“Who cares…there Mexicans”

Electrongod on June 26, 2012 at 8:57 PM

That may have been, UES?

Charles Lane

Yes your law friend has allowed his failed philosophical view to contaminate his opinion. No that is not a good idea. There is or at least is supposed to be no room on the bench for that behavior. Alas it is not the case.

Consequently, much of it is BS.

Ezra Klein

Yes, because God knows its very important to get someone elected because the color of their skin. Dr. king spins in his grave.

Night Owl on June 26, 2012 at 7:36 AM

Unanimity of the Republicans on the Oversight Committee vote presages the vote in the House, where Republicans are the majority. (And Issa claims that at least 31 Democrats are prepared to vote with the majority.) The contempt finding would never have made it out of Committee if the House leadership wasn’t prepared for it to come to the floor of the House– and pass.

And I’m beginning to appreciate the tactic, deliberate or not, of scheduling the House vote on the same day of the SCOTUS decision. The SCOTUS decision will be released first thing in the morning. Discussion of the topic will dominate the morning news. The House vote comes later in the day, possibly the end of the day, preceded by debate that will publicize the historical significance of the first vote to hold a U.S. AG in contempt. Having digested the SCOTUS decision for most of the day, the media may very well turn its attention to the live drama of the House vote.

If the SCOTUS decision strikes down the mandate, the Holder contempt vote will be the icing on the cake. If SCOTUS disappoints, the House vote won’t. However it all goes, Thursday will not be a good day for Obama.

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

The recount as ordered by the Florida recount was in violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution becuase there was no statewide uniform standard used to determine whether or not a ballot would be accepted as valid. There wasn’t time to develop those standards because Gore spent a whole month d*cking around with recounts. Not hard to understand.

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…

Because they are

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

Which doesn’t make them Constitutional. You just called them partisan hacks, and now you are complaining because they might not rule the way a partisan hack would.

and even though the party’s presidential nominee endorsed these concepts only a few years ago…

see above

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?

As the Obama administration’s immigration policies.

======================================================

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…

Bill Clinton talking about seamen. The joke writes itself.

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

And second, every major newspaper sent ballot counters down to Florida hoping to further undermine Bush; these quietly left when their recounts showed that the courts decision to allow Florida to declare a winner based on the laws in effect on election day in no way changed the outcome of the race.

Bush v Gore was a two part decision: 7 to 2 to declare that the Florida Supremes failed to make their case and 5 to 4 to say enough is enough and they were not to get a 3rd try to get it right.

If the facts are not on your side, create a myth.

Before the Affordable Care Act passed, two thirds of all the applications for bankruptcy were because of health-care emergencies,

Gotta love how liberals will make up a meme, and then keep repeating it over and over and over again, no matter how many it’s proven to be false.

This particular one was created (out of whole cloth) by everyone’s favorite non-Cherokee “scholar” Lizzie Warren. There have been reams of peer reviews of her work, all of which have concluded that her claims are completely bogus — but that doesn’t stop the libs from constantly repeating them and asserting them as absolute and undeniable truth.

“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

Bookmarking that.

Issa to Obama: Either you abused privilege or the White House was involved in Fast and Furious

“Either you or your most senior advisors were involved in managing Operation Fast & Furious and the fallout from it … or, you are asserting a Presidential power that you know to be unjustified solely for the purpose of further obstructing a congressional investigation,” Issa wrote. “To date, the White House has steadfastly maintained that it has not had any role in advising the Department with respect to the congressional investigation. The surprising assertion of executive privilege raised the question of whether that is still the case.”

kingsjester on June 26, 2012 at 6:48 AM

Good article! I am optimistic about Thursday. I probably shouldn’t use the lefty hysteria as a guide for Obamacare, but they are so shrill it’s hard not to. As for Holder, if there weren’t enough votes to hold him in contempt, there wouldn’t be a vote scheduled in my opinion.

Flora Duh on June 26, 2012 at 7:22 AM

It IS fun to imagine all the ways this stuff can be turned around on the liberals. I do it too! It kept me from commenting here yesterday after Obama announced they wouldn’t be accepting phone calls from AZ except on their new hotline. Every time I typed a comment I deleted it for fear of being banned.

OWS tries to effect change through violence, mayhem and wanton destruction of property.

The Tea Party DOES effect change by getting involved in local, state and federal elections. We win some and lose some, but we do it according to the the rule of law.

Naturally Curly on June 26, 2012 at 7:19 AM

I agree NC. I was just imagining what the reaction of the left would be if they were to get a tasted of their own medicine.

During the past 3.5 yrs I get my jollys where I can. :-)

We are supposed to be a nation of laws. I want to see that principle restored.

FUBO

Flora Duh on June 26, 2012 at 7:10 AM

heh

President Romney will be free to pick and choose, just as Obama has done the last 4 years.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77826.html#ixzz1ytcC0cYU

a poster from politico…hmmmmmm

cmsinaz on June 26, 2012 at 7:00 AM

How about choosing to ignore the Roe vs Wade ruling? Oh my, can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth over that?

kingsjester on June 26, 2012 at 7:04 AM

indeed it is….

Sounds good. But, will the author of Romneycare, choose to do that?
That’s the question.

The interesting thing about Obama choosing not to enforce immigration laws, however, is that it sets a precedent.

If Obamacare is upheld Thursday, then President Romney in January can simply choose to order the IRS NOT to enforce the individual mandate, just as Obama has ordered his regime not to enforce immigration laws.

President Romney will be free to pick and choose, just as Obama has done the last 4 years.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77826.html#ixzz1ytcC0cYU

a poster from politico…hmmmmmm

Yes, ma’am. Now is not the time for squishiness. Now, is not the time for “reaching across the aisle”.