 143 ... Just say LiB. Brevity and all that.

Posted by: ScoggDog at December 27, 2013 07:19 AM (0l6Mz)

158 there will be revolting from within the ranks.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 27, 2013 11:18 AM (xSegX)

I had a good run.....

Posted by: Kemal Ataturk at December 27, 2013 07:19 AM (QFxY5)

159 Thanks Gabe! For puttin' us some f'kcng KNOWLEDGE!!! I appreciate all your efforts here. Even if you are.... A LAWYER!!! From... Oklahoma!!

Posted by: Deety at December 27, 2013 07:20 AM (ad4e8)

160 ot being a lawyer and all, I have, hopefully, a question that can be answered in a manner I can understand. Gabe had a post yesterday on the ACA and the mandates for birth control, and the lawsuits against the government based on 1st amendment principles. My question is, why would it violate freedom of religion principles to force companies to provide birth control etc yet it does not violate a person's freedom of religion to force them to photograph a gay wedding, or bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding, etc. In other words, when can the government force you to violate your first amendment rights and when can't they? Posted by: Jon in TX at December 27, 2013 11:09 AM (K8ws3) It DOES violate their freedom of religion, but to activist liberal federal judges, it doesn't matter. They(like Roberts) think they are providing some kind of wonderful open door to progress the country and if no one stops them, so what? How can a state such as California, have their voters go through the process of making a constitutional amendment to their state constitution stating that the definition of marriage is between a man and woman(for the purpose of providing favorable state tax and benefit designations) TWICE and ONE idiot in a black robe says, no, not fair, throw it out. And we do. We allow this. Until the people take back not only their elected government, but their judiciary, realizing that all of them are simply individual human beings with faults, not deity, we will continue to find ourselves without a voice in what happens to us.

Posted by: Jen at December 27, 2013 07:20 AM (D5cum)

161 noob

Posted by: Heywood Jablowme at December 27, 2013 07:21 AM (jsWA8)

162 Gabriel, I respectfully disagree. Every portion of the bill most certainly effects every other part of the bill because it is impossible to know whether or not the bill would have ever passed if any of these unconstitutional sections weren't included initially. This should be the argument against it. Furthermore, as other commenters have asked, why do so many bills include the severability language if it's not important? A law must be executed exactly as passed or there is chaos. Any justice (leftist or otherwise) should be able to see this.

Posted by: ghoti at December 27, 2013 07:21 AM (h+2Yx)

163 btw, the potheaddette businesswoman's company makes pot 'edibles!' Like pot gummy bears and pot drops and shit, I guess. Isn't that cute? Perfect for kids who can't handle the smoke.

Posted by: soothsayer at December 27, 2013 07:21 AM (YQS42)

164 Well, this is about Obamacare also. Just read an article about cocoa sipping pajama boy "slamming whiskey sours". The image...made me laugh.

Posted by: gracepmc at December 27, 2013 07:22 AM (rznx3)

165 "A law must be executed exactly as passed or there is chaos. Any justice (leftist or otherwise) should be able to see this." I think The Duck Commander had the best take on this.

Posted by: nip at December 27, 2013 07:23 AM (jI23+)

166 164 gracepmc at December 27, 2013 11:22 AM (rznx3)

I saw PajamBoy's Southern Cousin getting grocery carts here in Columbia SC yesterday....

my wife swear to God thought the lad was a lass and my son concurred until he saw the Adam's Apple and faint Mustache...

where has the testosterone gone in this post Jonas Brothers epoch?

Posted by: sven10077 at December 27, 2013 07:24 AM (9jfyN)

167 As to Roberts and the Court, Gabe at least and at last puts into words what I never hear put into words: Roberts, ostensibly (and incomprehensibly, in his own terms) seeking to protect the institution, beclowned the institution. It's been a mess from the beginning. The "great" John Marshall should have recused himself from half of the rulings he made, based on personal financial interest.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 27, 2013 07:26 AM (xSegX)

168

>>"No matter how brilliant a Peggy Noonan column is..."

Please reference one of her "brilliant" columns. She writes like a precociously rhapsodic teenage Austenophile crossed with an erstaz Studs Terkel. And tediously.

..."there will be five comments saying the scrunt still has Obama's dribble on her chin from 0."

Because it's still there. Just look closely.

Posted by: rrpjr at December 27, 2013 07:29 AM (s/yC1)

169 Again, the lawyer situation in the US has become Aliens vs Predator.

No matter who wins, we lose.

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at December 27, 2013 07:30 AM (5ikDv)

170 Watching something fail at the expense (literally) of millions of American citizens isn't defensible.

If Roberts' genius was to let thousands of people die to make a point, he fucking did it wrong. It's unconscionable.

Posted by: tangonine at December 27, 2013 07:30 AM (x3YFz)

171 Massive failures that are killing society do NOT neccessarily get changed, much less ended.
========
Especially massive failures that enrich very powerful interests.

Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid carry on--not because anyone really likes them--but because of the massive amounts of money that would stop flowing to very, very rich, powerful and connected interests.

Hell, AARP alone would cease to exist if there was a realistic, rational and economical old age retirement and health care plan. As is stands, they make billions scare-mongering to keep things the same--broken with enough failure built-in to have a sob story always at the ready lest someone dare propose something that actually fixes it.

That's to say nothing of the hospitals and old-age care facilities that would have to clean up their act instead of wallering about in the endless mudpit of unaccountable public money.

Posted by: RoyalOil at December 27, 2013 07:34 AM (VjL9S)

172 The entire premise of this post is invalid because "y'all" is misspelled.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at December 27, 2013 11:08 AM (QFxY5)

Word.

Posted by: tbodie at December 27, 2013 07:36 AM (vuXw6)

173 Posted by: sven10077 at December 27, 2013 11:24 AM (9jfyN)

Followers of The One will all be Ones dressed in Onesie Uniforms. This and the back flap on jammies does not augur well for testosterone. Or related activities.

Posted by: gracepmc at December 27, 2013 07:38 AM (rznx3)

174 I'm not looking to pile on, but I disagree with one point in your post. You said "There's one thing to like about the Chief Justice's decision and that's the determination that the individual mandate was not authorized under the Commerce Clause. That's good." Here's where I disagree. I would have been good if it stopped there. However, with the individual mandate deemed a "tax" despite not having meeting the traditional procedural or substantive definitions of a tax, the Commerce Clause is a nullity and anything and everything that can impose a financial (so far) penalty can now be defended as a tax. Simply put, the Commerce Clause no longer matters. Everything is a tax, and whatever meager limits on the power of the federal government to intrude into our lives we had prior to Roberts' opinion have been erased.

Posted by: ddbb01 at December 27, 2013 07:38 AM (flOQT)

175 I have some sympathy for Roberts, because I have little doubt that he was blackmailed by the Administration over his sketchy adoption. Before being nominated to the court, he privately adopted two kids from Ireland, in violation of Irish law. Google it, and you will see it is a plausible explanation. Obama and his handlers have a long history of using dirty laundry as a way to fix their problems, so I have little doubt they did the same thing to pressure Roberts.

Posted by: Stirner at December 27, 2013 07:42 AM (l1p2K)

176 110 Noonan is like that person you know who spent some time in a cult or became convinced of something everyone else knew was nonsense at a glance. The trust never comes back completely. The relationship may be cordial but you remain wary of giving certain responsibilities to that person and give their statements a greater degree of scrutiny than before their time of madness. Posted by: Epobirs at December 27, 2013 11:05 AM (bPxS6) As someone who seems to have more tolerance for Noonan than most here, I get that Epobirs. Especially since there hasn't been a grand mea culpa from Noonan or the others who fell for it (at least not that I've seen).

Posted by: duke at December 27, 2013 07:42 AM (d3clc)

177 175 I have some sympathy for Roberts, because I have little..... I say, bull fucking shit. What is right, is right. It doesn't matter how much imaginary pressure there is.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at December 27, 2013 08:00 AM (HVff2)

178

Oh that's going to hurt rockmom's feelings.

Posted by: buzzion at December 27, 2013 08:04 AM (LI48c)

179 Ooh! A personal answer. Thanks.

Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at December 27, 2013 08:10 AM (1xUj/)

180 I beleive in the keep it simple stupid principle.

So, why did Roberts flip and (not virtually) unilaterally declare this law a tax?

Because people high up in government really get off on fucking over vast numbers of pople, the more the better, so Roberts took a once in a lifetime opportunity to fuck over 100 million plus people. And by 'fuck over' I mean that he knows his decision is contrary to the Constitution.

It's not often that one man in a black dress can do more than stalin of moa. Really.

Posted by: Dustin at December 27, 2013 09:01 AM (80R0X)

181 Nope.... I think Gabe nailed it. He wanted to avoid a big dust up between the Judiciary and the other two branches controlled by Democrats. He lost his nerve. But... the fuck you part??? Spot On. Posted by: fixerupper at December 27, 2013 11:17 AM (nELVU) Bullshit. This was shoved thru against the people's wishes. It was misrepresneted. No one was allowed to read it and bribes were made. Fuck up any dust up. Roberts is paid the big money to do his job. He did not do his job. Fuck him to hell.

Posted by: Lutefish 4 Evah! at December 27, 2013 09:18 AM (Qev5V)

182 "Short answer: no." That was already demonstrated when Brave Sir Roberts handed down his penalties equal taxes decision. Everyone seems to have forgotten the ruling that removed the penalties to states that didn't establish exchanges. So part of this law has already been nullified, yet the law still exists.

Posted by: NotCoach at December 27, 2013 09:30 AM (rsudF)

183 Justice Roberts is more concerned about his reputation in the legal community and the 'legacy' of his court in future analysis than the truth, justice, and wisdom.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at December 27, 2013 10:45 AM (zfY+H)

184 I am sticking by my off-the-wall, totally unsupported, whack-o gut instinct.

Roberts did this as a favor to Kennedy. The result was the result, because Kennedy was going to make sure it was the result.

But Kennedy was fully aware (as was every body else) that he was perceived as a noodle-spined quisling who could not put on the knee-pads quickly enough if it got him new respect from the right crowd.

The pressure point in the prospective decision was precisely the reaction (absolute and total disdain in a massive outpouring of justified disgust) if Kennedy provided the baloney reasoning for sustaining Obamacare. Even Kennedy could see how his legacy would be forever tainted by his support for the outcome he dearly wanted, which was the victory for Obama.

There is no intellectual or even political reason for switching from the eloquent and logically flawless opinion Roberts first wrote, to the bullshit he eventually signed. It does not make sense.

It was personal. Roberts got his brilliant decision published, and every body knows it was his. It is at least persuasive as precedent, and may come into use.

Roberts got to avoid a torrent of unfair, unjust, false, nasty and hateful criticism from the soviet media which probably would have ruined him forever by making him a target forever. And there is more to it, personally.

Kennedy got to look less like the putrid quisling he knew many perceived him to be with good reason.

And the results were exactly the same, although maybe more favorable on balance for constitutionalists.

Posted by: Tonawanda at December 27, 2013 01:05 PM (mE1l+)

185 Roberts' seeming about-face on Obamacare makes me wonder what sort of dirt Obama's henchmen in the FBI/CIA/NSA have on him.

Posted by: Lee Reynolds at December 27, 2013 04:10 PM (0bC+U)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

185kb generated in CPU 0.0608, elapsed 0.2933 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.2568 seconds, 313 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.