Quotes of the day

posted at 8:31 pm on April 7, 2012 by Allahpundit

“The president’s preemptive attack on the court was in direct reaction to Obamacare’s three days of oral argument. It was a shock. After years of contemptuously dismissing the very idea of a legal challenge, Democrats suddenly realized there actually is a serious constitutional argument to be made against Obamacare — and they are losing it.

“Here were highly sophisticated conservative thinkers — lawyers and justices — making the case for limited government, and liberals weren’t even prepared for the obvious constitutional question: If Congress can force the individual into a private contract by authority of the commerce clause, what can it not force the individual to do? Without a limiting principle, the central premise of our constitutional system — a government of enumerated powers — evaporates. What, then, is the limiting principle?…

“Democrats are reeling. Obama was so taken aback, he hasn’t even drawn up contingency plans should his cherished reform be struck down. Liberals still cannot grasp what’s happened — the mild revival of constitutionalism in a country they’ve grown so used to ordering about regardless. When asked about Obamacare’s constitutionality, Nancy Pelosi famously replied: ‘Are you serious?’ She was genuinely puzzled.

“As was Rep. Phil Hare (D-Ill.). As Michael Barone notes, when Hare was similarly challenged at a 2010 town hall, he replied: ‘I don’t worry about the Constitution.’ Hare is now retired, having been shortly thereafter defeated for reelection by the more constitutionally attuned owner of an East Moline pizza shop.”

***

“Is Obama’s reference to ‘unelected’ justices an ‘attack’? If so, it’s pretty tame stuff indeed. Obama is characterizing the conservative line that that judicial activism by unelected judges is a bad thing, and arguing that overturning Obamacare would be an example of what conservatives themselves decry. Obama is mainly making an argument about legal precedent here — he’s pointing out that historically, the court has deferred to Congress as a democratically-elected institution in deciding whether to overturn laws, and saying he hopes the Court does the same again.

“I’m not defending Obama’s claim that overturning the law would be ‘unprecedented’ — it wouldn’t — but as ‘attacks’ go, this is pretty weak sauce. And it’s a bit surprising to hear so much whining about it, given the attacks on ‘activist’ judges conservatives have waged for years.

“If you really want to hear an ‘attack’ on the court, go check out F.D.R.’s 1937 address, in which he accused the Court of wanting to banish the nation to a ‘No-Man’s Land of final futility.’ Or check out his Fireside Chat about his court-packing scheme, in which he warned that it was time to “save the Constitution from the Court’ and accused the courts of operating in ‘direct contradiction of the high purposes of the framers of the Constitution.’”

***

“Just about every player in connection with the President’s remarks about the Supreme Court seem to me to be acting oddly or imprudently.

“What a terrible idea for the President to charge the Supreme Court with an ‘unprecedented, extraordinary step’ of judicial activism if it strikes down parts of the health care law. It was not a bad idea because it constituted bullying of the Court. It was a bad idea – at least from the President’s perspective – because it makes it harder for the Justices to rule in favor of the President’s position. After his very public criticism, a vote to uphold the law by the Justices who sharply questioned the law at oral argument will invariably be seen as cowing to the President – an appearance, I am confident, the Justices very much want to avoid. In other words, by questioning the Justice’s independence, the President made it harder for the Justices whose votes he needs to act in his favor. That, I suspect, is why the President has tried to walk back his remarks…

“And how silly for the Fifth Circuit panel to ask the Justice Department to brief whether the Obama Administration believes that courts have the right to strike down a federal law. It is obvious that the President and DOJ believe courts have that power. And in any event that power in no way depends on the beliefs of the President or DOJ. The request for an answer on the question, based on a presidential remark not at issue in the case, seems like a political intrusion by the court into a political debate.”

***

“As a brilliant constitutional lawyer deeply devoted to the rule of law, [Obama] has nothing but respect for the critical function that judicial review performs in preserving the American system of constitutional government. Efforts to divine a contrary theory in his remarks were strained at the outset and have grown only more untenable.

“The ‘unprecedented, extraordinary’ step he noted the justices would be taking if they were to overturn the Affordable Care Act was, of course, not the step of exercising judicial review, as the court has done ever since Marbury v. Madison in 1803, but the step of second-guessing congressional judgments about how best to regulate a vast segment of the national economy. No one in the world — certainly none of the justices — can have been surprised to learn that Obama believes his signature domestic achievement fully complies with the Constitution and ought to be upheld — or that the Supreme Court has a decades-old tradition of treading lightly when major regulations of interstate commerce come before it…

There was no disrespect in the president’s entirely correct observation that precedent and historical practice alike would lead a suitably cautious court to uphold rather than overturn his signature first-term achievement in providing health insurance to millions of Americans. The fact that health care reform has represented a pressing issue for the nation over the course of a century would indeed make a decision to strike down the law all the more jarring. But the notion that the president’s recognition of that fact somehow crossed the Rubicon in our separation of powers by seeking to diminish the court’s independence is patently absurd.”

***

“If the president was so concerned about a court overturning a duly constituted law passed by a democratically elected Congress, why was he urging a small group of unelected judges to strike down DOMA, a measure that won passage by a far greater margin than Obamacare?

“The answer is, of course, that the administration is making a political argument for its positions, not a legal one. And perhaps counterproductively, the president’s decision to bring up Obamacare’s history in Congress could end up reminding the public of the tangled circumstances of its passage. Even with a huge majority in the House, Democrats barely passed the bill in the face of bipartisan opposition. And in the Senate, Obamacare succeeded as the result of a set of freakish circumstances that allowed Democrats to pass an unpopular measure into law.

“Those circumstances included the wrongful prosecution of a Republican senator (Ted Stevens), resulting in his seat going to a Democrat; the defection of another Republican senator (Arlen Specter) to the Democrats; and a change in one state’s laws (Massachusetts) to allow a Democratic governor to immediately appoint a Democrat to succeed the late Sen. Ted Kennedy and give the Senate a 60-vote Democratic supermajority. And then there were the policy payoffs to some Democratic senators who were undecided about the bill. Even then, Democrats held a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate for just 134 days before Massachusetts elected a Republican senator, Scott Brown, who ran specifically on the platform of stopping Obamacare. But in those 134 days, Democrats managed to pass an unpopular bill into law without a single vote to spare.”

***

“John Roberts has to know and see all this. He has to know that Fifth Circuit Judge Jerry Smith, who asked federal prosecutors for a homework assignment in the wake of Obama’s remarks—a brief stating the Justice Department’s position on judicial review, that had to be at least three pages, single-spaced!—is making conservatives look silly and cheapening the bench. And he has to know that the court’s reputation will suffer an immense blow if it overturns the mandate. It will be seen by a large majority—even a lot of people who weren’t crazy about the law—as completely political. Remember, they didn’t have to take the case in an election year in the first place. They could have put it off. But the court said it must do this now. If it then overturns the ACA, it will look and smell like a political hit job to many Americans. And the court would be saying to America, ‘We know what you think, and we don’t give a damn.’…

“The court already—after Bush v. Gore and Citizens United in particular—has one leg dangling off the cliff. If it is going to be nakedly political in its decisions, it will invite political blowback. And if it gets pushed off the cliff, then who or what is our final arbiter in America? The great irony of the conservative moral absolutists is that they have ushered in—by arguing that nothing is above or beyond politics, that all the institutions Americans used to respect were in fact infested with liberal biases and presumptions—the greatest period of relativism in American history. We no longer universally respect anything. There is no reason the court should be immune from that. If the ACA is gutted, it will be liberals who will seek revenge on the court, but remember that it was conservatives who opened the door to pure politicization in the first place.”

***

***



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 6

NO TROLL NIGHT!

KOOLAID2 on April 7, 2012 at 8:36 PM

I will ignore them…PROMISE!

KOOLAID2 on April 7, 2012 at 8:37 PM

Even lobotomy4life!

KOOLAID2 on April 7, 2012 at 8:38 PM

It can keep it’s diaper off and go on the papers!

KOOLAID2 on April 7, 2012 at 8:39 PM

but as ‘attacks’ go, this is pretty weak sauce.

ummm dude, he’s the potus, he shouldn’t be attacking in the first place

idiot

cmsinaz on April 7, 2012 at 8:40 PM

All the others can come in Lobotomy4lifes basement!

KOOLAID2 on April 7, 2012 at 8:40 PM

“As a brilliant constitutional lawyer deeply devoted to the rule of law,

He found that in a fortune cookie!

dmann on April 7, 2012 at 8:41 PM

Ok…now I’ll read and look at the vedios…all I saw was an adams apple…getting to the comment section!

KOOLAID2 on April 7, 2012 at 8:42 PM

If the ACA is gutted, it will be liberals who will seek revenge on the court, but remember that it was conservatives who opened the door to pure politicization in the first place.”

No, it was Teddy Kennedy’s drunken rant on the Senate floor against the Bork nomination.

Wethal on April 7, 2012 at 8:44 PM

but remember that it was conservatives who opened the door to pure politicization in the first place.”

you lie

cmsinaz on April 7, 2012 at 8:45 PM

Wethal on April 7, 2012 at 8:44 PM

amen brother

cmsinaz on April 7, 2012 at 8:46 PM

“Here were highly sophisticated conservative thinkers — lawyers and justices — making the case for limited government, and liberals weren’t even prepared for the obvious constitutional question

Of course liberals weren’t prepared. This is the whole foundation of liberalism – someone else does the heavy lifting.

Obamacare itself is a total mess because there’s no one smart, hardworking or practical enough on the liberal side of things to have went through and made sense of it and cleaned it up into something workable and presentable.

So now comes the time to justify its existence? Not a surprise amongst the dilettantes and idiots there’s no one that is willing to the heavy lifting. Much like when the check is brought to the table for payment, the liberals are out the door doing a dine and dash.

To liberals it’s enough that they thought of it. Never mind actually get the monster to work.

kim roy on April 7, 2012 at 8:47 PM

Michael Tomasky: retard.

jaime on April 7, 2012 at 8:48 PM

This plays into those hypersensitive to Obama being “disrespected”. Which is millions of those who are proud by proxy of nothing else but the way Obama looks and that he’s President. These aren’t smart people. It’s barefaced identity politics.

Paul-Cincy on April 7, 2012 at 8:49 PM

Paul-Cincy on April 7, 2012 at 8:49 PM

protecting mr thin skin

cmsinaz on April 7, 2012 at 8:50 PM

“As a brilliant constitutional lawyer deeply devoted to the rule of law,

He found that in a fortune cookie!

dmann on April 7, 2012 at 8:41 PM

I did note that they had to add in Obama’s name

rule of law, [Obama] has nothing

to it for the multitudes of people saying “WHO???”.

;)

kim roy on April 7, 2012 at 8:51 PM

What, then, is the limiting principle?…

Death, cremation and dispersal of our ashes. Only then will the government be unable to get their hands on us.

FloatingRock on April 7, 2012 at 8:51 PM

Hare is now retired, having been shortly thereafter defeated for reelection by the more constitutionally attuned owner of an East Moline pizza shop.”

And they say there’s no God.

Cleombrotus on April 7, 2012 at 8:56 PM

“As a brilliant constitutional lawyer deeply devoted to the rule of law, [Obama] has nothing but respect for the critical function that judicial review performs in preserving the American system of constitutional government.

A “brilliant, constitutional lawyer” doesn’t cite a New York state law, which had to do with the right of contract, as an example of the last time the Supreme Court struck down a Federal law based on the Commerce Clause.

A “brilliant constitutional lawyer deeply devoted to the rule of law” doesn’t make recess appointments when the Senate cannot be in recess pursuant to Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution of the United States of America.

I could go on and on and on with examples of what a “brilliant constitutional lawyer deeply devoted to the rule of law” would not do, but such would be both unnecessary and grievously embarrassing to the “smartest man to ever be elected leader of the free world” to paraphrase Michael Beschloss.

Resist We Much on April 7, 2012 at 8:56 PM

. If the ACA is gutted, it will be liberals who will seek revenge on the court, but remember that it was conservatives who opened the door to pure politicization in the first place.”

Couldn’t agree with this statement any more. Ever since Obama got elected, conservatives have managed to turn every little thing they disagree with political.
The mandate was a conservative idea. Most liberals hate the mandate. However conservatives have managed to galvanize liberal support for the mandate due to their outright disdain for Obama. What a shame.

Uppereastside on April 7, 2012 at 8:56 PM

This plays into those hypersensitive to Obama being “disrespected”. Which is millions of those who are proud by proxy of nothing else but the way Obama looks and that he’s President. These aren’t smart people. It’s barefaced identity politics.

Paul-Cincy on April 7, 2012 at 8:49 PM

Something I’m missing here?

Whats wrong with that?

liberal4life on April 7, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Oh yes, it is the quintessential liberectal response.

M240H on April 7, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Resist We Much on April 7, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Resist you live on the UES right? If so, do you take the 4 or 6 train to work? Could have sworn i saw some British guy staring so hard at a Sarah Palin article on the train earlier this week.

Uppereastside on April 7, 2012 at 8:59 PM

Let’s see, there were massive demonstrations against its passage, polls have consistently shown that the majority favor its repeal, and it required legislative legerdemain and backroom deals to pass it, yet the American people will punish the Court for overturning it? Please explain this logic.

FirelandsO3 on April 7, 2012 at 9:01 PM

KOOLAID2
hate to tell ya but, somebody left the door open last night and the trolls got in.
I know I locked it, so whoever came in first must not have closed it all the way.

angrymike on April 7, 2012 at 9:02 PM

Uppereastside on April 7, 2012 at 8:56 PM

It’s fun to watch you whine.

jaime on April 7, 2012 at 9:02 PM

Othersideofthetracks
Resist is a woman, you moron……

angrymike on April 7, 2012 at 9:04 PM

“If you really want to hear an ‘attack’ on the court, go check out F.D.R.’s 1937 address, in which he accused the Court of wanting to banish the nation to a ‘No-Man’s Land of final futility.’ Or check out his Fireside Chat about his court-packing scheme, in which he warned that it was time to “save the Constitution from the Court’ and accused the courts of operating in ‘direct contradiction of the high purposes of the framers of the Constitution.’”

Yep, that was remembered as one of FDR’s finest moments, fur shure!

/sarc off

ebrown2 on April 7, 2012 at 9:04 PM

However conservatives have managed to galvanize liberal support for the mandate due to their outright disdain for Obama.

“This is not real reform. You’re going to be forced to buy health insurance from a company that’s going to take on average 27 percent of your money so they can pay CEOs 20 million dollars a year…and there’s no choice about that. If you don’t buy that insurance, you’re going to get a fine. This is a bill that was fundamentally written by staffers who are friendly to the insurance industry, [endorsed] by Senators who take a lot of money from the insurance industry, and it’s not health care reform. And I think it’s too bad that it should come to this…I’d kill the bill entirely.”

- Howard Dean, December, 2009

“I do believe that it’s likely the individual mandate will be declared unconstitutional. [Justice Anthony] Kennedy will probably side with the four right-wing justices. But I’d be very surprised if they — I think Kennedy will switch sides and it will be 5-4 in favor of severing that finding from the rest of the bill. The question is going to be, is this individual mandate question — can that be considered separately from the rest of the bill? And I think it will be.”

- Howard Dean, 26 March 2012

Resist We Much on April 7, 2012 at 9:06 PM

This plays into those hypersensitive to Obama being “disrespected”. Which is millions of those who are proud by proxy of nothing else but the way Obama looks and that he’s President. These aren’t smart people. It’s barefaced identity politics.

Paul-Cincy on April 7, 2012 at 8:49 PM

If loving you is wrong (I don’t wanna be right).

Yup. Obama’s words about the court were not meant for other lawyers or even 8th graders studying for a Constitution test. They were meant for the uneducated masses just looking for another idiotic reason to protect the chip on Obama’s shoulder. He knows he’s using them even if they don’t.

Fallon on April 7, 2012 at 9:07 PM

However conservatives have managed to galvanize liberal support for the mandate due to their outright disdain for Obama. What a shame.

Uppereastside on April 7, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Hilarious. No Cons in general did not and do not like the mandate. So please quit lying . I do like how you have admitted though that libs can be “tricked” into supporting something they don’t really want. You are one stupid political movement.

CW on April 7, 2012 at 9:08 PM

Even those media types and bloggers who are of limited thinking power should be able to appreciate why fighting to defend the Constitution would not be considered judicial activism of the same sort as those who try every way they can to subvert the Constitution.

But, I guess not.

gepaza on April 7, 2012 at 9:08 PM

I love that the left keeps bringing up Bush v Gore, forgetting it was the Democrats who sued and are now crying foul because they lost in the polls and the courts.

Citizens united is basically the left saying that you lose rights if you freely associate for business purposes but not labor purposes.

Grunt on April 7, 2012 at 9:08 PM

“Is Obama’s reference to ‘unelected’ justices an ‘attack’? If so, it’s pretty tame stuff indeed.

Yeah…wait until you hear what comes out of his mouth after the SC rules against him!

lynncgb on April 7, 2012 at 9:10 PM

You’re Only Against The Obamacare Mandate Because There’s A Black Man Living In The White House And You Want To See Faux Hispanic – White Jews Shoot Blacks Wearing Hoodies, Who Are Armed Only With Skittles & Iced Teas! Don’t You Dare Claim Otherwise, You KKKrackers!

Even a majority of Democrats want the mandate overturned. Take a look at all of the poll numbers. You guys can continue to claim that we hate Obamacare because we hate Obama, but you are dead wrong.

You morons have insisted that I hate Obamacare because “there’s a black man living in the White House” when I would prefer Barack Obama’s reelection — and the thought of 4 more years of Obama’s Neo-Nationalism is nothing short of a nightmare for me — to the Supreme Court setting such a dangerous precedent by upholding Obamacare? That is how deeply and passionately I feel about the Constitution, the rule of the law, and limiting the power of Leviathan. I would feel the same way if Barack Hussein Obama, Jr, was a white libertarian and signed the same law. My visceral, guttural, and instinctual hatred of the Affordable Care Act has never had anything to do with Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. It’s a freedom thang, baby, and the very reason that I chose to become an American!

You have NO precedent to support your case. None. Not An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disable Seamen. Not the Second Militia Act of 1792. Not Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States. Not Wickard v. Filburn. Not Gonzales v. Raich. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

A Very Little Knowledge In The Hands Of A Prog Is A Very Dangerous Thing … It Usually Blows Up In Their Faces

Obamacare: Do Not Resuscitate

Resist We Much on April 7, 2012 at 9:14 PM

Coulter destroyed Obama on Hannity.

But do not underestimate the MSM this November especially as they now include FNC.

Only GOD can save this country at this point in time.

Pray for this Country come back to GOD.

Or we will all reap the consequences.

That will be very very ugly.

Steveangell on April 7, 2012 at 9:14 PM

“As a brilliant constitutional lawyer deeply devoted to the rule of law, [Obama] has…

Stop. Just stop. No one is buying this anymore and you’re just embarrassing yourself. Have you no pride? No dignity? No children whose respect you’d like to enjoy? Really. Just stop. It’s over, man. All the way over. Just move on.

Rational Thought on April 7, 2012 at 9:14 PM

Two leftists are eating a clown.

The first proggie says, “Does this taste funny to you?”

The second proggie replies, “Are you serious?”

“No. I just thought you might look up and give me that shyte eating grin of yours.”

OkieDoc on April 7, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Resist We Much on April 7, 2012 at 9:06 PM

You are preaching to the choir here. I dont know whether the individual mandate is constitutional or not but one thing i do know is that there is something wrong with the government forcing us to buy any kind of insurance.

That said, how do we ensure all Americans have health care insurance? And don’t give me that across state lines or tort reform crap. Something needs to be done to force everyone to pay for some form of health insurance. That or hospitals should start turning away patients for not having health insurance like they do in the third world countries.

Uppereastside on April 7, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Uppereastside on April 7, 2012 at 8:56 PM

In fact the mandate isn’t conservative at all, it’s corporatist.

FloatingRock on April 7, 2012 at 9:17 PM

California Dreamin’

jaime on April 7, 2012 at 9:17 PM

Resist you live on the UES right?
“Uppereastside on April 7, 2012 at 8:59 PM”

Yes.

If so, do you take the 4 or 6 train to work?

Unlikely. I don’t take the train anywhere except to DC. Also, I went Galt on 01.20.09. Fund your utopia without me. (See the 13th and 16th amendments. :-)).

Could have sworn i saw some British guy staring so hard at a Sarah Palin article on the train earlier this week.

Not a Palin fan. Like I said, you’d never see me on the train. Besides, I’m a guuuuuuurrrrrrrlllll and wear sky high Louboutins and short Chanel skirts.

Resist We Much on April 7, 2012 at 9:18 PM

CW on April 7, 2012 at 9:08 PM

How is that different from your crew voting for Romney in November even though you all think he is a secret liberal. He was shoved down your throat by the establishment and you all are swallowing it with pleasure.

Uppereastside on April 7, 2012 at 9:19 PM

John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!

If Obama loses then he’ll just issue more edicts and his army of bureaucrats will be only too happy to comply.

And he [Roberts] has to know that the court’s reputation will suffer an immense blow if it overturns the mandate.

Funniest QOTD. In a sad sad way.

Fenris on April 7, 2012 at 9:20 PM

That said, how do we ensure all Americans have health care insurance? And don’t give me that across state lines or tort reform crap. Something needs to be done to force everyone to pay for some form of health insurance.

Uppereastside on April 7, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Let Americans decide on their own if they want health insurance or not. The last thing we Americans need is for busybodies like you to force us to pay for anything.

Don’t you get it after all this time?

NapaConservative on April 7, 2012 at 9:20 PM

That said, how do we ensure all Americans have health care insurance?

Uppereastside on April 7, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Why do you presume that all need insurance for a service provided by the private sector?

Electrongod on April 7, 2012 at 9:22 PM

I’m a guuuuuuurrrrrrrlllll and wear sky high Louboutins and short Chanel skirts.

Resist We Much on April 7, 2012 at 9:18 PM

Christian Louboutins aka red soles (I see how you roll :)).

My wife just got one of those from the louboutins website. She refuses to tell me how much I paid for them.

Uppereastside on April 7, 2012 at 9:23 PM

Leave now, and never come back.

Rusty Allen on April 7, 2012 at 9:23 PM

Why do you presume that all need insurance for a service provided by the private sector?

Electrongod on April 7, 2012 at 9:22 PM

Because i am tired of paying the insurance for freeloaders that’s why.

Uppereastside on April 7, 2012 at 9:24 PM

Something needs to be done to force everyone to pay for some form of health insurance.

Uppereastside on April 7, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Force is not a remedy.

“Force is the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

“To force a man to pay for the violation of his own liberty is indeed an addition of insult to injury.” ~ Benjamin Tucker

Fallon on April 7, 2012 at 9:24 PM

Uppereastside on April 7, 2012 at 8:56 PM

I see Icabod has joined us after a nice long nap through the first decade of the 21st century.

chemman on April 7, 2012 at 9:25 PM

Uppereastside on April 7, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Not being able to buy across state lines should exclude the commerce clause defense immediately as it does not involve commerce between the several states. But by allowing it to be purchased across state lines should increase the pool and thus decrease the price.

Tort reform. Limiting settlements to actual damages unless blatant disregard was shown in medical care.

Stop forcing insurance companies to pay for routine services and allow for catastrophic policies to be sold. I can buy my own prescriptions and my own checkups. I will pay for the broken arm but I want coverage for cancer or heart transplant. Imaging the cost of car insurance if they paid for a monthly air pressure check.

Grunt on April 7, 2012 at 9:27 PM

That said, how do we ensure all Americans have health care insurance? And don’t give me that across state lines or tort reform crap. [... same of effin argument - whine whine whine]

Uppereastside on April 7, 2012 at 9:15 PM

.
This proves you don’t know anything about insurance or actuarial rates or insurance premium pools or even normal curves. You should be shuttin’ up and not talkin’ since you people are the ones who got us into this mess. So, don’t be givin’ your opinion when you are the ones who caused the problem.

ExpressoBold on April 7, 2012 at 9:27 PM

Can’t Help Falling in Love

jaime on April 7, 2012 at 9:27 PM

My wife just got one of those from the louboutins website. She refuses to tell me how much I paid for them.

Uppereastside on April 7, 2012 at 9:23 PM

Trust me, you don’t want to know. My shoe collection could buy a house.

Resist We Much on April 7, 2012 at 9:29 PM

Death, cremation and dispersal of our ashes. Only then will the government be unable to get their hands on us.

FloatingRock on April 7, 2012 at 8:51 PM

Nope, there’s always your estate. A last tax to say the government’s goodbye with.

Gladtobehere on April 7, 2012 at 9:30 PM

“Democrats are reeling. Obama was so taken aback, he hasn’t even drawn up contingency plans should his cherished reform be struck down. Liberals still cannot grasp what’s happened
==================================================

Which means,if the HealthCare was to be struck down,the Left will
have a Collective Meltdown,which will have another round,of “Mental
Health Experts” racing to console the Party of the DNC,like the
November 2010 ordeal!!

And,I think,with all the Leftys in various Government positions,
they probably thought it would never get contested,and if it did,
“Their People” would take care of it,and so,with a free-thinking group,like the (SCOTUS)they now are almost beside-themselves!

canopfor on April 7, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Because i am tired of paying the insurance for freeloaders that’s why.

Uppereastside on April 7, 2012 at 9:24 PM

I get that….

But what the Dems have given us changes nothing..
Pelosi herself said that now musicians, flute players and other liberal art careers that are difficult to make ends meet…now don’t have to worry about health care..Freeloaders??? maybe…

We will never find the answer with a socialized payment plan for a market of health care providers that are engaged in a free market by choice.

Electrongod on April 7, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Grunt on April 7, 2012 at 9:27 PM

Answer the question, how do stop freeloaders from gaming the system?

Even if insurance is $1 a year, there will still be people gaming the system simply because they can get treated regardless of whether they have insurance or not.

Uppereastside on April 7, 2012 at 9:32 PM

canopfor on April 7, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Nice to see you…:)

Electrongod on April 7, 2012 at 9:32 PM

canopfor on April 7, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Yo, ’bout time you showed your face around these parts. It hasn’t been the same around here without you!

JPeterman on April 7, 2012 at 9:34 PM

ExpressoBold on April 7, 2012 at 9:27 PM

Why don’t you take your trailer trash a$$ to bed if you have nothing tangible to add. Adults are having a debate here.

Uppereastside on April 7, 2012 at 9:35 PM

“Judicial Activism”!!
=====================

Thats rich,just take a peek,at Alana Kagen’s past track record!!

canopfor on April 7, 2012 at 9:36 PM

Uppereastside on April 7, 2012 at 9:32 PM

A small bit of wisdom from ancient times that was included in the Mayflower compact. “Those that work eat”

Able bodied people who refuse to work starve. It is simple really if you got rid of state sponsored charity where it is discrimination to deny those gaming the system benefits then you would no longer have a gaming of the system. For centuries charity was given by freewill to help those deserving who were less fortunate. Now the system is regardless if they deserve charity they are entitled to it. I remember US going to war at one time on the slogan millions in charity not a penny in tribute. Now tribute is demanded for charity.

Grunt on April 7, 2012 at 9:39 PM

Satisfaction

jaime on April 7, 2012 at 9:39 PM

We will never find the answer with a socialized payment plan for a market of health care providers that are engaged in a free market by choice.

Electrongod on April 7, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Nice rebuttal. There can be an argument to be made that socialized medicine stifles innovation. Then again the Canadians seem to be doing fine with their single payer health care system

Uppereastside on April 7, 2012 at 9:39 PM

Why don’t you take your trailer trash a$$ to bed if you have nothing tangible to add. Adults are having a debate here.

Uppereastside on April 7, 2012 at 9:35 PM

*sigh*

Typical liberal. When you can’t debate the issue, attack the other debater personally.

It’s getting so f*****g old.

NapaConservative on April 7, 2012 at 9:39 PM

Look out Barry! Here come da judge!

predator on April 7, 2012 at 9:40 PM

Two proggies are eating a clown.

The first one says to the second one there, “I hope you’re having fun.”

“Fun. Fun? If you think that wearing this shyte

eating grin all the time is fun, you must be a clown.”

OkieDoc on April 7, 2012 at 9:41 PM

you lie

cmsinaz on April 7, 2012 at 8:45 PM

cmsinaz:Lol,yup,the infamous SOTUA,Lefty MSM conniption fit!:)

canopfor on April 7, 2012 at 9:41 PM

Nice rebuttal. There can be an argument to be made that socialized medicine stifles innovation. Then again the Canadians seem to be doing fine with their single payer health care system

Uppereastside on April 7, 2012 at 9:39 PM

Which is why the Canadian PM flew to Miami for heart surgery. Yeah, I get it.

predator on April 7, 2012 at 9:42 PM

Something needs to be done to force everyone….

Uppereastside on April 7, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Something needs to be done to force people like you to move to China or something.

FloatingRock on April 7, 2012 at 9:42 PM

Grunt on April 7, 2012 at 9:39 PM

What is your point? Turn freeloader patients away from the hospitals? You and I know that will never happen in this country.

Uppereastside on April 7, 2012 at 9:42 PM

Adults are having a debate here.

UpperYeastside on April 7, 2012 at 9:35 PM

.
I added a take-down and exposure of your ignorance and liberal talking points! That’s very adult! Now, can you whine more like an adult and not a pampered sissy?

ExpressoBold on April 7, 2012 at 9:43 PM

Something needs to be done to force people like you to move to China or something.

FloatingRock on April 7, 2012 at 9:42 PM

Another idiot who has nothing tangible to add but personal insults.

Uppereastside on April 7, 2012 at 9:43 PM

canopfor on April 7, 2012 at 9:36 PM

Nice to the moniker on these pages again.

M240H on April 7, 2012 at 9:44 PM

Another idiot who has nothing tangible to add but personal insults.

Uppereastside on April 7, 2012 at 9:43 PM

I was just turning your own statement back against you, you’re the idiot.

FloatingRock on April 7, 2012 at 9:45 PM

Answer the question, how do stop freeloaders from gaming the system?

Even if insurance is $1 a year, there will still be people gaming the system simply because they can get treated regardless of whether they have insurance or not.

Uppereastside on April 7, 2012 at 9:32 PM

You have a fundamental difference in point of view with conservatives. No amount of arguing details and solutions implemented by the government will resolve this.

This is not the governments problem to solve. If an insurance company or hospital is unable to deal with freeloaders then let the company go bankrupt. Charities do still exist, but Obama is doing his best to use the government to drive them out of business. That’s not to say government has no role to play in “getting out of the way” to allow a hospitable environment for private solutions. But your preemptive dismissal of a couple of them tells me you’re not thinking too deeply about it.

Fenris on April 7, 2012 at 9:46 PM

Hare is now retired, having been shortly thereafter defeated for reelection by the more constitutionally attuned owner of an East Moline pizza shop.”

And they say there’s no God.

Cleombrotus on April 7, 2012 at 8:56 PM

First they say: “You have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it.”

Then they say: “Obama is a (Liberal) God.”

If Obama loses in the court, I expect an explosion of Liberal self-righteousness and anger in the media.

If Obama loses the election, I fully expect some riots. Then the Liberal God will be dead.

Gladtobehere on April 7, 2012 at 9:46 PM

Then again the Canadians seem to be doing fine with their single payer health care system

Uppereastside on April 7, 2012 at 9:39 PM

They have their ups and downs too.
But the Canadian health care industry makes use of innovations from other countries also….not just what comes out of Canada.

Electrongod on April 7, 2012 at 9:47 PM

Why don’t you take your trailer trash a$$ to bed if you have nothing tangible to add. [blah blah blah]

UpperYeastside on April 7, 2012 at 9:35 PM

.
That’s the wrong word, Hortesse! You meant constructive or worthwhile and, guess what! It was worthwhile but you were too busy blowing smoke to know it.

ExpressoBold on April 7, 2012 at 9:47 PM

Uppereastside on April 7, 2012 at 9:43 PM

Authoritarians like you are a threat to our freedom and liberty. If it’s alright for you to employ government force to impose your wish, then my wish if to force people like you to leave the country so you’ll no longer be a threat to my freedom and liberty.

FloatingRock on April 7, 2012 at 9:47 PM

Uppereastside on April 7, 2012 at 9:42 PM

Have the option to turn them away. Not be forced to take them or forced to turn them away. Make Charity a free giving of once goods or services and not a mandatory confiscation.

Grunt on April 7, 2012 at 9:49 PM

Another idiot who has nothing tangible to add but personal insults.

Uppereastside on April 7, 2012 at 9:43 PM

.
That’s projection, trailer trash A$$ !!!!!!
.
Do you have E A S Y stamped on your forehead?

ExpressoBold on April 7, 2012 at 9:50 PM

Baghdad Rock

jaime on April 7, 2012 at 9:50 PM

Two Leninists are eating a working-class clown.

The second clown says, “Does this clown taste proletarian to you?”

The first clown answers, “Huh, I thought he was a Presbyterian.”

OkieDoc on April 7, 2012 at 9:50 PM

They have their ups and downs too.
But the Canadian health care industry makes use of innovations from other countries also….not just what comes out of Canada.

Electrongod on April 7, 2012 at 9:47 PM

I agree. I believe a private/public partnership is needed to solve this problem. There is no silver bullet here. The free market alone can’t solve this and the government can’t do this all by itself either. It’s a tough one.

Uppereastside on April 7, 2012 at 9:52 PM

Ya know,Pelosi stated what she was willing to do to pass
HopeyCare,like pole-vaulting,so um,I wonder what Pelosium
is prepared to do,if HealthCare is defeated!!

canopfor on April 7, 2012 at 9:52 PM

Let us be very clear here. A duly enacted law passed by a democratically elected legislature may be totally unconstitutional and not at all deserving of the slightest deference or respect by any reviewing court. Many in our history have been exactly that, and many have been so declared. That’s the court’s job. Get over it!!
It is NOT the court’s job to decide what is fair or just or practical or compelling or compassionate or progressive or any other supposed virtue. Because there is no objective definition of any of those terms, they are decided by juries and legislatures. It IS the court’s job to decide what the Constitution is….PERIOD!
If the Congress wants to take over the health care industry, they’re going to have to do it within the limits of the constitution, like everything else they want to do. I know it’s always annoying to have limits but, trust me, after a while you’ll grow up and get used to it.

Lew on April 7, 2012 at 9:53 PM

Another idiot who has nothing tangible to add but personal insults.

Uppereastside on April 7, 2012 at 9:43 PM

Oh, the irony.

NapaConservative on April 7, 2012 at 9:53 PM

I agree. I believe a private/public partnership is needed to solve this problem. There is no silver bullet here. The free market alone can’t solve this and the government can’t do this all by itself either. It’s a tough one.

Uppereastside on April 7, 2012 at 9:52 PM

I agree with you on that..

Electrongod on April 7, 2012 at 9:55 PM

Have the option to turn them away. Not be forced to take them or forced to turn them away. Make Charity a free giving of once goods or services and not a mandatory confiscation.

Grunt on April 7, 2012 at 9:49 PM

Like i said, that will work in those third world countries but not in this country. Imagine the lawsuits and outrage when a young infant is turned away from a hospital and dies as a result.

Uppereastside on April 7, 2012 at 9:55 PM

I am just finishing up Taleb’s The Black Swan (1st Edition) and he is at the point in the book where he is saying that under capitalism businesses thrive in an atmosphere if “creative destruction” whereas under socialism businesses just keep plowing through the markets without innovation or improvement, just more government protection.
.
Socialism: the way to crony capitalism – insurance companies love it! Especially W. Buffett the manipulative Democrat.

ExpressoBold on April 7, 2012 at 9:56 PM

I agree. I believe a private/public partnership is needed

Uppereastside on April 7, 2012 at 9:52 PM

So you are a corporatist, which is antithetical to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Corporatism is un-American IMO, it is of European origin and vile.

FloatingRock on April 7, 2012 at 9:56 PM

Liberals still cannot grasp what’s happened

Cuz their arrogant and stupid.

bazil9 on April 7, 2012 at 9:56 PM

Private/Public = crony capitalism

FloatingRock on April 7, 2012 at 9:57 PM

Nice to see you…:)

Electrongod on April 7, 2012 at 9:32 PM
——————————————–

Yo, ’bout time you showed your face around these parts. It hasn’t been the same around here without you!

JPeterman on April 7, 2012 at 9:34 PM
————————————–

Nice to the moniker on these pages again.

M240H on April 7, 2012 at 9:44 PM
===================================

Thanks everyone…good to be back,with(all)my Patriot Neighbours:)

canopfor on April 7, 2012 at 9:57 PM

canopfor on April 7, 2012 at 9:31 PM

canopfor back in da house!

yahoo…missed ya buddy

cmsinaz on April 7, 2012 at 9:58 PM

Oh, the irony.

NapaConservative on April 7, 2012 at 9:53 PM

.
How can anyone communicate with a Brick like that? Huh? Just Thick!

ExpressoBold on April 7, 2012 at 9:58 PM

How is that different from your crew voting for Romney in November even though you all think he is a secret liberal. He was shoved down your throat by the establishment and you all are swallowing it with pleasure.

Uppereastside on April 7, 2012 at 9:19 PM

Forest? Forest Gump? That’s got to be you, because you’re not a smart man.

Yeah, we hate the fact Romney is going to be our nominee, yeah, we are pissed at the establishment republicans and others shoving the worst candidate down our throats again. You know what though? As bad as Romney is, he is orders of magnitude better than the communist and his henchmen and women who currently inhabit the White House and the administration. Job 1 is getting the marxist in the White House out of there. Job 2 is pushing Romney to the right and electing conservative representatives and senators.

What? You think we are just going to roll over and say, “Hey, since Romney is the candidate, give me four more years of the marxist and his efforts to take away our liberties”?

AZfederalist on April 7, 2012 at 9:58 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 6