Open thread: Mandate-mas? Update: Psych!

posted at 10:15 am on June 21, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

I’m convinced that we won’t see a Supreme Court decision on ObamaCare until the nine justices have safely boarded aircraft for destinations unknown, but who knows?  The Huffington Post says it could come as early as today … or not:

The Supreme Court’s ruling on President Obama’s health care law could be announced Thursday morning, a development that would have major implications regardless of the decision. …

After prolonged anticipation, the court is expected to hand down its decision on whether the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate is constitutional by the end of the month. If no ruling is issued on Thursday, the decision could come next Monday. The justices could also decide to add more decision days next week, further adding to the uncertainty of when the ruling will arrive.

According to USA Today’s David Jackson, experts think those waiting for Mandate-Mas will probably end up being delighted no matter when the decision gets announced:

A survey of 56 legal insiders predicts that the Supreme Court will strike down the key part of President Obama’s health care law.

Oral arguments in March persuaded a group of attorneys and former clerks that the justices will kill the individual mandate, the requirement that nearly all Americans buy health insurance or pay a fine, according to the survey by Purple Insights.

“In March, our experts believed that likelihood (of an overturn) stood at 35%,” said a memo from Doug Usher of Purple Insights. “After hearing the oral arguments and the justices’ questioning, our experts now place that probability at 57%.”

Of course, no one knows for sure what the high court will do with health care law, and when they will do it.

Feel like putting your trust in “legal insiders”?  You’re braver than I am.

Since today might just be the day, why not post an open thread?  If you want to follow along as decisions get announced, be sure to visit SCOTUSblog’s live blogging of the event.  Otherwise … let the speculation begin!  Obviously, a decision will get a separate post and analysis, but we may update with other interesting tidbits.

Update: The SEIU lost 7-2 on a case where they imposed a mandatory extra assessment on closed-shop union members, who objected to not having enough notice to protest it.  That overturns the Ninth Circuit decision in favor of the SEIU. It will force unions to give more notice on assessments, but doesn’t have much to do with anything else.

Update II: Fox and ABC prevailed over the FCC on fines due to inappropriate content during a live event.  Unanimous, but narrow; doesn’t affect FCC rules on limiting such content.

Update III: No rulings today on ObamaCare or the Arizona immigration law.  We’ll have to wait for Monday.

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

canopfor on June 21, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Heh!!!!!

Baxter Greene on June 21, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Baxter Greene:—:)

canopfor on June 21, 2012 at 11:39 AM

This is HUGE. You’re admitting that the global demand for oil has more to do with the price of crude than American domestic energy policy? How on earth can you use such obvious facts and claim to be a conservative.

libfreeordie on June 21, 2012 at 11:32 AM

…..so what is obvious to thinking people is that when you increase that supply……more of the global demand is met.

Now who is it again who is decreasing supply levels of our natural resources and fighting like he!! to stop the flow of oil?????

….I’ll give you a hint…….there green energy policies have been a disaster world wide…..destroyed jobs…..and cost taxpayers billions.

Baxter Greene on June 21, 2012 at 11:39 AM

You’re a professor too? We need more like you.

22044 on June 21, 2012 at 11:37 AM

ROTFLMAO… Oh hell no… I’m just a shlub who went to college.

SWalker on June 21, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Oh, and since my degree is in Classical Music theory as a genuine tenured professor I am sure you can explain to everyone how that’s the least academically demanding degree one can obtain.

SWalker on June 21, 2012 at 11:35 AM

I didn’t say I had tenure, I just finished my doctorate last summer. I also am a massive fan of classical music, with a particular love for opera (though I tend to cast a side-eye towards modern works, Dr. Atomic…really?). But I work in the liberal arts so you’ll never see me challenge the importance and rigor of a musical theory degree. Props. Wait, so why do you hate academia again?

libfreeordie on June 21, 2012 at 11:40 AM

As was boob-gate (and we didn’t even get a glimpse of what Timberlake’s packing, which I hear is a lot).

libfreeordie on June 21, 2012 at 11:07 AM

Maybe if you sent him a whining, begging, sniveling note about that he’d send you a twitpic.

Solaratov on June 21, 2012 at 11:42 AM

what university allows a student to take between 7-10 (3 or 4 credits per class I’m assuming) courses a semster.

libfreeordie on June 21, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Here in California, pretty much all of them, providing the student can demonstrate the ability to do so without their GPA suffering.

SWalker on June 21, 2012 at 11:43 AM

ROTFLMAO… Oh hell no… I’m just a shlub who went to college.

SWalker on June 21, 2012 at 11:39 AM

LOL, I guess I misread your post. Enjoying you giving lfod his beating today.

22044 on June 21, 2012 at 11:44 AM

…..so what is obvious to thinking people is that when you increase that supply……more of the global demand is met.

Now who is it again who is decreasing supply levels of our natural resources and fighting like he!! to stop the flow of oil?????

To answer your question, not Obama since domestic oil production has increased during his Administration. But your premise is all jacked up. Its a global demand and supply market, and that means that even if American output were maximized there is no way we could produce enough barrels that would increase global supply to impact demand. If, for example, the U.S. only bought oil from itself and there was an independent American market, then domestic production would matter quite a bit. But then again we’d have to restrict the activities of Exxon and other global oil companies.

libfreeordie on June 21, 2012 at 11:45 AM

libfreeordie on June 21, 2012 at 10:43 AM

The law was passed after these people were convicted, but before they were sentenced. A procedural conundrum (that SCOTUS got wrong in my opinion) is somehow a racial case? Furthermore, why is it SCOTUS’ business to involve itself in a political matter? Quite frankly only a leftist loon is able to see race in a case like this. And if Congress really wanted this law to apply to those convicted before it passed they would have made it so.

NotCoach on June 21, 2012 at 11:47 AM

“Update: The SEIU lost 7-2 on a case where they imposed a mandatory extra assessment on closed-shop union members, who objected to not having enough notice to protest it. That overturns the Ninth Circuit decision in favor of the SEIU. It will force unions to give more notice on assessments, but doesn’t have much to do with anything else.”

The case was for a assessment on NON-union members :) and the decision will indeed reach more than the SEIU since includes the requirement of ‘opt-in’ instead of ‘opt-out’ (afaik)

Lord Nazh on June 21, 2012 at 11:48 AM

But hey…the economy is in the best of hands…

The President says the “private sector is fine”

……….we’re headed in the right direction!!!!

…………………Biden said “Recovery Summer” would include the US creating 500,000 jobs a month”

Ag Secretary: Hey, the economy’s turned the corner!

…..I believe the economy has turned so many corners in this administration that they are going in a complete circle.

What a clown show.

Baxter Greene on June 21, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Here in California, pretty much all of them, providing the student can demonstrate the ability to do so without their GPA suffering.

SWalker on June 21, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Did you have time for any of the fun parts of college?

libfreeordie on June 21, 2012 at 11:49 AM

The law was passed after these people were convicted, but before they were sentenced. A procedural conundrum (that SCOTUS got wrong in my opinion) is somehow a racial case?

Crack-cocaine sentence disparities is/always was a racial issue, any amendments to those disparities therefore has implications for racial justice.

libfreeordie on June 21, 2012 at 11:50 AM

This seems like important economic news: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20120621/oil-prices/

I assume all of the people who think that the President controls oil prices will laud him for this.

libfreeordie on June 21, 2012 at 11:15 AM

In my view it has been a leading indicator for months now that we are going into another recession. There is no reason for oil prices to be down at this time of year except for a slowing economy.

NotCoach on June 21, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Crack-cocaine sentence disparities is/always was a racial issue, any amendments to those disparities therefore has implications for racial justice.

libfreeordie on June 21, 2012 at 11:50 AM

You are talking about a political issue. SCOTUS ruled on a procedural problem.

NotCoach on June 21, 2012 at 11:53 AM

I didn’t say I had tenure, I just finished my doctorate last summer. I also am a massive fan of classical music, with a particular love for opera (though I tend to cast a side-eye towards modern works, Dr. Atomic…really?). But I work in the liberal arts so you’ll never see me challenge the importance and rigor of a musical theory degree. Props. Wait, so why do you hate academia again?

libfreeordie on June 21, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Side note: My vocal coach in college was Micheal Pollack, whose wife was Beverly Sills;

I don’t hate academia, what I hate are intellectual dishonest mentally stunted Marxist/liberal professors who inject their socialist drivel into every aspect of their course work in an attempt to indoctrinate their students.

SWalker on June 21, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Here in California, pretty much all of them, providing the student can demonstrate the ability to do so without their GPA suffering.

SWalker on June 21, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Did you have time for any of the fun parts of college?

libfreeordie on June 21, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Huh? I went to college to learn, learning WAS the fun part. In my second year physic lab we baked boron ceramic tiles, and then broke them. That was fun. In my third year theater production class I was the Master Electrician for a production of “The Pirates of Penzance” that was a eff’ing blast.

SWalker on June 21, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Romney on Now!!

Video: Romney addresses NALEO in Orlando

http://www.breakingnews.com/
==============================

http://www.naleo.org/

canopfor on June 21, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Side note: My vocal coach in college was Micheal Pollack, whose wife was Beverly Sills;

Oh snap!!! I love me some Bubbles (and Joan and Leontyne and Maria C and Nilsson and L. Brownlee and Gigli and Merrill and Vickers and Verrett and I can go on and on and on). See, I knew we had something in common. What kind of voice are you?

libfreeordie on June 21, 2012 at 12:14 PM

To answer your question, not Obama since domestic oil production has increased during his Administration. But your premise is all jacked up. Its a global demand and supply market, and that means that even if American output were maximized there is no way we could produce enough barrels that would increase global supply to impact demand. If, for example, the U.S. only bought oil from itself and there was an independent American market, then domestic production would matter quite a bit. But then again we’d have to restrict the activities of Exxon and other global oil companies.

libfreeordie on June 21, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Please….

Obama has not increased oil production significantly.
He has watched oil contracts put forth by the Bush administration and private industry finally go on line.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/erikajohnsen/2012/03/12/team_obamas_deliberately_misleading_energy_messaging

The increased domestic oil production we’re currently enjoying is due to the initiative of private businesses and the policies of “the previous administration” — seems like incread oil production is one of the few things Obama isn’t willing to pin on the Bush administration, even if that’s where the credit is actually due.

Well that and the drone program….and sustex virus program.

and that means that even if American output were maximized there is no way we could produce enough barrels that would increase global supply to impact demand.

libfreeordie on June 21, 2012 at 11:45 AM

America has billions of gallons of oil that it can add to supply…

…but of course Obama making super intelligent decisions like stopping a major pipeline that would create thousands of jobs and insure more energy independency is considered “smart energy policy” to liberals like yourself.
So now Canada will do business with China and they will reap the benefits.

Damn Obama’s smart.

…to say this would not make a difference is just pure idiocy:

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/03/iraq-oil-exports-surging/

Despite sectarian bombings and political gridlock, Iraq’s crude oil production is soaring, providing a singular bright spot for the nation’s future and relief for global oil markets as the West tightens sanctions on Iranian exports.

The increased flow and vital port improvements have produced a 20 percent jump in exports this year to nearly 2.5 million barrels of oil a day, making Iraq one of the premier producers in OPEC for the first time in decades.

Iraqi oil is easing the worldwide price, providing leverage over Iran in the negotiations over the latter’s nuclear program, and is likely to match Saudi output in a few years.

To say that the US could not add significantly to this which would lower prices by supplying more demand is just ignorant.

Libforfree can spin all she wants but Obama has made America more dependent on foreign oil with his failed policies and war on the production of our own natural resources.
….and what have we gotten in return from these ohh so smart liberals.

Billions of tax dollars wasted on “green shoots” that have not helped our energy needs but instead raised our energy prices and killed badly needed jobs.

Obama stated that he wanted to follow Spain’s template on “green energy”….well he is succeeding and the failures that have destroyed Spain are quickly happening here.

Baxter Greene on June 21, 2012 at 12:14 PM

The guy from scotusblog said on Fox that he thinks that the mandate will be held up by a very narrow margin so who knows. I hope he is wrong.

Voter from WA State on June 21, 2012 at 12:07 PM

They are all saying this. AP is saying this.

*shrug*

Axe on June 21, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Swalker, do you ever read/post on Parterre Box, parterre.com?

libfreeordie on June 21, 2012 at 12:23 PM

libfreeordie on June 21, 2012 at 11:45 AM

But hey….
Please stay with “Obama’s doing a great job on energy” theme.
It’s working wonders in democratic states like WV,PA.,Wis.,and also through many other states that have watched his policies kill jobs and raise energy prices.

democratic politicians are running from Obama so fast they are even talking about not going to the convention.

So by all means…ignore the facts on the ground and keep with the narrative.

It should make November even bloodier than the mid-terms were for democrats.

Baxter Greene on June 21, 2012 at 12:26 PM

I don’t hate academia, what I hate are intellectual dishonest mentally stunted Marxist/liberal professors who inject their socialist drivel into every aspect of their course work in an attempt to indoctrinate their students.

SWalker on June 21, 2012 at 11:53 AM

There is no academic who isn’t influenced in someway by Marx. He and Engels founded a huge subset of analytical methods (not just theory) that everyone uses. In many ways, explaining things through a Marxist lens, i.e. through an analysis of fetishization/commodification is the best way to get students to understand a host of concepts that are a pedagogical nightmare otherwise. If you, for example, tried to only explain the founding of the U.S. through an analysis of the “strive for liberty” without mentioning economic motivations (i.e. a marxist analysis) you’d have a very shallow class and you’d also come away with a rather one-sided understanding of the Founders. As purely altruistic, perfect men who merely wanted to increase freedom. Wait a minute…that’s what conservatives believe isn’t it.

libfreeordie on June 21, 2012 at 12:27 PM

To answer your question, not Obama since domestic oil production has increased during his Administration.

libfreeordie on June 21, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Like most partisans, you leave out the details in order to make Obama look like some kind of oil champion.

Domestic production is up on privately owned land over which Obama has no say. Domestic production is down on public land over which Obama has total say.

ARGH!! I passionately hate when people do this, on both sides of the aisle. It would be nice to see some friggin’ honesty in our politics rather than half the facts and half the truths worded in such a way as to make it sound like one side is doing something great that it isn’t actually doing. It pisses me off to no end!

gravityman on June 21, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Baxter Greene on June 21, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Did you just use evidence of Iraq’s oil production, a nation which has always been massively oil-rich, with the U.S. a nation that has always lagged behind the middle east in oil production? And then, with a straight face, you accuse me (not a female) of engaging in “spin.” If the U.S. had the ability to impact oil prices under the right Administration then why didn’t the Bush Administration manage to lower prices over the long run of their tenure in office?

I never said Obama is doing a “great” job on energy. I argue (and every economist ont he planet agrees) that the U.S. has no impact on global supply and demand in the oil market. And never will be able to.

libfreeordie on June 21, 2012 at 12:30 PM

What kind of voice are you?

libfreeordie on June 21, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Well in college I was a tenor, with a 4 octave range (Baritone to Soprano). Now it about a 3 1/2 octave range. Back in college one of the soprano’s and I used to prank our coral ensemble instructor, (she stood directly in front of me) She would mouth the words while I actually sang them. It used to drive poor Roy nuts.

Swalker, do you ever read/post on Parterre Box, parterre.com?

libfreeordie on June 21, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Nope.

SWalker on June 21, 2012 at 12:38 PM

that’s what conservatives believe isn’t it.

libfreeordie on June 21, 2012 at 12:27 PM

No, actually what conservative believe is that the Founding Father’s were pragmatist who believed that power corrupts and that it was necessary to limit the power of the government to minimize the degree that political corruption impacted the liberty and freedom of the individual.

SWalker on June 21, 2012 at 12:42 PM

the U.S. has no impact on global supply and demand in the oil market. And never will be able to.

libfreeordie on June 21, 2012 at 12:30 PM

seriously? The nation that consumes 20%+ of the world total petroleum production on the demand curve?

Fighton03 on June 21, 2012 at 12:49 PM

SWalker on June 21, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Wow. Tight sentence. :)

Axe on June 21, 2012 at 12:57 PM

libfreeordie on June 21, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Bro, did you ever get those fine folks at Morehouse straightened out?

Bmore on June 21, 2012 at 12:59 PM

“The suspense is terrible – I hope it’ll last”
Oscar Wilde and Willy Wonka

I would be out of town too when this bomb drops if I were a Supreme. Might be a white collar version of the Rodney King riots either way.

LarryinLA on June 21, 2012 at 1:00 PM

There is no academic who isn’t influenced in someway by Marx.
libfreeordie on June 21, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Finally, we are all in agreement with libfreeordie

LarryinLA on June 21, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Did you just use evidence of Iraq’s oil production, a nation which has always been massively oil-rich, with the U.S. a nation that has always lagged behind the middle east in oil production? And then, with a straight face, you accuse me (not a female) of engaging in “spin.”

libfreeordie on June 21, 2012 at 12:30 PM

It’s like talking to a child:

You stated :

. Its a global demand and supply market, and that means that even if American output were maximized there is no way we could produce enough barrels that would increase global supply to impact demand.

..and then I showed you how output by Iraq(you know…the country your liberal counterparts kept saying we were going to steal their oil) has increased thus meeting more demand…thus lowering cost.

The US has only lagged behind because it is not going after it’s own resources….which are immense:

Energy Experts to Obama: You’re Not Telling The Truth About America’s Vast Reserves

http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com/2012/03/23/energy-experts-to-obama-youre-not-telling-the-truth-about-americas-vast-reserves/

untapped reserves are estimated at about 2.3 trillion barrels, nearly three times more than the reserves held by Organization of Petroleum Exporting Counties (OPEC) and sufficient to meet 300 years of demand-at today’s levels-for auto, aircraft, heating and industrial fuel, without importing a single barrel of oil.

For you to say that America tapping into these reserves which would increase supply,will not affect prices defies all logic and facts on this issue.

Now unlike you….I have more than backed up my opinion on this.

You also stated this:

To answer your question, not Obama since domestic oil production has increased during his Administration.

libfreeordie on June 21, 2012 at 11:45 AM

…..which was blatantly false.

http://naturalresources.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=228625

SPIN: “Oil production last year rose to its highest level since 2003.”

RINSE:

The Obama Administration’s actions have caused domestic energy production to decrease.

In 2007, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projected total 2010 U.S. oil production on federal lands to be 850 million barrels. Today’s actual production on federal lands is 714 million barrels, a 16 percent decline from what was projected. If it wasn’t for the Obama Administration, the U.S. would be producing more energy.

This is why FUTURE projections show a decline in U.S. production and an increase in imports. On March 8, 2011 the EIA published new projections that show a decline in total U.S. crude oil production of 110,000 barrels per day in 2011 and 130,000 barrels per day in 2012.

Finally, the White House does not explain that the vast majority of increased production is occurring on private lands, not public. For example, North Dakota alone produced almost 120 million barrels of oil in 2010, compared to just over 20 million in 2003. The majority of North Dakota’s production is on private land. This begs the question, why are we not using our federal lands to create American jobs and produce American energy resources to lower prices?

SPIN: “Onshore oil production from public lands has also increased over the last year, from 109 million barrels in 2009 to 114 million barrels in 2010.”

RINSE:

The slight increase in onshore production from federal lands is due to lease sales approved by previous Administrations—not the Obama Administration.

Since taking office, the Obama Administration has slowed onshore energy development on public lands and issued fewer leases.

In 2008 there were 2,416 new oil and natural gas leases issued on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land spanning 2.6 million acres. In 2010, under the Obama Administration, the number of new leases issued dropped to 1,308 and acres leased dropped to 1.3 million.

The total onshore acreage leased under the Obama Administration in 2009 and 2010 are the lowest in over two decades, stretching back to at least 1984.

Maybe you should spend a little more time educating yourself on this subject and a little less time bragging about how highly educated you are and maybe you won’t come off as such an idiot on this comment board.

I am headed off to work….good luck with your spin.

Baxter Greene on June 21, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Did you just use evidence of Iraq’s oil production, a nation which has always been massively oil-rich, with the U.S. a nation that has always lagged behind the middle east in oil production? And then, with a straight face, you accuse me (not a female) of engaging in “spin.” If the U.S. had the ability to impact oil prices under the right Administration then why didn’t the Bush Administration manage to lower prices over the long run of their tenure in office?

I never said Obama is doing a “great” job on energy. I argue (and every economist ont he planet agrees) that the U.S. has no impact on global supply and demand in the oil market. And never will be able to.

libfreeordie on June 21, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Under Bush, gas prices were much lower on average than they have been under Obama. That is a documented fact. When you try to restrict the supply of oil, prices go up. When you increase regulation, prices go up. That is the law of economics. As for the US not affecting prices on the world oil market, that’s a joke. We are a huge importer of oil and our demand is definitely felt in the oil market. What brilliant economists are you talking about? Krugman? This is Econ 101 stuff – supply and demand. Unbelievable.

Incredulous1 on June 21, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Incredulous1 on June 21, 2012 at 1:08 PM

much better post. I was trying to type through a facepalm moment there.

Fighton03 on June 21, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Maybe you should spend a little more time educating yourself on this subject and a little less time bragging about how highly educated you are and maybe you won’t come off as such an idiot on this comment board.

I am headed off to work….good luck with your spin.

Baxter Greene on June 21, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Wow, talk about taking someone to school…

A+

Del Dolemonte on June 21, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Why is no one noticing this decision. This is a huge pro-racial justice decision. Who knew this court had it in them. Alito, Scalia, Roberts and Thomas should be ashamed, as usual, for their dissent.

libfreeordie on June 21, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Bullsh!t. This is nothing more than the typical dishonest crap we expect from the Left.

If you are convicted of a crime, and the sentence for the crime is raised after your conviction, but before you are sentenced, you are sentenced under the rules in effect at the time you were convicted / plead guilty. Simple consistency means that the reverse should also be true: if the sentence drops after you’re convicted / plead guilty, but before you’re sentenced, you’re still sentenced under the rules in effect at the time you were convicted / plead guilty.

Consistency, rules, and logic being foreign to the Left, this rule was dumped. It’s only worthless racist pigs like you, libfreeordie, that “think” this is a “racial” issue. It’s not. It’s a rule of logic.

Ever heard of that?

Greg Q on June 21, 2012 at 1:42 PM

But I work in the liberal arts so you’ll never see me challenge the importance and rigor of a musical theory degree. Props. Wait, so why do you hate academia again?

libfreeordie on June 21, 2012 at 11:40 AM

But liberal arts degrees aren’t as rigorous as hard science degrees. Look, both of my degrees are in the humanities, but my friends with EECS and Bio-Chem degrees had a much more challenging course-load. Were my classes more ‘culturally enriching and broadening’? Sure. But they weren’t nearly as hard as the 300/400 level EECS classes that literally drive many students to drop the major (or drop out of school altogether).

Fine literature is a great thing, but it’s not on the same rung of importance as life-changing developments in the scientific world. Salk is more important to us in our everyday life than Nabokov. Jenner was more important than Wilde. Pasteur was more important than Proust.

Good Solid B-Plus on June 21, 2012 at 1:43 PM

If you, for example, tried to only explain the founding of the U.S. through an analysis of the “strive for liberty” without mentioning economic motivations (i.e. a marxist analysis) you’d have a very shallow class and you’d also come away with a rather one-sided understanding of the Founders. As purely altruistic, perfect men who merely wanted to increase freedom. Wait a minute…that’s what conservatives believe isn’t it.

libfreeordie on June 21, 2012 at 12:27 PM

That’s not snark, is it? You really don’t know what conservatives believe, do you?

Oh, right, there’s a study that backs that up: http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/13/confirmed-conservatives-understand-liberal-positions-better-than-liberals-understand-conservative-positions/

Why would you have to teach economic motivations through a Marxist lens? “We’re all born brave, trusting, and greedy, and most of us remain greedy.” Understanding human actions through rational self-interest spawned long before Marx and Engels ever raised a limp fist at the tyranny of capital and the moneyed classes.

No, we don’t believe the Founders were angels. Were they perfect men, what they achieved wouldn’t have been so astounding. They were men who understood, from harsh experience, that liberty is better than the alternative.

Good Solid B-Plus on June 21, 2012 at 1:49 PM

libfreeordie on June 21, 2012 at 12:27 PM

No wonder you college types are so easily swayed by the broken thinking of Marx and Engels.

Conservatives believe in limited government which, in and of itself, provides liberty and economic prosperity. The Founders understood this well. They didn’t create the Constitution to enumerate rights, they created a form of government that was supposed to be a check on itself by limiting federal authority; dividing power at the federal level; and leaving all law and order issues to the states.

Apparently when people do not understand the above they fall for snake oil salesmen like Marx.

NotCoach on June 21, 2012 at 2:12 PM

The SEIU lost 7-2…
That overturns the Ninth Circuit decision…

I don’t care what that case was about or how significant it was, those are still two beautiful outcomes!

KS Rex on June 21, 2012 at 2:14 PM

why di I have a feeling the SC is putting out all of the bad news for Obama first, then finishing next week with a big win for him when they hold up the mandate as Constitutional??

Conservative4ev on June 21, 2012 at 5:07 PM

I didn’t say I had tenure, I just finished my doctorate last summer. I also am a massive fan of classical music, with a particular love for opera (though I tend to cast a side-eye towards modern works, Dr. Atomic…really?). But I work in the liberal arts so you’ll never see me challenge the importance and rigor of a musical theory degree. Props. Wait, so why do you hate academia again?

libfreeordie on June 21, 2012 at 11:40 AM

A musical theory degree? C’mon.

Spliff Menendez on June 21, 2012 at 5:55 PM

A musical theory degree? C’mon.

Spliff Menendez on June 21, 2012 at 5:55 PM

One of BOR’s favorite guests, Marc Lamont Hill, has a PhD in hip-hop music.

slickwillie2001 on June 21, 2012 at 6:38 PM

Pics of the Day: President Downgrade Gets Downgraded

http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2012/06/pics-of-day-president-downgrade.html

M2RB: The Kinks

Resist We Much on June 21, 2012 at 6:40 PM

KOOLAID2 on June 21, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Depends. If you play with it does your eyesight get worse?

swinia sutki on June 21, 2012 at 10:48 AM

swinia sutki:Too funny!:)

canopfor on June 21, 2012 at 10:55 AM

…well…I have to wear glasses to read this!

KOOLAID2 on June 22, 2012 at 12:58 AM

Don’t read anything into a narrow decision regarding teh SEIU thugs. The court will decide every case that comes before it on the most narrow grounds that it can, and despite what most of you think about an acitivist court, it will avoid consitutionally radicle decisions whenever it can. I do look of for the individual mandate to be defeated, but I wouldn’t be surpirsed if the court leaves the rest of the bill intact. The unfortuante thing is that gives the Congress permission to start tinkering with the whole health issue thing again. And if you think that having a Republican dominated Congress is any better than a Democrat dominated Congress, you are sadly mistaken. They are all incompetent and corrupt. We will pay for permitting this thing to get this far, regardless of who is in charge. (Even Ron Paul and his drone followers).

georgeofthedesert on June 22, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3