Meta
-
Recent Posts
Your Host, Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere, a/k/a Blackiswhite, Imperial Agent Provocateur.Recent Comments
Top Clicks
Top Posts
Pages
Archives
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
The Reading List
Twitter Updates
- The Greatest Failure wp.me/psCdu-G2 1 day ago
- After-Action Report: Francis Ford Coppola's 'Tetro' wp.me/psCdu-FY 4 days ago
- On the Newfound Outrage and Disappointment of the Left and the Press wp.me/psCdu-FW 5 days ago
- WH realeases Benghazi emails but omits two days? Now that's just begging for the Nixon comparisons. #LeftToDieCoveredInALie #tcot #p2 6 days ago
- @scott7797 I hear GITMO is nice this time of year.... 1 week ago
-
Perfect.
That says it all. The Dread Pirate Roberts sells us into slavery for a good write up in the New York Time and invite to all the PC dinner parties. More betrayal from appointees of compassionate conservative simple George W Bush.
Thanks Justice Roberts. May we come to the point that we forget you were ever our countryman.
Amen, brotha. Wow, just wow.
Well, what should we expect from a group of people that think that losing ones rights is not a punishment..? A tax..? Come on…
He used the Helvering gambit to make this POS , this abomination, to pass muster. It took an intellectual dishonesty that only the liar in chief can appreciate to mangle the language so thoroughly that they magically transform a punishment for idleness into a tax.
This is the definition of legislating from the bench as they redefined terms and essentially ruled on a law of their own making.
Wow, a photo post. I must admit I’m impressed. I guess you’re at a loss for words but let me see if I can get SOME out of you.
I asked El Tigre this question over at my place and I’m curious about your answer. Do you share Chief Justice Roberts conviction that it is the Court’s job to uphold the law when there is ANY constitutional justification rather than seek to strike down laws? In other words, the goal should be to seek constitutional justification for laws and find them unconstitutional only when such justification simply cannot be found.
If it’s any consolation BiW your boys found Holder in contempt. So you’re one for two. I’d call that a pretty good day.
In appellate practice, that’s known as “right for any reason” when it comes to trial court rulings.
R, you better be ready to follow up your MSNBC-level question with why Roberts got it right. As I said, you see a kernel and presume it an ear.
And of course you have come here with your dumb question becuase you believe yourself entitled to gloat. Try putting your money where your mouth is!
Sometimes you do go overboard. I asked both you and BiW the question because I was surprised to hear Roberts’ take on it. I would have expected a conservative judge to go out of his way to find cause to knock down the law, not preserve it. Since you two are the only lawyers I know on the net, I wondered what your opinion was.
Now that I know it’s “dumb” to ask an opinion from you that based on your vocation you might have a unique perspective, I won’t bother in the future.
Let it go.
I can now foresee a day when every American adult not convicted of a felony is ordered to purchase a firearm and practice with it regularly…or pay a “tax”. You know…for the “general welfare”. And on that day, it will finally dawn on him.
No way. This is an abomination. In 30 or 40 years it’ll be clear how disastrous this is as precedent. I’m not interested in schadenfreude despite its inevitability. The bill will have to dealt with by political means. But I am distraught by the significance of this and the dumb fucks that view it as a victory — for anybody — including Obama.
BiW, need to catch up to the times friend. The courts have also ruled that losing ones rights is not an additional punishment, as well as the fact that you can indeed lose your rights forever now based upon less than felony behaviors. Especially Second Amendment rights. There are no ends to political correctness and misandry.
Hope I put this in the correct place!
“Now that I know it’s “dumb” to ask an opinion from you that based on your vocation you might have a unique perspective, I won’t bother in the future.”
R, when your initial post is, “We. Won. Suck. On. It. Bwhahahahahahah” (or something to that effect) followed by the usual litany of uninformed and Pavlovian “he did the right thing ’cause it helps Obama” deep analysis, offering questions like this that are not in the nature of learning but an effort to buttress an argument born of ignorance . . . I assume you are not interested in perspective.
I any event, feel free not to bother if you choose. Next time it would be helpful if you started from a more thoughtful approach, i.e. not celebration and validation. Try reading at least a portion of the opinion before agreeing with it. The doctrinal consideration underpinning it is actually stated.
BTW, I do watch MSNBC from time to time — the question came from some of the usual legal scholars such as Lawrence O’Donnell, Chaz Maddow, and Dough-boy Shultz — only it wasn’t a question, it was offered as justification for the outcome regardless of its flawed analysis. It’s pretty safe to assume that most all of your questions are motivated by a desire to validate rather than true intellectual curiosity.
Your comment about finding Holder in contempt evening the score is perfect example of what I’m talking about.
Great post BiC.
>>>The bill will have to dealt with by political means.<<<
Which means that you're relying on a nation of people too dumb to figure out how to get out of jury duty to understand what this really means and then vote accordingly.
Why do you say that? Haven’t you and yours been gloating about how unpopular the law is? Now suddenly all those folks who supposedly hate it wouldn’t push to have it repealed? Or perhaps the more they learn without conservative spin, the more they might like it?
I say that because repeal, even of horrendously bad laws, is the exception and not the rule. It is even more difficult with something like this because people really aren’t being bent over by this yet. Yes, they are, and have been making some of the payments for it all ready, but the reality of ObamaCare won’t hit home until they have trouble getting an appointment because of the exodus of doctors from the profession (which has started), and because of the increased demand with far smaller returns for the doctors who remain.
I also say that, because it really hasn’t dawned on anyone that despite the fact that the Court reeled the Commerce Clause back in, and set some bright-line boundaries for it, they traded that for an unlimited view of the taxing power that sanctions a wholly incorrect and inappropriate reading of the general welfare clause, cementing just how right Robert Yates, a/k/a “Brutus” was when he very clearly explained to Madison and Hamilton, b/k/a “Publius”, that “general welfare” was going to give subsequent generations license to tax for any means they could apply that label to.
That’s interesting. So folks feared my definition of general welfare going all the way back to when it was first written.
It would be more accurate to say that some people understood that it was likely that we couldn’t count on succeeding generations of legislators being both as bright and as restrained as their own in the face of the incredible temptation to buy power with other people’s money.
It’s not a matter of confidence. The fact that anyone still supports Obama destroyed that. It’s the only avenue we have.
If its not within the courts domain to protect us from our elected politicians, whose job is it?
Its a penalty, its a tax. Its a penalty tax!
If this “act” was so good for the people why the misrepresentation about the mandate? It was stated repeatedly that this wasn’t a tax by those that wrote the thing. Even after the ruling and the courts declaration that it was a tax, and that’s what makes it constitutional, they are back to saying it isn’t a tax. And folks wonder why politicians are thought of in low terms.
The Holder thing is a waste of time. They have stalled long enough to ensure that any closure of the issue can’t occur until after the election, if ever. But they should still pursue it.
We must get out the vote. Last chance. Wisconsin proved it can be done. After this next one all bets are off. If we don’t slow/stop this nonsense now the only method left to do so is very very ugly. The sides are diametrically opposed there is no zone for compromise. Conflict in this type of environment is just about inevitable.
It’s our job to protect ourselves from our elected politicians, not the SCOTUS. It’s the entire premise of “throw the bums out”.
That might be close to the dumbest thing I’ve read from R.
So the SCOTUS serves no purpose, huh?
No, your response to this is the dumbest thing ever written on a blog. Who said the SCOTUS serves no purpose? In a democracy the imperative is to let the people through representative government put in place the legislation that will govern them. It is not the job of the Supreme Court to overrule the will of the people except in those cases where that will contradicts the basic rights set forth in the Constitution. When that happens, the Supreme Court basically protects the people from themselves, not from their politicians.
In ACA the people, via their constitution have granted the government the power to collect taxes AND penalties for the furtherance of the goals of the people and ACA thrives within that context.
When Roberts says he’s not protecting the people from their politicians, he’s basically saying he’s not playing politics AND that the people must be accountable for the laws their duly elected representatives enact. Intervention only occurs when those laws violate already documented rights and freedoms.
That might actually have some merit if the law upheld were the one that was passed congress.
If Roberts(it’s not our job to protect the electorate from their political choices) really feels as such he should find away to officially vacate Marbury and be done with it.
It’s the SCOTUS’ job to protect us from the elected officials.
It’s obvious you don’t understand the concept of constitutional republic.
Let me know when you’ve read the opinion itself so you can see for yourself that no one accepts your kindergarten-level analysis even the result you like is reached.
I am a little surprised that none here has even addressed the fact that the law goes well beyond just healthcare. This monstrosity has a litany of other things built into it. From closet gun control to additional taxation the list is (metaphorically) endless. It’s not just the usual political pork either. This is truly an assault on the American way of life.
Patrick, I’d love to see a credible source to back up your claim that the Affordable Care Act has anything attached to it regarding gun control. That’s a mighty steep claim. (I know unrelated stuff gets slipped into a lot of legislation but I’d like to see this documented.)
R, you were asked a question by Tex on your blog after the bullshit Roberts’ opinion that you’ve never responded to. Let’s try it here:
Is there any restriction on what our government can do? Is there one thing that you might find as restriction on Obama if he were for it?
Can government force us to buy solar power for instance? Can they force us to buy hybrid cars, if they so dictate? If not, why not?
Enquiring minds want to know.
I just answered this at my place. I won’t repeat the symbolic argument I made there but I will repeat here:
I kinda think the “what can government do? What’s your limit?” question is sorta dumb honestly.
Government CAN do whatever we let it do. We don’t live in a dictatorship. We still have elections … mostly honest ones. When the pendulum swings too far one way, we always send it swinging back the other way. It’s been true for over 200 years.
Please Rutherford, Gun Owners of America has been all over that part of it since this monstrosity was first revealed. At least when that part was…
Please Rutherford, Gun Owners of America has been all over that part of it since this monstrosity was first revealed. At least when that part was…
http://www.google.com/search?q=obamacare%20%2B%20gun%20control&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&source=hp&channel=np
There’s a list of various places. Which, if any, you consider credible is up to you. GoA is the second largest Gun Rights organization in the nation. Headed up by a former Senator, and NRA board member that got sick of the NRA sell outs.
Thanks Patrick … I skimmed the first GOA article that popped up on Google. I could not be happier. Now we’ll have a way to make sure that CRAZY people do not get guns. Crazy people should not have them.
BRAVO!
First though, we need to define “crazy.” Someone that is in the midst of a transitory PTSD is not going to be that way forever. The grief process being a prime example. A clear cut, doable and practical system for the restoration of rights needs to be put into place so that any and all citizens can have any, and all rights restored, not subject to the trials of the Political Correctness of the day. Or ex post facto applications of law, and yes, the taking of a right is an additional punishment.
Sorry to interrupt but here’s an example of Obamacare going well beyond healthcare
Perhaps it’s not what Patrick meant but it is an example.
As for whether SCOTUS should “protect us from ourselves” vis a vis our elected representatives. That would carry a helluva lot more weight it the law upheld were the one actually passed by congress.
And R, as I said at your place, nice non-answer. Sorta dumb dodge really.
The very dumb question was the one posed at oral arguments before the Supreme Court. Really fucking dumb.