Open thread: Mandate-mas II, the Revenge; Update: No life sentence without parole for juveniles; Update: Key part of SB1070 upheld … for now; Update: Mandate-mas definitely on Thursday

posted at 9:21 am on June 25, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Last Thursday was a bust, at least as far as the two most anticipated cases before the Supreme Court this term.  We’re almost certain to get a ruling on one of them this morning, the challenge to Arizona’s SB1070 immigration-enforcement law.  However, we may not see anything on ObamaCare until the last day of the session, on Thursday of this week.  The fine SCOTUSblog noted last week that the Supreme Court had not designated today as the final reporting day of the 2011-12 session, which means that they may have decided to give the challenge to ObamaCare its own day for the release.

This may just extend the pain for Barack Obama, as Jamie Weinstein argues that the problem for the White House is the bill’s unpopularity regardless of whether the court overturns it in whole or in part this week:

Fairly or unfairly, his health care law — his signature domestic achievement — remains significantly unpopular. The latest AP/GfK poll showed that only 33 percent of Americans support the plan while 47 percent oppose it.

So in the best-case scenario for the president, he is left with an intact law that remains difficult to campaign on since so many Americans aren’t particularly enthused with it. Republicans would also be able to continue to use the unpopular law to their advantage by campaigning against it and charging that Obama wasted too much time and effort (and political capital) — when the economy was in dire straights — ramming it through.

But many legal analysts think it is unlikely President Obama will face this bad outcome. He is more likely to face an even worse one.

A poll of 56 attorneys who formerly clerked for Supreme Court justices revealed that 57 percent of them believe that at minimum, the law’s individual mandate provision will be ruled unconstitutional.

But if the Supreme Court invalidates the individual mandate while leaving the rest of the law alone, Obamacare would be unworkable financially without something to replace the mandate’s function. Even House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has admitted as much.

Mark Halperin tells Morning Joe that no matter the outcome, it’s bad for Obama:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Even a partial overturning will shock the White House, according to the New York Times.  They were convinced that the court would leave it in place, until oral arguments in March stunned them into considering for the first time that the Supreme Court might have had enough of abuse of the interstate commerce clause:

Democrats, and some Republicans, were so sure from the start because the concept of requiring Americans to obtain insurance or pay a penalty had originally been advanced by conservatives to avoid government-run health care. The Constitution authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, but critics argued that rather than regulate activity, the law regulated inactivity — in other words, the choice of some Americans not to buy a commercial product.

Democrats who tried to warn their party of that risk were brushed off. When Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, wrote such an article in Newsweek in March 2009, a pair of law professors disputed him in print. …

Donald B. Verrilli Jr., who became solicitor general last June, rehearsed in multiple moot court sessions. But on the critical day of Supreme Court arguments on March 27, he momentarily choked on a drink of water and was hammered by justices skeptical of his argument. He gave a rambling answer about the limits of Congressional power and had a hard time controlling the discussion as he was peppered with questions. Commentators gave him harsh reviews, but Mr. Obama called him to show support.

Either way, administration lawyers were more disturbed by what the justices had said. They were disheartened that Justice Antonin Scalia, who had joined a ruling upholding a previous commerce clause case, seemed so hostile. Kathryn Ruemmler, the White House counsel, was said to be disturbed that Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, often the swing vote, suggested that the government had a “heavy burden.”

Some of them still believe:

But current and former administration lawyers hold out hope. “I walked out of the court thinking we were going to win — not unanimously,” Mr. Weiner said. “I’ve heard a lot of these arguments. That was my gut, and I’m sticking with that.”

My gut tells me we won’t find out today — but we’ll get some interesting cases to review. Be sure to keep up with the liveblog at SCOTUSBlog, and we’ll add updates as we go.  In case we do get a decision today on ObamaCare, I’ll predict that the mandate gets overturned 6-3 and the whole law 5-4.

Update: The first case involved a juvenile sentenced to life without parole for a crime committed at 14.  That got overturned 5-4, with the court ruling that it violates the Eighth Amendment bar on cruel and unusual punishment.  Kagan wrote the majority opinion, and Alito the dissent.

Update II: Looks like the key part of Arizona’s SB1070 got upheld — the part that required state and local law enforcement to check immigration status on detained individuals.  Scalia wanted to uphold the entire law, but a couple of provisions did get struck down.  Kennedy wrote the majority opinion.

Update III: ABC News is reporting that there will not be a ruling on ObamaCare today.  We’ll see.

Update IV: Basically, the Supreme Court decision on SB1070 will allow the stop-and-check provision to take effect, but leave open the possibility that a case showing actual harm could be used to challenge the law at a later date.

Update V: The court will announce its decision on ObamaCare on Thursday — and SCOTUSBlog writes: “From the opinion authorship, health care is almost certainly being written by CJ Roberts, perhaps in part with Justice Kennedy.”  That sounds like a big loss for the White House.


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 9 10 11

Yes?

Bmore on June 25, 2012 at 3:16 PM

But, yea, I have my reservation about him being a moderate. In the final analysis a moderate patriotic America beats the he11 out of a extreme left America hating Marxist every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

SWalker on June 25, 2012 at 3:13 PM

To my mind, a moderate patriotic American is one that conservatives no longer question or fight. That extreme left Marxist has done a lot to show just how valuable conservatism is to a lot of Americans. Sometimes it’s best to let the enemy expend their resources to no avail, eventually giving them enough rope to hang themselves.

MadisonConservative on June 25, 2012 at 3:18 PM

It’s not just suspended with Arizona, but all states and localities. At least that’s how it’s initially being reported.

If they are suspending the program with Arizona only, expect another lawsuit to be filed immediately and expect a 9-0 ruling in favor of Arizona due to the equal protection clause.

ButterflyDragon on June 25, 2012 at 3:02 PM

.
They do not have to file a lawsuit.

They can file directly with the Supreme Court for a Show Cause hearing to be held by one of the Supreme Court Justices – which might turn out to be Roberts given the recent Obama administration behavior.

At that point, Roberts can summon AG Holder directly and enjoin him directly … then Janet N. …

I am beginning to think the SCOAMF has gone fully delusional along with his inner circle.

PolAgnostic on June 25, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Kudos Bmore :)

cmsinaz on June 25, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Playing the long game would mean to get rid of the bigger evil and work very very hard in either cleaning up the GOP or starting a viable third party.

kim roy on June 25, 2012 at 3:08 PM

There will be no game , long or otherwise, after Barry packed the Court in the next 4 years. Quit those vaporous Third Party talks.

bayview on June 25, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Papers? We don’t need no stinkin’ papers!
El Presidente Obama said so!

kingsjester on June 25, 2012 at 3:09 PM

kingsjester:

Yup,and maybe,when Arizona law enforcement have illegals,
and when they call ICE,should say,

we think there Iranian Agents!

And still see if they come!!
(sarc).

canopfor on June 25, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Playing the long game would mean to get rid of the bigger evil and work very very hard in either cleaning up the GOP or starting a viable third party.

kim roy on June 25, 2012 at 3:08 PM

How are we to clean up the GOP if we support their empty suit of a candidate? They still think the 2010 sweep was a GOP victory, rather than a Tea Party victory.

MadisonConservative on June 25, 2012 at 3:14 PM

It gives us time. The worst that will happen with Romney is nothing. The status quo. I don’t even want to consider the worst that will happen with Obama.

You think I’m happy advocating for Romney? It makes me slightly queasy.

But not as queasy as the thought of an unencumbered Obama.

And all the wasted energy and time in fending Obama and his idiot actions off when that energy and time could be used better to inform people, get in GOOD candidates to primary the morons and empty suits, get a better handle on the narrative, etc.

kim roy on June 25, 2012 at 3:21 PM

If Obama is willing to pull this kind of stuff now, just imagine what he’s willing to do in a second term with no worries about relection.

After he losses in November, His lame duck session is going to be crazy scary.

WisRich on June 25, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Playing the long game would mean to get rid of the bigger evil and work very very hard in either cleaning up the GOP or starting a viable third party.

kim roy on June 25, 2012 at 3:08 PM

How are we to clean up the GOP if we support their empty suit of a candidate? They still think the 2010 sweep was a GOP victory, rather than a Tea Party victory.

MadisonConservative on June 25, 2012 at 3:14 PM

We do it by continuing to replace the RINO’s in congress and the various State assemblies with TEA Party members. I say this very cautiously, there are lessons we can learn from the Ronulans. What they have done this last year by learning the rules and getting in the trenches could be applied to the TEA Party’s with even greater impact. That’s how we clean up the GOP.

Yes, the GOP elite aristocrats think 2010 was their victory, we know better and we have a chance on Nov 6th to reinforce our 2010 victory by replacing even more of the RINO’s with TEA Party Candidates. But like I said, we need to learn from the Ronulans, and take it not just to the House and senate, but the State and Local levels as well. We need to beat them at their own damned game.

SWalker on June 25, 2012 at 3:25 PM

So, since Big Sis gives the middle finger to the SCOTUS and AZ,
will KatySib do the same after Ocare goes down ??
Good Lord, help us !!!

pambi on June 25, 2012 at 3:25 PM

The Obama administration is refusing to uphold the laws of the United States. They are now out there for all to see. There will be more to come and we can only imagine what they next have in store for us.

silvernana on June 25, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Well, I guess AZ is no longer a “swing state”. /s

CherryBombsBigBrownBeaver on June 25, 2012 at 3:26 PM

O.M.G!

European Officials to AP: Norwegian Trained by Al-Qaida in Yemen Awaiting Orders for Attack
STOCKHOLM June 25, 2012 (AP)

European officials to AP: Norwegian trained by al-Qaida in Yemen awaiting orders for attack.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/european-officials-ap-norwegian-trained-al-qaida-yemen-16645704

canopfor on June 25, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Yes?

Bmore on June 25, 2012 at 3:16 PM

You win a date with Big Jan. congratulations!

CherryBombsBigBrownBeaver on June 25, 2012 at 3:27 PM

The Obama administration is refusing to uphold the laws of the United States. They are now out there for all to see. There will be more to come and we can only imagine what they next have in store for us.

silvernana on June 25, 2012 at 3:25 PM

f_u, America, and the Constitution you rode in on.

Now, go watch my video about my first date with Moochelle and be sure to donate your gifts to my campaign.

- Barrack Hussein Obama

GrannyDee on June 25, 2012 at 3:29 PM

So, if the Federal Gov’t isn’t going to respond to state and local police when they detain an illegal can AZ sue the Feds for not enforcing federal law?

Russ86 on June 25, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Canopfor @3:27
*shudder *

cmsinaz on June 25, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Silvernana the dems ams lsm are praising this big time

cmsinaz on June 25, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Silvernana the dems ams lsm are praising this big time

cmsinaz on June 25, 2012 at 3:33 PM

That’s par for the course, isn’t it? I don’t have the TV on and I don’t have the stomach to see them gloating over this. I don’t understand what has happened to this country!

silvernana on June 25, 2012 at 3:35 PM

So, if the Federal Gov’t isn’t going to respond to state and local police when they detain an illegal can AZ sue the Feds for not enforcing federal law?

Russ86 on June 25, 2012 at 3:31 PM

EXACTLY !! Duh.
This is giving me a migraine !

pambi on June 25, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Sigh, and now the feds won’t answer the phone calls of the Arizona police. So, will they still have the semi permanent border patrol “checkpoints” in Arizona, 50-75 miles north of the Mexico border, on roads that do not intersect the actual Arizona/Mexico border?

These would be the check points where they stop traffic on state highways and ask people (nee demand) “are you an American citizen?”. They aren’t big fans of you refusing to answer said question. Check youtube for video evidence of that.

https://www.checkpointusa.org/blog/index.php

oryguncon on June 25, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Sigh, and now the feds won’t answer the phone calls of the Arizona police. So, will they still have the semi permanent border patrol “checkpoints” in Arizona, 50-75 miles north of the Mexico border, on roads that do not intersect the actual Arizona/Mexico border?

These would be the check points where they stop traffic on state highways and ask people (nee demand) “are you an American citizen?”. They aren’t big fans of you refusing to answer said question. Check youtube for video evidence of that.

https://www.checkpointusa.org/blog/index.php

oryguncon on June 25, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Yes, please tell us more, Obama, I mean, orgyuncon.

CherryBombsBigBrownBeaver on June 25, 2012 at 3:39 PM

With ya there silvernana

cmsinaz on June 25, 2012 at 3:48 PM

The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws

Does anybody actually think, based on this and on his actions of the last two weeks, that this megalomaniacal psychopath is going to abide by the Supreme Court’s ruling if it does strike down the healthcare law on Thursday?

And whither free elections on November?

Right Mover on June 25, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Yes, please tell us more, Obama, I mean, orgyuncon.

CherryBombsBigBrownBeaver on June 25, 2012 at 3:39 PM

And you’ve missed the point by a mile. The feds are using the border patrol and sometimes state agencies to stop people to question them for no reason, no where near the international border at checkpoints like DUI checkpoints. If they have the right to do this, then so do the Arizona cops have the right to ask those they actually stop suspected criminals/motor violations.

So they won’t deport, they wont patrol the border, they’ll just harass American citizens with no evidence that they’ve done anything wrong, other than driving on a road that does not run across the border itself.

oryguncon on June 25, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Yes, please tell us more, Obama, I mean, orgyuncon.

CherryBombsBigBrownBeaver on June 25, 2012 at 3:39 PM

And you’ve missed the point by a mile. The feds are using the border patrol and sometimes state agencies to stop people to question them for no reason, no where near the international border at checkpoints like DUI checkpoints. If they have the right to do this, then so do the Arizona cops have the right to ask those they actually stop suspected criminals/motor violations.

So they won’t deport, they wont patrol the border, they’ll just harass American citizens with no evidence that they’ve done anything wrong, other than driving on a road that does not run across the border itself.

oryguncon on June 25, 2012 at 4:23 PM

These checkpoints have signs reading how many thousands of pounds, kilos of drugs have been interdicted and how many illegal aliens caught.
I got your point, stud.

CherryBombsBigBrownBeaver on June 25, 2012 at 4:31 PM

These checkpoints have signs reading how many thousands of pounds, kilos of drugs have been interdicted and how many illegal aliens caught.

CherryBombsBigBrownBeaver on June 25, 2012 at 4:31 PM

So we’re back to “ends justify the means”, eh?

MadisonConservative on June 25, 2012 at 4:34 PM

These checkpoints have signs reading how many thousands of pounds, kilos of drugs have been interdicted and how many illegal aliens caught.

CherryBombsBigBrownBeaver on June 25, 2012 at 4:31 PM

So we’re back to “ends justify the means”, eh?

MadisonConservative on June 25, 2012 at 4:34 PM

I might ask the same thing about you sitting on your thumb at home during this year’s presidential election, but whatever, it just shows how porous the border truly is if checkpoints are seeing this much activity.
Do you suggest that once the illegal or drug trafficker beat customs at the border, they are home free? No other enforcement needed?

CherryBombsBigBrownBeaver on June 25, 2012 at 4:42 PM

A) I’m pretty sure joana doesn’t call or consider herself a conservative, I believe I remember her proudly claiming to be a moderate.

SWalker on June 25, 2012 at 2:04 PM

You remember that? I guess you can provide a link?

I’m a conservative and you are, as per usual, making up stuff about me. ´

It’s not my fault that some people are too limited intellectually to understand that supporting a politician doesn’t’ equate to fully share his policy or ideological views.

I could challenge you to name a single policy area in which I’m not conservative, a single post or argument in which I argued for a “moderate” position in terms of public policy. You wouldn’t response to it; except by replying with a barrage of name-calling or by misrepresenting my positions.

I am very pragmatic in my approach to politics. I have little use to red meat. I have no use for pathetic grandstanding that so many “TruCons” adore. I have no illusions about the existence of optimum political arrangements. That makes me a realistic, pragmatic, conservative rather than a moderate though.

joana on June 25, 2012 at 4:54 PM

The theory that if we stop voting the lesser evil – the Republican candidate – therefore guaranteeing victories to far-left liberals like Obama will ultimately conduct the country to the right (by the virtue of some Gnomes business plan or divine intervention, one has to suppose), is one of the most bizarre myths in political analysis.

There is no reason whatsoever to believe that’s the case. After FDR, the country was much more to the left than before him. The same after Lyndon Johnson. I guess some people are convinced that Europe or Canada are libertarian paradises by now, considering they’ve been voting for socialist politics for decades.

Politics can be painful because more often than not there are no good or positive outcomes. But I prefer to deal with that reality than to allow myself to become alienated by some shallow messianic hope.

joana on June 25, 2012 at 5:07 PM

These checkpoints have signs reading how many thousands of pounds, kilos of drugs have been interdicted and how many illegal aliens caught.

CherryBombsBigBrownBeaver on June 25, 2012 at 4:31 PM

And?

Dante on June 25, 2012 at 5:26 PM

These checkpoints have signs reading how many thousands of pounds, kilos of drugs have been interdicted and how many illegal aliens caught.

CherryBombsBigBrownBeaver on June 25, 2012 at 4:31 PM

There ya go putting me in Dante’s corner.

Screw ya. /

Sorry such checkpoints are WRONG.

CW on June 25, 2012 at 5:54 PM

I myself will vote for Romney, but I will also assume that he is not anywhere near as conservative as I want him to be, so I will be raising a stink any and everywhere I can trying to push him to govern in a more conservative fashion than I believe he may want to.

I suspect that this is also what besser and Madcon are doing.

SWalker on June 25, 2012 at 2:45 PM

I wish I felt that way. It sickens me to not be able to vote for our candidate but I swore McInsane would be the last badly flawed non conservative I would vote for.

We give Romney the room to move further more left when we say we will vote for him. He could care less that many of us say that but will not vote for him when we actually get at the poll.

I do not believe Romney has said he wants two terms. If he only wants one then he could change completely once elected. I have no idea what the real Romney is. He says anything to get elected no lie it too big. I do know his record in Mass would make even the most far left Democrat proud had he achieved it in Mass. For this reason Mitt is a Democrat in my mind.

Actions speak thousands of times louder than words.

Steveangell on June 25, 2012 at 5:57 PM

We give Romney the room to move further more left when we say we will vote for him.

Steveangell on June 25, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Yeh maybe he will push for a higher minimum wage like a good lefty.

CW on June 25, 2012 at 5:59 PM

I might ask the same thing about you sitting on your thumb at home during this year’s presidential election…

…and it wouldn’t make a lick of sense.

Do you suggest that once the illegal or drug trafficker beat customs at the border, they are home free? No other enforcement needed?

CherryBombsBigBrownBeaver on June 25, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Do you suggest that we create a police state in order to stem illegal immigration? There are plenty of methods to deal with illegal aliens, from e-Verify to deportations to SB1070(or what’s left of it) without treating US citizens like criminals.

MadisonConservative on June 25, 2012 at 6:02 PM

It’s not my fault that some people are too limited intellectually to understand…

joana on June 25, 2012 at 4:54 PM

GodDAMN! Seriously! Do you ever read what you write? You are the most arrogant, conceited, smug, snide, sneering, snotty, stuck-up, narcissistic, self-absorbed creep I have ever had the misfortune to read on this website, and with the arrogance that some of our liberal trolls have displayed, that’s quite a feat.

MadisonConservative on June 25, 2012 at 6:05 PM

.
They do not have to file a lawsuit.

They can file directly with the Supreme Court for a Show Cause hearing to be held by one of the Supreme Court Justices – which might turn out to be Roberts given the recent Obama administration behavior.

At that point, Roberts can summon AG Holder directly and enjoin him directly … then Janet N. …

I am beginning to think the SCOAMF has gone fully delusional along with his inner circle.

PolAgnostic on June 25, 2012 at 3:19 PM

I believe they have lost touch with reality and I mean in it in a pathological kind of way..

jimver on June 25, 2012 at 6:07 PM

GodDAMN! Seriously! Do you ever read what you write? You are the most arrogant, conceited, smug, snide, sneering, snotty, stuck-up, narcissistic, self-absorbed creep I have ever had the misfortune to read on this website, and with the arrogance that some of our liberal trolls have displayed, that’s quite a feat.

MadisonConservative on June 25, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Heh. Move away from the hamster wheel. You’ll feel better. Trust me. :)

kim roy on June 25, 2012 at 6:10 PM

There is no reason whatsoever to believe that’s the case. After FDR, the country was much more to the left than before him. I guess some people are convinced that Europe or Canada are libertarian paradises by now, considering they’ve been voting for socialist politics for decades.

joana on June 25, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Lool :)… Good one :)…

jimver on June 25, 2012 at 6:11 PM

GodDAMN! Seriously! Do you ever read what you write? You are the most arrogant, conceited, smug, snide, sneering, snotty, stuck-up, narcissistic, self-absorbed creep I have ever had the misfortune to read on this website, and with the arrogance that some of our liberal trolls have displayed, that’s quite a feat.

MadisonConservative on June 25, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Once again, you focus on the accessory, you don’t address a single one of my points and you don’t make a single counter-argument: you just go on name-calling rant.

And what exactly do you call people who don’t understand that endorsing a candidate doesn’t imply endorsing every single of one of said candidate positions? We aren’t in the domain of reasonable disagreement here. It’s amazing that the person who’s more adept of name-calling, that literally fills dozens of comments per day with nothing more than insults and then calls it “being passionate”, is so bored by a single, and accurate, qualification.

joana on June 25, 2012 at 6:15 PM

joana on June 25, 2012 at 6:15 PM

I can only conclude that you do not associate with people unlike you.

Hint: when you make a statement, point, or argument laced with arrogance and sneering comments at anyone who doesn’t agree, normal people have no intention to engage you with any respect. Try showing others respect when you post, and you can expect the same. Don’t whine when people treat you the same way you treat them.

MadisonConservative on June 25, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Do you suggest that once the illegal or drug trafficker beat customs at the border, they are home free? No other enforcement needed?

CherryBombsBigBrownBeaver on June 25, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Do you suggest that we create a police state in order to stem illegal immigration? There are plenty of methods to deal with illegal aliens, from e-Verify to deportations to SB1070(or what’s left of it) without treating US citizens like criminals.

MadisonConservative on June 25, 2012 at 6:02 PM

A checkpoint is not a police state. I agree with everything else you posted, but I’m betting you still have no problem showing your ID to get on a plane, you would agree an ID should be shown to vote, so you have to stop and answer if you’re a citizen…wow.

These checkpoints have signs reading how many thousands of pounds, kilos of drugs have been interdicted and how many illegal aliens caught.

CherryBombsBigBrownBeaver on June 25, 2012 at 4:31 PM

There ya go putting me in Dante’s corner.

Screw ya. /

Sorry such checkpoints are WRONG.

CW on June 25, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Screw you back. Shut up.

These checkpoints have signs reading how many thousands of pounds, kilos of drugs have been interdicted and how many illegal aliens caught.

CherryBombsBigBrownBeaver on June 25, 2012 at 4:31 PM

And?

Dante on June 25, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Shut up.

CherryBombsBigBrownBeaver on June 25, 2012 at 7:03 PM

A checkpoint is not a police state.

It is a characteristic of a police state.

I agree with everything else you posted, but I’m betting you still have no problem showing your ID to get on a plane,

I haven’t flown on a place since I was a child, and have especially avoided it in recent years because of the TSA. And before you ask, yes, I consider the TSA to be another characteristic of a police state, with their record of power abuses.

you would agree an ID should be shown to vote,

Yes. I am not forced to visit a polling place. If I enter a checkpoint, I am not allowed to leave until I have satisfied the LEOs.

so you have to stop and answer if you’re a citizen…wow.

CherryBombsBigBrownBeaver on June 25, 2012 at 7:03 PM

So you don’t give a damn about your rights. Wow. Some of us do.

MadisonConservative on June 25, 2012 at 7:11 PM

MadisonConservative on June 25, 2012 at 6:43 PM

You’re criticizing someone for making a personal remark. You. Can you reflect a bit on that? You do far worse all the time and try to justify it as “being passionate”.

I didn’t whine. When you went on a tirade and wrote dozens of posts insulting me in 15 minutes, I merely noted that you need medical help. That’s not whining. Take it as counsel.

joana on June 25, 2012 at 7:32 PM

You’re criticizing someone for making a personal remark.

Not sure what you’re talking about. I’m criticizing you for your snide indirect remarks that end up targeting anyone who disagrees with you. I’m genuinely serious when I ask this: do you not understand that you deride those with different opinions? When you say something like this:

It’s not my fault that some people are too limited intellectually to understand…

joana on June 25, 2012 at 4:54 PM

You are coming off as arrogant and elitist. Every time you address an opinion you disagree with, you add context that implies that those who hold that opinion are somehow mentally hindered, or otherwise unintelligent. You make it seem like anyone who disagrees is to be pitied or mocked. I honestly am wondering if you are aware of this. True narcissists aren’t. They are literally unable to understand that their derision is unnecessary, or that any comments they make are inappropriate. It’s the only explanation I can imagine for your attitude.

Again, you regularly accuse people of being crazy(even when speaking generally), and then complain that they are engaging in name-calling. Do you not see the double standard on which you operate?

When you went on a tirade and wrote dozens of posts insulting me in 15 minutes

joana on June 25, 2012 at 7:32 PM

Lying again. Can you make a post without lying or sneering at anyone who doesn’t disagree with you?

MadisonConservative on June 25, 2012 at 7:51 PM

When you went on a tirade and wrote dozens of posts insulting me in 15 minutes…

joana on June 25, 2012 at 7:32 PM

Lying again. Can you make a post without lying or sneering at anyone who doesn’t disagree with you?

MadisonConservative on June 25, 2012 at 7:51 PM

This, we can agree on.
Did she call you crazy yet?

CherryBombsBigBrownBeaver on June 25, 2012 at 8:01 PM

You’re a lying sack of s**t.

MadisonConservative on June 15, 2012 at 12:09 PM

You’re scum.

MadisonConservative on June 15, 2012 at 12:05 PM

You’re not worth another keystroke, you dishonest pig.

MadisonConservative on June 15, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Shame on you.

MadisonConservative on June 15, 2012 at 11:57 AM

How f**king dare you? Tell me, you elitist ass.

MadisonConservative on June 15, 2012 at 11:21 AM

From what pillar of mental health judgment do you cast your aspersions?
MadisonConservative on June 15, 2012 at 11:21 AM

You are truly a sellout with no values whatsoever.

MadisonConservative on June 15, 2012 at 11:23 AM

You have no right to even address or discuss principle when you clearly have none of your own, you hollow, empty shell of a person.

MadisonConservative on June 15, 2012 at 11:23 AM

You’re pathetic.

MadisonConservative on June 15, 2012 at 11:25 AM

http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2012/06/15/white-house-ready-to-bypass-congress-implement-dream-act-by-executive-order/

You’re right. It was in 40 minutes. My bad.

Now, keep whining and name-calling. I’m done with you here.

joana on June 25, 2012 at 8:21 PM

A) I’m pretty sure joana doesn’t call or consider herself a conservative, I believe I remember her proudly claiming to be a moderate.

SWalker on June 25, 2012 at 2:04 PM

You remember that? I guess you can provide a link?

I’m a conservative and you are, as per usual, making up stuff about me. ´

It’s not my fault that some people are too limited intellectually to understand that supporting a politician doesn’t’ equate to fully share his policy or ideological views.

I could challenge you to name a single policy area in which I’m not conservative, a single post or argument in which I argued for a “moderate” position in terms of public policy. You wouldn’t response to it; except by replying with a barrage of name-calling or by misrepresenting my positions.

I am very pragmatic in my approach to politics. I have little use to red meat. I have no use for pathetic grandstanding that so many “TruCons” adore. I have no illusions about the existence of optimum political arrangements. That makes me a realistic, pragmatic, conservative rather than a moderate though.

joana on June 25, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Reading comprehension obviously isn’t your forte, in fact, the only thing that does seem to be your forte, is trolling. Honesty sure as hell isn’t, and we both know, I have already proven that.

SWalker on June 25, 2012 at 8:26 PM

Now, keep whining and name-calling. I’m done with you here.

joana on June 25, 2012 at 8:21 PM

9 posts in 40 minutes, all of which are incomplete.

Seeing as you entirely failed to address any part of my quite civil and non-insulting post, I can only assume I hit way too close to the mark.

MadisonConservative on June 25, 2012 at 8:29 PM

Oh, and don’t forget this gem:

This is the kind of person who ends up shooting a Congressman or a President.

joana on June 15, 2012 at 12:10 PM

I will be the bane of your existence until you retract this, pal.

MadisonConservative on June 25, 2012 at 8:35 PM

You remember that? I guess you can provide a link?

I’m a conservative and you are, as per usual, making up stuff about me. ´

It’s not my fault that some people are too limited intellectually to understand that supporting a politician doesn’t’ equate to fully share his policy or ideological views.

I could challenge you to name a single policy area in which I’m not conservative, a single post or argument in which I argued for a “moderate” position in terms of public policy. You wouldn’t response to it; except by replying with a barrage of name-calling or by misrepresenting my positions.

I am very pragmatic in my approach to politics. I have little use to red meat. I have no use for pathetic grandstanding that so many “TruCons” adore. I have no illusions about the existence of optimum political arrangements. That makes me a realistic, pragmatic, conservative rather than a moderate though.

joana on June 25, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Reading comprehension obviously isn’t your forte, in fact, the only thing that does seem to be your forte, is trolling. Honesty sure as hell isn’t, and we both know, I have already proven that.

SWalker on June 25, 2012 at 8:26 PM

Predictable.

joana on June 25, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Predictable.

joana on June 25, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Not nearly as predictable as you, but have fun with it anyway.

SWalker on June 25, 2012 at 8:52 PM

This is the kind of person who ends up shooting a Congressman or a President.

joana on June 15, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Moby.

Bmore on June 25, 2012 at 9:33 PM

This is the kind of person who ends up shooting a Congressman or a President.

joana on June 15, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Moby.

Bmore on June 25, 2012 at 9:33 PM

I believe the unified consensuses is that she is a surprisingly self disciplined troll. But a troll none the less.

SWalker on June 25, 2012 at 10:00 PM

CherryBombsBigBrownBeaver on June 25, 2012 at 8:01 PM

MadisonConservative on June 15, 2012 at 11:25 AM

SWalker on June 25, 2012 at 8:52 PM

Bmore on June 25, 2012 at 9:33 PM

Are the four of you actually trying to convince anyone on HA that you’re actually conservatives? I seem to re-call that flaming others and disregarding others points of view dis~respectfully was a liberal trait?

Perhaps it’s possible if you make a point and move on.The rest of it is…well… beneath legitimate conservatives.

DevilsPrinciple on June 26, 2012 at 7:33 AM

DevilsPrinciple on June 26, 2012 at 7:33 AM

Who the hell are you?

MadisonConservative on June 26, 2012 at 8:09 AM

DevilsPrinciple on June 26, 2012 at 7:33 AM

Good question. The evidence so far points to no.

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 8:43 AM

Good question. The evidence so far points to no.

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 8:43 AM

Of course. If you’re not a birther, don’t hate Israel, and don’t love Ron Paul, you might as well join the Communist Party.

MadisonConservative on June 26, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Of course. If you’re not a birther, don’t hate Israel, and don’t love Ron Paul, you might as well join the Communist Party.

MadisonConservative on June 26, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Beautiful straw man.

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Beautiful straw man.

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 10:31 AM

You’re the one who laments the death of conservatism every time someone doesn’t agree with you on those points.

MadisonConservative on June 26, 2012 at 10:39 AM

DevilsPrinciple on June 26, 2012 at 7:33 AM

What ever you say there DP. Maybe you’ll get it one of these days. We will just have to wait. But honestly and frankly, I don’t give a sh*t what you think. So there’s that.

Bmore on June 26, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Good question. The evidence so far points to no.

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 8:43 AM

Dante, did you ever get an answer to my question about the video months back. Remember I asked you to watch a short video and distill down for me your take on it. Did you ever do it it ? No. So there’s that.

Bmore on June 26, 2012 at 4:56 PM

here it comes…

Western_Civ on June 28, 2012 at 10:07 AM

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Western_Civ on June 28, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Roberts fuq’d us.

Western_Civ on June 28, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Roberts, burn in hell.

Western_Civ on June 28, 2012 at 10:19 AM

We have no Constitution. Remember this day. This is the tipping point. The stock market will dive today and we will forever be a parasitic welfare state with no national direction, except to grab what each of us can, each of us pitted against the other for government favors. It’s complete fuq ing doom. There’s no way to spin it.

Western_Civ on June 28, 2012 at 10:24 AM

I bet this will mean fewer demoncrap votes for Holder contempt

Western_Civ on June 28, 2012 at 10:28 AM

What does Obama have on Roberts? That is the question now.

Western_Civ on June 28, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Now we’re gonna see some real medieval dictatorial bull$shit by Zero.

Western_Civ on June 28, 2012 at 10:37 AM

And all you Romneybots who shoved the pro-mandate candidate down our throats–you can all rot in hell, too.

Western_Civ on June 28, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Oh yeah, its still here.

Bmore on January 22, 2013 at 6:50 PM

Comment pages: 1 9 10 11