Quotes of the day

posted at 10:42 pm on June 25, 2012 by Allahpundit

First, a presidential election is decided by five people, who don’t even try to explain their choice in normal legal terms.

Then the beneficiary of that decision appoints the next two members of the court, who present themselves for consideration as restrained, humble figures who care only about law rather than ideology…

And, when a major piece of legislation gets through, the party’s majority on the Supreme Court prepares to negate it — even though the details of the plan were originally Republican proposals and even though the party’s presidential nominee endorsed these concepts only a few years ago…

How would you characterize a legal system that knowledgeable observers assume will not follow the law and instead will advance a particular party-faction agenda? That’s how we used to talk about the Chinese courts when I was living there. Now it’s how law professors are describing the Supreme Court of the John Roberts era.

***

The Supreme Court has not yet ruled against the individual mandate, and who knows whether it will. Yet this has not stopped commentators from making sweeping charges about the Court. Many commentators, for instance, are charging that the Roberts Court is “activist.” For some, “activist” is just a label for judges that make decisions they don’t like; one man’s “activist” is another’s constitutional paladin. For others, however, the label “activist” is used to describe a court that is particularly “active” in overturning precedent and invalidating laws, and thereby altering the course of the law. So, for instance, James Fallows claims the Court, and Justices Roberts and Alito in particular, “actively second-guess and re-do existing law” and Jeffrey Toobin charged “the current Court has matched contempt for Congress with a disdain for many of the Court’s own precedents.”

The problem with these characterizations of the court is that if by “judicial activism” one means a willingness to overturn precedents and invalidate federal laws, the Roberts Court is the least activist court of the post-war period. As a recent NYT analysis showed, thus far the Roberts Court has overturned prior precedents and invalidates federal at a significantly lower rate than its predecessors. Further, many of the Court’s most “activist” decisions, so-defined, have moved the law in a more liberal direction (see, e.g., Boumediene, Kennedy v.Louisiana) or were broadly supported First Amendment decisions (e.g. Stevens).

***

Clinton predicted that if the law is declared unconstitutional, Republicans will suffer a backlash when millions of Americans calculate what they have lost. Before the Affordable Care Act passed, two thirds of all the applications for bankruptcy were because of health-care emergencies, a consequence likely to return if health care inflation again rises precipitously.

Clinton drew laughter with anecdotes about individual mandates that go back to the founding of the nation. In 1797, when John Adams was president, he signed a bill that required all seamen to be covered by hospitalization insurance through their employer…

Before Mitt Romney as governor signed the individual mandate, Massachusetts had the highest health-care costs in America. Today, that state is seventh, because inflation in health-care costs in that state have been much lower than in the country as a whole. Why? The mandate prevents insurance companies from shifting their promotional costs to consumers, Clinton said.

***

If Democrats, in a fit of pique, delegitimize the court over an ObamaCare defeat, conflicts between future presidents and the court are likely to turn out differently. At the very least, future Supreme Courts will be less willing to confront a president head-on, while future presidents will be more willing to ignore or evade high court decisions they don’t like.

Yet Supreme Court decisions are the source of much of the liberal legal infrastructure for today’s society. So a weakened court might well mean major losses for liberalism in areas like abortion, birth control, criminal procedure and more.

And if, as seems increasingly possible, the next president is a Republican with a Republican Congress, the new administration will be in a stronger position to make sweeping changes without worrying so much about the courts. Might we revisit efforts to ban partial-birth abortion? Limit the rights of criminal defendants? Pass a new, tougher Patriot Act?

***

In a 2008 profile of Axelrod in the New Republic, Jason Zengerle quoted Ken Snyder, a Democratic consultant and Axelrod protege, on his mentor’s approach. “David felt there almost had to be a permission structure set up for certain white voters to consider a black candidate.” The “permission structure” relied heavily on “third-party authentication“ — endorsements from respected figures or institutions that the targeted voters admired…

What the conservative movement has done — with a big assist from Verrilli — is build a permission structure that would permit the Republican appointees to the Supreme Court to rule against the individual mandate. They had taken a legal campaign initially dismissed as a bitter and quixotic effort based on a radical and discredited reading of the commerce clause and given it sufficient third-party authentication to succeed. If the Supreme Court rules against the mandate, it will no longer be out on a ledge. It will be in lock step with the entire Republican Party, many polls, a number of judges, the impression the public has gotten from the media coverage and the outcome of the oral arguments.

And that’s what has changed from two years ago. When this campaign began, it was unthinkable that the Supreme Court would indulge it, even if some on the Supreme Court were sympathetic to its aims. “There is a less than 1 percent chance that the courts will invalidate the individual mandate,” Kerr said at the time. Today, it’s entirely thinkable that the Supreme Court will indulge it, and that means that the members of the Supreme Court, who care deeply about protecting their institution’s legitimacy, are free to rule in whichever direction they want. We’ll find out what direction that is on Thursday.

***

The post-New Deal consensus about the scope of federal power has broken down amid national, and global, concern over the welfare state’s cost and intrusiveness — a sea change of which the tea party is but one manifestation. Obamacare itself, which has consistently polled badly, fueled that movement.

Much has been made of the fact that Republicans had no objection, constitutional or otherwise, when the individual mandate first surfaced. But that was two decades ago. In today’s changed intellectual, fiscal and political environment, seemingly lapidary constitutional phrases such as “commerce . . . among the several states” can acquire fresh meaning, as they did for the New Deal and at other points in the past.

The brilliance of Obamacare’s opponents lies in spotting that historical opportunity and making the most of it. The legal professoriate, by contrast, reminds me of how William F. Buckley described his arch-conservative magazine in the 1950s: “It stands athwart history, yelling Stop.”

***

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

***



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 5

Supremes!

OmahaConservative on June 25, 2012 at 10:44 PM

First to say…

First..

Soon.

Electrongod on June 25, 2012 at 10:44 PM

OK..

Later..

Electrongod on June 25, 2012 at 10:45 PM

Why is Chris on this?

I will read..

Electrongod on June 25, 2012 at 10:46 PM

So many idiots – so little time. I started with a former speech writer for President Carter stating “That’s how we used to talk about the Chinese courts when I was living there. Now it’s how law professors are describing the Supreme Court of the John Roberts era…” and quickly lost interest.

Drained Brain on June 25, 2012 at 10:46 PM

OT: update on my friend/brother in Christ Norm

Hallelujah!

Tonight we are cautiously optimistic! Dad has had a better day today – he’s off of oxygen, CPAP treatments have been reduced, NG tube has been removed, IV taken out. All that remains is a catheter and PICC line. There are indications that the intestines are beginning to wake up, too. Praise the Lord! We hope he continues to improve!

OmahaConservative on June 25, 2012 at 10:48 PM

Dang…
You would have thought the photos on Chris’s video of the Supremes were mug shots..

Electrongod on June 25, 2012 at 10:48 PM

Ham is such a weak debater, I could destroy Williams.

Conservative4ev on June 25, 2012 at 10:48 PM

Fist!

minnesoter on June 25, 2012 at 10:48 PM

A Fair Warning To Those Promoting Open Borders, Amnesty, & Free Immigration

“Obama Has Eclipsed Nixon In The Establishment Of An Imperial Presidency”

http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2012/06/obama-has-eclipsed-nixon-in.html

M2RB: Hank Williams, Jr

Resist We Much on June 25, 2012 at 10:48 PM

OmahaConservative on June 25, 2012 at 10:48 PM

Good to hear…

Electrongod on June 25, 2012 at 10:49 PM

Fist!

minnesoter on June 25, 2012 at 10:48 PM

Them are fightin’ posts…

Electrongod on June 25, 2012 at 10:50 PM

Abe Lincoln used to ask a question:
If you were to call a dogs tail a leg, how many legs would a dog have?

Some brain surgeon would always say; “Five”. To which Lincoln would reply; “No, calling a tail a leg does not make it one. A dog only has four legs no mater what you call the tail.”

Calling a Supreme Court ruling a part of the constitution does not make it so any more than calling a tail a leg makes it a leg.

The founders only supplied two methods of revising the constitution: The Amendment process and a constitutional convention.

Anything else is just an opinion.

The Rock on June 25, 2012 at 10:51 PM

If Obamacare is passed, we will soon be like the UK. We will save money by killing the elderly and the expensive to treat.

NaCly dog on June 25, 2012 at 10:52 PM

Matthews is a tremendous idiot.

I gotta admire his determination though. He goes out there to make a fool of himself dutifully every day, and it he does it at maximum volume.

Is he related to Joe Biden?

forest on June 25, 2012 at 10:53 PM

This is what frustrates me about our news. They all are asking about the ruling will affect the election. I care way more how this ruling affects our health care system then who wins in November. Or having the freedom to buy or not buy something.

terryannonline on June 25, 2012 at 10:53 PM

Wickard = Bad Law.

Please. Pretty please.

JohnGalt23 on June 25, 2012 at 10:53 PM

Many commentators, for instance, are charging that the Roberts Court is “activist.”

“Many commentators” are also liberal hacks.

squint on June 25, 2012 at 10:53 PM

even though the details of the plan were originally Republican proposals and even though the party’s presidential nominee endorsed these concepts only a few years ago…

That’s why I support Gary Johnson for President.

FloatingRock on June 25, 2012 at 10:54 PM

If Obamacare is passed, we will soon be like the UK. We will save money by killing the elderly and the expensive to treat.

NaCly dog on June 25, 2012 at 10:52 PM

No argument there…

Upper?

Want to reign in?

Electrongod on June 25, 2012 at 10:54 PM

Wickard = Bad Law.

Please. Pretty please.

JohnGalt23 on June 25, 2012 at 10:53 PM

Ditto..

Though the party is different..

Seller vs. buyer…

Electrongod on June 25, 2012 at 10:55 PM

Wickard = Bad Law.

Please. Pretty please.

JohnGalt23 on June 25, 2012 at 10:53 PM

Justice Scalia hinted last week to that direction, it is also my prayer that Wickard is revisited and struck down.

SWalker on June 25, 2012 at 10:55 PM

Many commentators, for instance, are charging that the Roberts Court is “activist.”

Have any of them called the Roberts court racists yet?

JPeterman on June 25, 2012 at 10:55 PM

Before the Affordable Care Act passed, two thirds of all the applications for bankruptcy were because of health-care emergencies, a consequence likely to return if health care inflation again rises precipitously.

This is total bullcrap. This data point has been refudiated time and time again, including in HA threads, yet some proggie never fails to unearth it anew.

For example, the study that came up with this ridiculous finding concluded that because gambling could be an addiction, which might be called a medical condition, if a bankruptcy resulted from gambling, the bankruptcy was a result of a lack of healthcare insurance.

They also concluded that if a respondent had a bill of more than $200 in the two years before bankruptcy that they could not pay, that the bankruptcy would have been avoided with adequate healthcare insurance.

This is just two examples of how flawed this research was.

This garbage study seems to come around on a rotating schedule, much like the 90% of guns in Mexico crap, for regular recycling in the proggie media.

slickwillie2001 on June 25, 2012 at 10:56 PM

This is what frustrates me about our news. They all are asking about the ruling will affect the election. I care way more how this ruling affects our health care system then who wins in November. Or having the freedom to buy or not buy something.

terryannonline on June 25, 2012 at 10:53 PM

Yep – this is bigger than the election. The future of our country is at stake.

gophergirl on June 25, 2012 at 10:56 PM

Democrats are not only busy “deligitimizing the (Supreme) Court,” but reality otherwise. Today’s public statements, including the one by Obama, about the Court’s decision on SB1070 (Arizona, illegal immigration, state acting to ensure it’s border security while the federal government refuses to enforce laws in those regards) are fraught with claims asserting that Obama “bottom up” rewrite of what is occuring.

I realize the Democrats, includes Obama, has to function like an upside-down-information-source, declaring “bad” at issues that are good and “good” when things are bad, for political flirtation and court-and-sparking with the voters Obama, Democrats, intend to grab and keep in their corner, but so many Leftwingers today declaring “victory” about SB1070 is like a recording from inmates in a facility for the criminally insane.

It goes to show to what degree Obama, Democrats are frantically reissuing reality for political purposes. Maligning the Court, setting up that “DoJ hotline” to “report” the people of Arizona (for lack of a better description), if the Left ever had any masking in place to disguise it’s intentions, that masking is now gone.

Lourdes on June 25, 2012 at 10:57 PM

Soon.

El_Terrible on June 25, 2012 at 10:57 PM

The SCOTUS decision makes no difference. The tyrants will implement the law no matter what.

We still don’t quite understand that these people have their own system they are working from and we on the outside are still of the mindset that the US is as it was…

Lawlessness is the new order.

katy on June 25, 2012 at 10:57 PM

OmahaConservative on June 25, 2012 at 10:48 PM

Good news, OC.

PTL.

GrannyDee on June 25, 2012 at 10:58 PM

even though the details of the plan were originally Republican proposals and even though the party’s presidential nominee endorsed these concepts only a few years ago…

That’s why I support Gary Johnson for President.

FloatingRock on June 25, 2012 at 10:54 PM

Hmm, you have gone from Ron Paul, who never had a prayer, to Gary Johnson who likewise never had a prayer, but at least in supporting Johnson you have chosen someone who isn’t bat$hit insane. I applaud this decision of yours.

SWalker on June 25, 2012 at 10:58 PM

Soon.

El_Terrible on June 25, 2012 at 10:59 PM

OmahaConservative on June 25, 2012 at 10:48 PM

Good news. Prayers to your friend for his continued recovery.

Philly on June 25, 2012 at 11:00 PM

First, a presidential election is decided by five people, who don’t even try to explain their choice in normal legal terms.

Then the beneficiary of that decision appoints the next two members of the court, who present themselves for consideration as restrained, humble figures who care only about law rather than ideology…

And, when a major piece of legislation gets through, the party’s majority on the Supreme Court prepares to negate it — even though the details of the plan were originally Republican proposals and even though the party’s presidential nominee endorsed these concepts only a few years ago…

You mad bro?

Flora Duh on June 25, 2012 at 11:01 PM

Clinton drew laughter with anecdotes about individual mandates that go back to the founding of the nation. In 1797, when John Adams was president, he signed a bill that required all seamen to be covered by hospitalization insurance through their employer…

Bubba forgot to mention there was no private health insurance back then. So no it is not really the same thing.

An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen
Section 1.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled – That from and after the first day of September next, the master or owner of every ship or vessel of the United States, arriving from a foreign port into any port of the United States, shall, before such ship or vessel shall be admitted to an entry, render to the collector a true account of the number of seamen, that shall have been employed on board such vessel since she was last entered at any port in the United States,-and shall pay to the said collector, at the rate of twenty cents per month for every seaman so employed; which sum he is hereby authorized to retain out of the wages of such seamen

No the seamen themselves were not required to buy it.

H/T …hold your breath… DKos.

Further from their post….

So let’s recap…this law:

Requires ship owners to remit a fixed payment to a collector;
Allows owners to deduct this payment from seaman’s wages;
Requires the collector to remit those funds to the U.S. Tresury;
Allows the President discretion to direct those funds for the health benefits of sailors.

Replace the words “seaman” for “all workers” in #2, and “sailors” for “senior citizens” in #4, and you have described, almost perfectly, today’s Medicare system. Now I don’t know about you, but I would LOVE LOVE LOVE expanding the Medicare system to all. This mandate to purchase private health insurance, however, is nowhere NEAR the same thing as Medicare.

CW on June 25, 2012 at 11:01 PM

OmahaConservative on June 25, 2012 at 10:48 PM

That’s great news OC!

Flora Duh on June 25, 2012 at 11:01 PM

Man they are really going to have a fit if this thing goes down aren’t they?

It’s going to be kind of fun to watch – in a cover your eyes don’t do anything rash until January sort of way.

gophergirl on June 25, 2012 at 11:01 PM

Many commentators, for instance, are charging that the Roberts Court is “activist.”

“Many commentators” are also liberal hacks.

squint on June 25, 2012 at 10:53 PM

“Many” — in other words, fifteen percent of the population.

“In general,” “an anonymous source who does not want to be identified,” “many people,” and so on…all handy terms used when there aren’t any actual statistics available to support their political demands.

Lourdes on June 25, 2012 at 11:02 PM

First, a presidential election is decided by five people, who don’t even try to explain their choice in normal legal terms.

Fallows is still butthurt over the fact that the Supreme Court stopped Al Gore’s attempts to steal the presidential election of 2000?

slickwillie2001 on June 25, 2012 at 11:02 PM

Last one.

Soon.

El_Terrible on June 25, 2012 at 11:03 PM

Man they are really going to have a fit if this thing goes down aren’t they?

It’s going to be kind of fun to watch – in a cover your eyes don’t do anything rash until January sort of way.

gophergirl on June 25, 2012 at 11:01 PM

Cover your eyes my shiny [censored} azz.. Break out the pop corn and beer and laugh like a democrat politician heading for a bank with their bribe and extortion money… ;p

SWalker on June 25, 2012 at 11:04 PM

Fist!

minnesoter on June 25, 2012 at 10:48 PM

Are you the same Minnesota person who used to make fun of the chitting and chatting that went on in this thread?

And denigrated those who did not stay on topic?

cozmo on June 25, 2012 at 11:04 PM

The SCOTUS decision makes no difference. The tyrants will implement the law no matter what.

We still don’t quite understand that these people have their own system they are working from and we on the outside are still of the mindset that the US is as it was…

Lawlessness is the new order.

katy on June 25, 2012 at 10:57 PM

Spot on as usual. They are creating a lawless society on purpose because they loathe the very foundations and founding of this country.

SouthernGent on June 25, 2012 at 11:04 PM

This garbage study seems to come around on a rotating schedule, much like the 90% of guns in Mexico crap, for regular recycling in the proggie media.

slickwillie2001 on June 25, 2012 at 10:56 PMlj

Quite right. It doesn’t even pass the smell test for anyone in the real world.

Curtiss on June 25, 2012 at 11:04 PM

Praise OC :)

cmsinaz on June 25, 2012 at 11:04 PM

But our Dear Leader showed the entire country how he respects the SOTUS in his famous SOTU speech. We have a thug in the White House and laws mean nothing to thugs…

d1carter on June 25, 2012 at 11:05 PM

Thanks for all the prayers. Norm & June are two of my favorite patriot/Lutheran/Christian/American/Friends. I am Blessed to count them as friends…

OmahaConservative on June 25, 2012 at 11:05 PM

I know many are upset with the Arizona law, but I thought it was a good day. The heart of the law lives and acts as a model for the rest of the states.

Of course the real solution is to replace Obama since he’ll ignore the duties of the executive branch.

Based on Obama’s unprecedented power grabs though, I’m wondering what we have coming if the court strikes down the mandate or the law.

El_Terrible on June 25, 2012 at 11:05 PM

Moonlight Serenade

jaime on June 25, 2012 at 11:05 PM

Cover your eyes my shiny [censored} azz.. Break out the pop corn and beer and laugh like a democrat politician heading for a bank with their bribe and extortion money… ;p

SWalker on June 25, 2012 at 11:04 PM

I’m just afraid what Obama will do when he is really cornered. I know Romney can fix it as soon as he is sworn in but still -YIKES.

Now Nancy melting down – I want a front seat for that.

gophergirl on June 25, 2012 at 11:05 PM

It doesn’t even pass the smell test for anyone in the real world.

Curtiss on June 25, 2012 at 11:04 PM

In other words, something the democrats have organisms over.

SWalker on June 25, 2012 at 11:06 PM

Will feel eeyorish until Thursday am

I dont feel good about this at all

cmsinaz on June 25, 2012 at 11:06 PM

WTF are these people even talking about ?
What laws ? What constitution ? What democracy ?
Can’t these morons see today Hussein became Idi Amin.
Anyone here who has escaped from Idi Amin’s Uganda?
Anyone here who has escaped from a marxist dictatorship ?
Anyone here who has escaped islamic brutalities ?
People like us know what is coming , we see the signs, we have lived through poverty and feared for our lives in 3rd world countries.
Listen to people like us rest of America…we lost our last chance to escape tyranny today. Now, we all have no place to go .
Folks have no clue what hit them today
( well marxists and jihadies know and they are celebrating)

burrata on June 25, 2012 at 11:06 PM

In 1797, when John Adams was president, he signed a bill that required all seamen to be covered by hospitalization insurance through their employer.

Minor detail, wasn’t this in fact a provision passed specifically on the merchant marines, and if they didn’t pay up they couldn’t obtain a license (meaning that, like the tired old driver’s license analogy from the left, there was an alternative)?

sockpuppetpolitic on June 25, 2012 at 11:06 PM

Chuck Rocha, “exec. director of American worker Latino project” — I’m guessing that’s a Communist group there exploiting ethnic supremacy to push it’s political demands — on Fox just said, “these eleven million people must be dealt with.”

How about those “eleven million people” (who are illegal aliens in the U.S., that’s who Mr. Rocha is referring to) go home?

Lourdes on June 25, 2012 at 11:07 PM

Now Nancy melting down – I want a front seat for that.

gophergirl on June 25, 2012 at 11:05 PM

As a 40 plus year resident of the Peoples socialistic republic of California… I can say with complete and total honesty that I am resentful that I will not be allowed to be the individual who throws the bucket of mop water on that vile disgusting hag.

SWalker on June 25, 2012 at 11:07 PM

cmsinaz on June 25, 2012 at 11:06 PM

Calm down darlin’
We *have* to win this…

OmahaConservative on June 25, 2012 at 11:08 PM

The upside here for democratics is that Bill Clinton hasn’t wandered off script for a few days now. That can’t last!

slickwillie2001 on June 25, 2012 at 11:08 PM

I dont feel good about this at all

cmsinaz on June 25, 2012 at 11:06 PM

I do..

The mandate…gone..

Now we have to continue our fight to take back Congress and repeal this damn thing..

Electrongod on June 25, 2012 at 11:08 PM

The fact that we as a nation are even discussing “what to do” with a vast population of illegal aliens is mind-boggling.

They’re in violation of our laws, they’re not citizens, they aren’t here legally/legitimately, why are we even debating what to do about them?

Think about it.

Lourdes on June 25, 2012 at 11:09 PM

Will feel eeyorish until Thursday am

I dont feel good about this at all

cmsinaz on June 25, 2012 at 11:06 PM

Actually I feel more confident after today that it is going down. I think they wouldn’t leave it till the bitter end if they weren’t getting rid of the whole thing.

gophergirl on June 25, 2012 at 11:09 PM

If Obamacare is passed, we will soon be like the UK. We will save money by killing the elderly and the expensive to treat.

NaCly dog on June 25, 2012 at 10:52 PM

bzzzzt! sorry wrong answer. NO money is ever “saved” in a bureaucracy, especially one as huge as Obamacare will create.

Go read Theodore Darlrymple on British NHC. The bureaucrats get all new nice offices, and computers, and such, while the ‘patients’ suffer in filth and neglect.

The killing is just a bonus. Its what the libtards get as reward once the tyrants take over.

I suspect Mass. is showing a ‘savings’ is all smoke and mirrors, remember they passed the thing in order to continue to get Medicaid/Medicare dollars from the Feds(i.e. US). Insurance corps are likely cooking the books too, shifting costs to everyone outside MA to cover the losses.

orbitalair on June 25, 2012 at 11:09 PM

Mr. Rocha’s now in the proccess of lecturing his host, overtalking her and pointing his fist her way…

Lourdes on June 25, 2012 at 11:10 PM

Will feel eeyorish until Thursday am

I dont feel good about this at all

cmsinaz on June 25, 2012 at 11:06 PM

Start your intake of alcoholic beverages immediately.

JPeterman on June 25, 2012 at 11:10 PM

Tingles has managed to make it to 5 or 6 Conservative web sites with his nonsense, but Boob of the Night winner is Salon’s Joan Walsh who I saw tonight state that when argued that Obama was disrespectful to the Supreme Court for attacking them in a State of the Union speech, it was Justice Alito who Walsh found “unbelievably disrespectful! for shaking his head and mouthing ‘You’re wrong’.”

Marcus on June 25, 2012 at 11:10 PM

Straighten Up And Fly Right

jaime on June 25, 2012 at 11:10 PM

Now Mr. Rocha’s saying “we have twelve million people here…”

His “millions” continue to grow in just a few minutes.

Lourdes on June 25, 2012 at 11:10 PM

Omaha conservative
Is he doing better?????….. Prayers still flowing ……..!¡!!!!!!

angrymike on June 25, 2012 at 11:11 PM

“5 Signs the United States is Undergoing a Coup…..How would you characterize a legal system that knowledgeable observers assume will not follow the law and instead will advance a particular party-faction agenda? That’s how we used to talk about the Chinese courts when I was living there. Now it’s how law professors are describing the Supreme Court of the John Roberts era.”

How would you describe a President, who refuses to uphold the Constitution as he swore an oath to do, refuses to enforce laws that are on the books, circumvents Congress, arms Mexican drug cartels in an effort to undermine Americans’ constitutional rights, dismisses out-of-hand pleas for the recognition of the rights of the religious to practise their faiths as they are entitled under the First Amendment, encourages our enemies and insults/dismisses our allies, calls his fellow Americans “enemies,” unilaterally abrogates contracts, usurps the rights of secured creditors in order to pay off his union buddies, and engages in foreign military interventions without Congressional approval, Mr Fallows?

Some would call him a dic…tator. Some, like the uber Progressive Professor Turley would call him more of an Imperial President than Richard Nixon. Some would say that he is engaged in a form of nullification, which IIRC led, in part, to the deaths of 600,000 Americans in a 4 year civil war. Some might even say, ahem, that he is engaged in his own coup or, certainly, assault on the American people and Constitution.

Resist We Much on June 25, 2012 at 11:11 PM

Now Nancy melting down – I want a front seat for that.

gophergirl on June 25, 2012 at 11:05 PM

She’ll spend at least a week in the storage vault of her family winery, La Casa di Nana, getting high on her own supply.

slickwillie2001 on June 25, 2012 at 11:12 PM

cmsinaz on June 25, 2012 at 11:06 PM

Calm down darlin’
We *have* to win this…

OmahaConservative on June 25, 2012 at 11:08 PM

Yup, and like it or not, that means building a coalition of the “Man we can’t stand each others, but we really hate the Obama Marxists thugs”. And our coalition has to be bigger than the coalitions of the “Man we would would douse ourselves with gasoline and set ourselves on fire for the Obama Marxist thugs”. If we are going to win.

SWalker on June 25, 2012 at 11:12 PM

Now Nancy melting down – I want a front seat for that.

gophergirl on June 25, 2012 at 11:05 PM

You mean something like this.

RickB on June 25, 2012 at 11:12 PM

Some would call him a dic…tator. Some, like the uber Progressive Professor Turley would call him more of an Imperial President than Richard Nixon. Some would say that he is engaged in a form of nullification, which IIRC led, in part, to the deaths of 600,000 Americans in a 4 year civil war. Some might even say, ahem, that he is engaged in his own coup or, certainly, assault on the American people and Constitution.

Resist We Much on June 25, 2012 at 11:11 PM

Yes, to all of that.

Lourdes on June 25, 2012 at 11:12 PM

Actually I feel more confident after today that it is going down. I think they wouldn’t leave it till the bitter end if they weren’t getting rid of the whole thing.

gophergirl on June 25, 2012 at 11:09 PM

The Supreme’s will be safely ensconced on a jet plane before the crap hits the fan.

JPeterman on June 25, 2012 at 11:12 PM

Omaha conservative
Is he doing better?????….. Prayers still flowing ……..!¡!!!!!!

angrymike on June 25, 2012 at 11:11 PM

Yes. Keep those prayers ascending…

OmahaConservative on June 25, 2012 at 11:12 PM

I hear you friends….will not fret

Will say some prayers and begin adult beverage intake in due course

cmsinaz on June 25, 2012 at 11:13 PM

First, a presidential election is decided by five people, who don’t even try to explain their choice in normal legal terms.

then a gay judge overturns the will of the majority of voters, twice, and doesn’t even try to explain why he did it !

burrata on June 25, 2012 at 11:13 PM

Moonlight Serenade

jaime on June 25, 2012 at 11:05 PM

An all-time favorite. Thnx, Jaime.

Here’s another.

Here’s That Rainy Day

GrannyDee on June 25, 2012 at 11:13 PM

Will say some prayers and begin adult beverage intake in due course

cmsinaz on June 25, 2012 at 11:13 PM

Too late..
beverage intake that is..

Electrongod on June 25, 2012 at 11:14 PM

If Gov.Brewer called upon the citizenry to take up arms to defend the border, now,,

I’d be the first pissed off locked and loaded person there. I’ve had it with baracka. I totally get the Civil War now. I can comprehend division that deep. I imagine there were just as many Joana’s back then.

I thank God for the rest of you that get it. Whether it be WI or here, good people fight. It means a lot to me that people care about our battle just like I care about yours.

I hope Thursday goes our way.

wolly4321 on June 25, 2012 at 11:14 PM

Tingles has managed to make it to 5 or 6 Conservative web sites with his nonsense, but Boob of the Night winner is Salon’s Joan Walsh who I saw tonight state that when argued that Obama was disrespectful to the Supreme Court for attacking them in a State of the Union speech, it was Justice Alito who Walsh found “unbelievably disrespectful! for shaking his head and mouthing ‘You’re wrong’.”

Marcus on June 25, 2012 at 11:10 PM

I didn’t know Tingles was back, he hasn’t been seen since the campaign ad from Mooch that said “Barack is your husband too”.

slickwillie2001 on June 25, 2012 at 11:15 PM

In 1797, when John Adams was president, he signed a bill that required all seamen to be covered by hospitalization insurance through their employer.

To begin with, An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disable Seamen was directed at licenced American flagged ships engaged in commerce among the States and/or with foreign nations, and also directed at our Navy and its personnel.

It was NOT directed at individuals. The sailors were not merely privately employed sailors, but were employed on ships licenced by the United States and were engaged in commerce among the States and/or with foreign nations. Last time I read our Constitution, it declares that Congress has power to regulate commerce among the states and with foreign nations.

Lastly, the Act was a TAX, not a mandate to enter into a private contract with a third-party for the provision of health insurance. The wages of the seamen were levied or, in many cases, the employer paid the tax.

The legislation reads:

§ 1. Be it enacted ……. That from and after the first day of September next, the master or owner of every ship or vessel of the United States, arriving from a foreign port into any port of the United States, shall …..

§ 2. That from and after the first day of September next, no collector shall grant to any ship or vessel whose enrollment or license for carrying on the coasting trade has expired, a new enrollment or license, before the master of such ship or vessel shall first render a true account to the collector, of the number of seamen, and the time they have severally been employed on board such ship or vessel, during the continuance of the license which has so expired, and pay to such collector twenty cents per month for every month such seamen have been severally employed as aforesaid ; which sum the said master is hereby authorized to retain out of the wages of such seamen. And if any such master shall render a false account of the number of men, and the length of time they have severally been employed, as is herein required, he shall forfeit and pay one hundred dollars.

Section 3 requires that all the withheld taxes be turned over to the U.S. Treasury on a quarterly basis, and that the revenue shall be expended in the district where it was collected. The revenue shall be spent to support sick and injured seamen.

So the Act is totally dissimilar to the Obamacare mandate. In the 1798 Act, the government imposes a tax, collects all the tax revenue, and spends the revenue as it chooses. This is a good precedent for programmes in which the government imposes a tax and then spends the money on medical programmes (e.g., Medicare), but it has nothing to do with mandating that individuals purchase a private product.

Under Section 4, if there is a surplus in a district, the surplus shall be spent in the construction of marine hospitals; the executive may combine the tax revenue with voluntary private donations of land or money for hospital construction. The President may also receive voluntary private donations for relief of the seamen, or for operation of the hospitals.

Section 5 instructs the President to select the directors of the marine hospitals. The directors shall make quarterly reports to the Secretary of the Treasury. The directors will be reimbursed for expenses, but will not receive other compensation.

The mandate is NOT a tax. See City of New York v. Feiring, 313 U.S. 283 (1941) for the 4-prong test on what constitutes a tax.

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

PS: Don’t bring up the Militia Act of 1792 either because that is also a complete loser for you, too.

Resist We Much on June 25, 2012 at 11:16 PM

Some would call him a dic…tator.

Resist We Much on June 25, 2012 at 11:11 PM

Well, truth be told, according to various and sundry internet rumors he is much closer to being a dic…tastor, than tator… :O

SWalker on June 25, 2012 at 11:16 PM

Add another prayer.

wolly4321 on June 25, 2012 at 11:17 PM

You mean something like this.

RickB on June 25, 2012 at 11:12 PM

LOL – I just spit out my Diet Pepsi

gophergirl on June 25, 2012 at 11:17 PM

The Supreme’s will be safely ensconced on a jet plane before the crap hits the fan.

JPeterman on June 25, 2012 at 11:12 PM

Yep –

I just think they know the reaction on the left will be much more unhinged if they lose than the reaction on the right.

That’s why they are waiting till the end IMO.

Of course I could be completely wrong and they are just torturing us for sport.

gophergirl on June 25, 2012 at 11:19 PM

Clinton drew laughter with anecdotes about individual mandates that go back to the founding of the nation. In 1797, when John Adams was president, he signed a bill that required all seamen to be covered by hospitalization insurance through their employer…

Yeah, well, there’s one problem with your “anecdotes” Slick.

What if someone wasn’t employed as a seamen? Was the blacksmith mandated by law to purchase insurance? How about the owner of a trading post? Were they mandated by law to purchase insurance? Or the widow lady that lived in a boarding house, was she mandated by law to purchase insurance?

Flora Duh on June 25, 2012 at 11:19 PM

EG will ice some cervesa down for Thursday

cmsinaz on June 25, 2012 at 11:19 PM

Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy Of Company B

jaime on June 25, 2012 at 11:16 PM

No way…
Though I didn’t click…
Boogie Woogie??

Not goin’ there..

Van Halen…

ZZ Top.

LoverBoys *may gave to retract…*

Electrongod on June 25, 2012 at 11:19 PM

GrannyDee on June 25, 2012 at 11:13 PM

Good song, GrannyDee. I really like Stan Getz, too.

jaime on June 25, 2012 at 11:20 PM

what constitutes a tax.

Resist We Much on June 25, 2012 at 11:16 PM

And there is another issue. There seems to be the idea that a law is simply constitutional if a tax is involved. It is forgotten that the enumerated powers still govern what the government can do. The states have power over the rest.

CW on June 25, 2012 at 11:20 PM

Not goin’ there..

Electrongod on June 25, 2012 at 11:19 PM

Andrew Sisters

jaime on June 25, 2012 at 11:21 PM

I’m out soon. Was up too late last night…

OmahaConservative on June 25, 2012 at 11:21 PM

EG will ice some cervesa down for Thursday

cmsinaz on June 25, 2012 at 11:19 PM

10 AM?

Coffee.

This time then….

Whiskey..

No seriously..

Electrongod on June 25, 2012 at 11:22 PM

Well, truth be told, according to various and sundry internet rumors he is much closer to being a dic…tastor, than tator… :O

SWalker on June 25, 2012 at 11:16 PM

hehehe. See bottom:

Pics of the Day: President Downgrade Gets Downgraded

Resist We Much on June 25, 2012 at 11:22 PM

Resist we much
You have to be one of the most informed of any of us ……And for that I thank you………..;)

angrymike on June 25, 2012 at 11:22 PM

Take The A Train

jaime on June 25, 2012 at 11:22 PM

This time then….

Whiskey..

No seriously..

Electrongod on June 25, 2012 at 11:22 PM


Oh dear…

SWalker on June 25, 2012 at 11:23 PM

Interesting Fast and Furious report.

By Lou Dobbs.

Steveangell on June 25, 2012 at 11:24 PM

Good song, GrannyDee. I really like Stan Getz, too.

jaime on June 25, 2012 at 11:20 PM

Saw Getz perform many moons ago. And Brubeck. Outstanding.

Misty

Take Five

GrannyDee on June 25, 2012 at 11:24 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 5