Limiting Principle: "So Far, the Medicaid Expansion Looks Safe"

But.

Conservative justices pressed Obama's mouthpiece for a limiting principle to his assertion that the government could compel you to buy something.

The justices want the same thing regarding the ObamaCare's coercive mandates that states greatly expand Medicaid, on pain of losing all funds. They want a limiting principle there, a bright line where they can say on one side of it, the federal government is behaving appropriately, but on the other side of it, they are usurping states' prerogatives and powers in the federal system.

Or else surely the federal government can just do whatever it likes, right? And whatever we think about ObamaCare, we know, as a foundational fact, that the American system of government is not premised on the idea that the federal government can do whatever it likes.

A common useful phrase in law is "But that proves too much." You have to be careful of that. If your suggested rule "proves too much" -- winds up resulting in unexpected or plainly-wrong situations, like "the federal government can do whatever it likes, really" -- your suggested rule can't possibly be correct. There has to be some corollary rule that would stop your main rule from reaching that absurd conclusion. And if you can't think of such a corollary rule, such a limiting principle, it casts doubt on the main rule you're pushing.

SCOTUSBlog reports:

So far in the [Solicitor General's] argument, significant pressure from the conservatives to acknowledge some line beyond which threats to funding are coercive. But no strong questions that this particular extension goes too far. So far, it looks safe.

Kind of a mix, there, obviously. On one hand, the Solicitor General can't offer up a limit to the power he's claiming to force states to do the federal government's bidding. On the other hand, no one is asserting (or asserting in the guise of a question) that this particular overreach is too much overreach.

Not sure how you would "ask" that "question" though. Seems if they're asking about a limiting principle, they're already entertaining the notion that this, too, goes too far.

Why This Is Important: If the justices also think this is unconstitutional, there's no possible way to keep the whole law alive.

One gaping hole in the side of a ship? Well, okay, I guess maybe you can bail and seal off that compartment.

Two gaping holes? Scuttle it.

Philip Klein, at the Court: Some Tough Questions, But He'd Be "Surprised" if Court Struck Down Law on This Basis. @philipaklein is reporting via tweet on the Medicaid discussion.

Here are his most recent tweets. They're in reverse order, so start at the bottom, you morons.

To clarify prior tweet, I'd be surprised if they struck down Medicaid expansion. Of course, it would be moot if they struck down whole law.

Kennedy on Medicaid expansion: "There is no real choice." [i.e., this is not a carrot from the government -- it's a pure command, on penalty of losing a huge amount of your own citizens' tax money. -- ace]

Scalia after Verrilli struggled to answer him: "I wouldn't think that would be a surprise question."

Scalia likened the Medicaid expansion to the fed gov't making states an offer they can't refuse.

Also, Scalia managed to make a Jack Benny joke and a Godfather reference in one line of questioning on Medicaid.

Alito and Scalia seemed most sympathetic to arg that Medicaid expansion was coercive. Kennedy expressed concerns, but harder to read.

On the other hand, Roberts said that states have been compromised since New Deal by dependence on federal money. (2/2)

On one hand, Roberts seemed concerned abt Medicaid expansion being coercive. (1/2)

Just got out of Medicaid args. Tough to say, but I'd be surprised if they struck it down.

Summary: Klein has now put his thoughts into a short report that you don't have to read from the bottom up.

Posted by: Ace at 02:41 PM



Comments

1 I'd like the see a few states take the plunge and drop out of medicaid altogether.

Posted by: toby928 at March 28, 2012 02:43 PM (GTbGH)

2 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: steevy at March 28, 2012 02:43 PM (7W3wI)

3 Meh, we lost the "federal funding threats are coercive of state action" argment decades ago (Dole) on highway funds being linked to mandatory drinking age increases.

Posted by: wooga at March 28, 2012 02:43 PM (vjyZP)

4 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable tyrant.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 28, 2012 02:44 PM (8y9MW)

5 Just throw the whole freaken obscenity out and start again. It's the 2nd cousin of " Let's take off and nuke it from space. It's the only way to be sure".

Posted by: nevergiveup at March 28, 2012 02:45 PM (i6RpT)

6 Medicaid is currently averaging 20% of state budgets?

Posted by: Don't hate the player at March 28, 2012 02:47 PM (1GlXg)

7 Meh, we lost the "federal funding threats are coercive of state action"
argment decades ago (Dole) on highway funds being linked to mandatory
drinking age increases.


1) This may be a way to open that back up.

2) It's a different kettle of fish. If I (as a State) were to accept highway funds, I would not, necessarily, be required to furnish any additional highway funds. They're issued, and then they're spent, and that's more-or-less it. With Medicaid, the program is "joint" which means that forcing additional members onto its rosters increases the necessary State funding, over and above what is provided by the Federal Government.

So, I could (under this theory) issue highway funds with mandates, because the State has the option to accept them or reject them, and their is no assumption of expenditure on their part: they might fund an entire project just from Federal Funds. I could not (under this theory) mandate a Medicaid expansion, because that is the Federal Government forcing the States to fund something.

I only got 4 hrs sleep last night, so I'm not sure that was completely coherent...

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 28, 2012 02:49 PM (8y9MW)

8 Fox reports that the White House spin team is working on an attack piece slamming SCOTUS for being partisan.

The writing on the wall???

Posted by: Justamom at March 28, 2012 02:49 PM (Sptt8)

9 The new health reform law enacted March 23, 2010 (P.L. 111-148, H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or PPACA, as amended by P.L. 111-152), did not extend the ARRA FMAPs. PPACA requires that for states to get any Medicaid matching funds, they cannot make Medicaid or CHIP "eligibility standards, methodologies, or procedures" more restrictive than those in effect on March 23, 2010, PPACA's enactment date. In 2014, the law requires states with Medicaid programs to expand coverage to some currently ineligible low-income parents and childless adults. For these newly eligible individuals, states will have a 100% FMAP for three years and then slightly reduced rates well above regular FMAPs.

Posted by: something plucked out of google at March 28, 2012 02:50 PM (GTbGH)

10 Fox reports that the White House spin team is working on an attack piece slamming SCOTUS for being partisan.



The irony....it burns!

Posted by: Tami at March 28, 2012 02:50 PM (X6akg)

11 8Well,we always knew they would do that in the event of a strike down.

Posted by: steevy at March 28, 2012 02:51 PM (7W3wI)

12 I'm sick of all the bullshit. The Founding Fathers were all about freedom and the limiting of the Federal hydra. This bill is 180 degrees out of phase with the intent of the Constitution and bill of rights. If this bill (Zerocare) isn't declared unconstitutional, the constitution means nothing, and civil war is a matter of when rather than if.

Posted by: maddogg at March 28, 2012 02:51 PM (OlN4e)

13 It's frightening that there are 4 guaranteed votes for this blatantly unconstitutional power grab.

Posted by: something plucked out of google at March 28, 2012 02:52 PM (GTbGH)

14 dammit

Posted by: toby928 at March 28, 2012 02:52 PM (GTbGH)

15 Fox reports that the White House spin team is working on an attack piece slamming SCOTUS for being partisan. **********
Just preparing you pussy ass crackers for my addition of twenty new Supreme Court justices.

Posted by: Barack Hussein Obama at March 28, 2012 02:52 PM (ggRof)

16 8 Fox reports that the White House spin team is working on an attack piece slamming SCOTUS for being partisan.

That's one way of winning friends and influencing people...

Posted by: Mikey NTH at March 28, 2012 02:53 PM (hLRSq)

17 Can they bring up the Waivers that have been issued for Obamacare?

What about 'equal treatment under the law'? .....It seems to me like that's another gaping hole.

Posted by: wheatie...who found an '&' at March 28, 2012 02:53 PM (dEMjC)

18 Look, if they find that this threat isn't "coercive" then they have basically nullified the important part of the Dole decision. Because if this amount of money isn't "coercive," nothing is.

Posted by: Rich at March 28, 2012 02:53 PM (3lAjR)

19 Two gaping holes? Scuttle it.

Eeey, justa go out for a few drinks and it'll scuttle itself!

Posted by: Captain Francisco Schettino at March 28, 2012 02:53 PM (VMcoS)

20 Limiting Principle: "So Far, the Medicaid Expansion Looks Safe"
Great ... the part that it is MOST important to get rid of - not just in ObamaCare but at the federal level, in all, and which the idiot Republicans can never be bothered to even talk about ... the stupid fuckheads.

This country is so screwed - no matter how this retarded SCOTUS decision eventually goes. We have retards running pretty much everything.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at March 28, 2012 02:54 PM (X3lox)

21 Ummm, turn around, the limiting bright line is way behind us.

Posted by: dogfish at March 28, 2012 02:54 PM (NuPNl)

22 Meh, we lost the "federal funding threats are coercive of state action" argment decades ago (Dole) on highway funds being linked to mandatory drinking age increases.

------------

No that's actually where we got a foot-hold. Dole is the first case opening the door that there might be some level of coerciveness that is too much.

Posted by: Rich at March 28, 2012 02:55 PM (3lAjR)

23 Two gaping holes? Scuttle it.
***********
Oh, you call it scuttling now?

Posted by: Sandra Fluke at March 28, 2012 02:55 PM (ggRof)

24 One thing for sure, Justamom, if the White House political team is swinging into action, they see the writing on the wall. They are going to try for intimidation to swing the Kennedy vote.

If we start seeing the talking heads and Dem operatives hitting the MFM and spreading talking point, then Kagan has let them know that the preliminary vote is 5-4 for tossing the whole law.

Posted by: Dave in Fla at March 28, 2012 02:55 PM (j+DX4)

25 19 Two gaping holes? Scuttle it.

There are better solutions.

Posted by: Sanrda Fluke at March 28, 2012 02:55 PM (vjyZP)

26 #19 Captain Schettino

Now THAT'S funny.

Posted by: speedster1 at March 28, 2012 02:56 PM (v40Bj)

27 This is how a community organizer governs.

Throw shit at the wall and see what sticks. Then walk away and harass someone else.

Posted by: PJ at March 28, 2012 02:57 PM (DQHjw)

28 ObamaCare II: The Mau-mauing.

Posted by: toby928 at March 28, 2012 02:57 PM (GTbGH)

29 Limits? Who the fuck would put limits in there?

And who the hell made all these White Hispanics in charge of my law?

Posted by: Baraqa Obama at March 28, 2012 02:58 PM (FcR7P)

30 No that's actually where we got a foot-hold. Dole is the first case opening the door that there might be some level of coerciveness that is too much.

I hope so. I hope you an AllenG are right that there is some sort of argument here. But I long ago gave up hope on this issue (pre-Obamacare), and have been barely holding onto Lopez (limiting commerce clause) as the means for restricting federal power.

Posted by: wooga at March 28, 2012 02:58 PM (vjyZP)

31 16 8 Fox reports that the White House spin team is working on an attack piece slamming SCOTUS for being partisan.

That's one way of winning friends and influencing people...
Posted by: Mikey NTH at March 28, 2012 02:53 PM (hLRSq)



Hopefully it comes out sometime in the next month or so. Kennedy will go apeshit.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at March 28, 2012 02:58 PM (Af3Wg)

32
The writing on the wall???

Posted by: Justamom at March 28, 2012 02:49 PM (Sptt

Well, it would make sense for Barry to attack the court if it strikes down Obamacare. It would motivate his base, I guess, and that's all he really has these days. But actually proposing to do anything about the courts would likely backfire, I mean, this has been tried before and he doesn't have anywhere near the pull as FDR had early on.
All he could do was use it to help him win reelection in order to appoint another justice. But even if it helped him win the issue would still be dead. There's no way this type of legislation could get through again unless the R's completely cave and lose badly the midterms in 2014.

I'm sticking with my gut that tells me they are out of ideas, incompetent, and are just treading water.

Posted by: runninrebel at March 28, 2012 02:58 PM (N/1Dm)

33 And honestly, some of these judges are asking questions because they want to know if there are legitimate answers, not because they've already formed an opinion and jsut want a lawyer to write it for him. At least I think this true of SOME of the judges.

Posted by: Rich at March 28, 2012 02:59 PM (3lAjR)

34 Two gaping holes? Scuttle it.


Good.

Posted by: Truman North at March 28, 2012 02:59 PM (I2LwF)

35 Throw shit at the wall and see what sticks. Then walk away and harass someone else.


Posted by: PJ at March 28, 2012 02:57 PM



Until you get your way. Rinse. Repeat.

Posted by: mama winger at March 28, 2012 02:59 PM (P6QsQ)

36 Kennedy will go apeshit.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at March 28, 2012 02:58 PM (Af3Wg)

I think it'll go over his head.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at March 28, 2012 02:59 PM (X3lox)

37 I hope so. I hope you an AllenG are right that there is some sort of argument here. But I long ago gave up hope on this issue (pre-Obamacare), and have been barely holding onto Lopez (limiting commerce clause) as the means for restricting federal power.

---------

I'm not saying we are going to win the argument. Just that, if the Supreme Court even believed an ounce of what it wrote in Dole, then this is "to coercive." However, they very well might totally reject what they said 25 years ago (even w/o expressly rejecting it). They do that all the time.

Posted by: Rich at March 28, 2012 03:00 PM (3lAjR)

38 8 Fox reports that the White House spin team is working on an attack piece slamming SCOTUS for being partisan.

Perhaps Barky shouldn't have taunted them in his SOTU address.....

Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at March 28, 2012 03:00 PM (0xqzf)

39 How long before President Putt-Putt throws Pelosi and Reid under the golf cart?

Posted by: Fritz at March 28, 2012 03:01 PM (KWdVT)

40 I don't think Barry's gonna win rallying his base. That won't win the center.

If this is overturned, it's egg on his face. The happytalk from Carville et al is meaningless-- it takes it off the table, except leaves the thought of 'Send Obama back to try that shit again? No way.'

Posted by: nickless at March 28, 2012 03:01 PM (MMC8r)

41 4 justices would support a bill granting the president prima nocta if it was a Democratic bill.

Posted by: toby928 at March 28, 2012 03:02 PM (GTbGH)

42 Ummm, turn around, the limiting bright line is way behind us.

Posted by: dogfish at March 28, 2012 02:54 PM (NuPNl)


You'll need a Hubble telescope to find it.

Posted by: Count de Monet at March 28, 2012 03:02 PM (4q5tP)

43 Fox reports that the White House spin team is working on an attack piece slamming SCOTUS for being partisan. The writing on the wall??? Posted by: Justamom

Oh I so hope that is true. What a insanely bad tactical fail. Antagonize the highest court in the land... Beast mode genius there.

Ya'know, I really do think the Oministration is just that incompetent they will try it.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at March 28, 2012 03:02 PM (qOfw/)

44 So when we will find out what our black-hooded majesties have decided the constitution says?

I refuse to get my hopes up. Just curious when to expect the results of their Talmudic wisdom.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at March 28, 2012 03:02 PM (ZPrif)

45 I think that if the Republicans take the Senate, White House, and hold the congress, they need to take the opportunity to rewrite the fucking commerse clause so that it can never again be used as a weapon to increase the government or destroy rights. It is badly written, and lends itself to as much interpretation as if it were written in Martian.

Posted by: maddogg at March 28, 2012 03:03 PM (OlN4e)

46 I'm sticking with my gut that tells me they are out of ideas, incompetent, and are just treading water.

Oh, yeah? Just wait until I declare marshall law over the Trayvon case! Somebody get Marshall on the phone, I'll do it right now! Laugh THAT off, white boy! Oh, wait, I have a 2:30 tee time. But your ass is doomed tomorrow, cracka!

Posted by: President Barack Obama, The People's President For The People at March 28, 2012 03:03 PM (VMcoS)

47 they very well might totally reject what they said 25 years ago

Word.

Posted by: Bowers v. Hardwick at March 28, 2012 03:03 PM (GTbGH)

48 Limiting principle? Little bit late for that!!!!

Posted by: The Chicken at March 28, 2012 03:03 PM (mM9iR)

49 See, the thing is as well as this is going, it could be going so much better. If we had 4 more Thomas(es) on the Court, not only would this entire thing be overturned, we'd also overturn the last 75 years of the commerce clause jurisprudence.

Posted by: Rich at March 28, 2012 03:03 PM (3lAjR)

50 Yeah, all the signs point to incompetence. We should always be sure to underestimate this bunch.

Posted by: runninrebel at March 28, 2012 03:04 PM (N/1Dm)

51 >>Conservative justices pressed Obama's mouthpiece

I'm available ever since my boss melted.

Posted by: Mouth of Sauron at March 28, 2012 03:04 PM (5H6zj)

52 4 justices would support a bill granting the president prima nocta if it was a Democratic bill.


Posted by: toby928 at March 28, 2012 03:02 PM (GTbGH)

Yep. And that's a good part of the reason why this nation is a joke and will not last much longer. You can't fight against such positive entropy for any extended period of time. And an election change won't do jack shit to help this. These "justices" need to be impeached and removed. The empathetic latina is an affront to millenia of Western jurisprudence and Kagan perjured herself in her confirmation hearings. They both need to go.

Of course, I wouldn't hold my breath for any of that ... which is why we are so fucked.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at March 28, 2012 03:05 PM (X3lox)

53 The Justices might be reluctant to overturn if they consider that Spike Lee will tweet their home addresses.

Posted by: nickless at March 28, 2012 03:05 PM (MMC8r)

54 updated with tweets from Philip Klein, just coming from the arguments.

Posted by: ace at March 28, 2012 03:05 PM (nj1bB)

55
Giving entire States a Waiver from Obamacare....and not others. ....Giving certain companies a Waiver....and not others. ....Giving unions and certain religions a Waiver....and not others. ....This, to me, seems like blatant favoritism in the enforcement of the Obamacare law.

Does anyone know if this has been put before the Justices....or if it can be put before them, as a factor in their deliberation?

Posted by: wheatie at March 28, 2012 03:06 PM (dEMjC)

56 I have a hard time believing that Team Barry losing this case would be good for the Democrats, but I do think it would be fantastic for Romney. Then the Romneycare issue kind of goes away, andit'll be easier for him tosay he's not a Socialist.

I mean, he's been saying that Romneycare is okay as a state thing, just not at the Federal level (which, um, whatever, man) and that he'd repeal Obamacare if elected (which I don't really believe, but I like that he says so).

If Obamacare's off the table, so'sRomney's biggest weakness. There's plenty to go after Team Barry anyway, and then the Dems lose their big "achievement" that they worked so hard and so long for.

To say nothing of all the wishy-washy "moderates" who will see Obama as feckless and without any accomplishments.

Posted by: Lance McCormick at March 28, 2012 03:06 PM (zgHLA)

57 The irony is that the "black"justice is on the Conservative side of this decision, so Barky and his merry crew of race-baiters can't claim that SCOTUS is a bunch of"RAAAAACISTS!!!!!"

Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at March 28, 2012 03:06 PM (0xqzf)

58 OT: Virginia's in play alright. Michelle to give commencement address at Virginia Tech.

Posted by: Jinxthecat at March 28, 2012 03:06 PM (l3vZN)

59 updated with tweets from Philip Klein, just coming from the arguments.

'The Supreme Court is like a hunnert years old.'

Oh, PHILIP Klein.

Posted by: nickless at March 28, 2012 03:07 PM (MMC8r)

60 Can they order Nancy Pelosi to eat every page of the bill ?

Posted by: Cast Iron at March 28, 2012 03:07 PM (EL+OC)

61 Hope Still Rising.

Posted by: toby928 at March 28, 2012 03:08 PM (GTbGH)

62 Wake me when it's over.

Posted by: Dr Spank at March 28, 2012 03:08 PM (KNvk+)

63 I think they already decided to throw out the whole damn thing, so they didn't engage as much on the Medicaid issue. I also think just from a legal-scholarly point of view, the Medicaid issue is not very sexy. The sex in this case is the individual mandate.

Posted by: rockmom at March 28, 2012 03:10 PM (NYnoe)

64 On the other hand, Roberts said that states have been compromised since New Deal by dependence on federal money. (2/2)

No offense to Justice Roberts, but wouldn't this mean that now is a good time to, I dunno, draw a line in the sand and reassert the 10th amendment?

Y'know, just sayin'.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO Supporter at March 28, 2012 03:10 PM (4df7R)

65 OT: Virginia's in play alright. Michelle to give commencement address at Virginia Tech.

Ugh.
You're gonna hear booing. Count it.

Posted by: Bat Chain Puller, VT Alum at March 28, 2012 03:11 PM (SCcgT)

66
Yeah, as for all those lefty spinmeisters (Reid has joined them now) saying overturning Obamacare would be a win . . .

Let's REALLY help the bastard out and make him give back all our TARP money and let GM go bankrupt and toss out his shitty tax policies?

Posted by: arhooley at March 28, 2012 03:11 PM (QSPWn)

67 Fox reports that the White House spin team is working on an attack piece slamming SCOTUS for being partisan.

---------


Well... there arent ANY State of the Union Speeches scheduled before the election....

Posted by: fixerupper at March 28, 2012 03:11 PM (C8hzL)

68 On the other hand, Roberts said that states have been compromised since New Deal by dependence on federal money. (2/2)
On one hand, Roberts seemed concerned abt Medicaid expansion being coercive. (1/2)


I don't see these as a "on the one hand... on the other..." pairing. They're part of the same thing: "The Medicaid Expansion is coercive. The States have been compromised since the New Deal."

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 28, 2012 03:11 PM (8y9MW)

69 I think that if the Republicans take the Senate, White House, and hold the congress, they need to take the opportunity to rewrite the fucking commerse clause so that it can never again be used as a weapon to increase the government or destroy rights. It is badly written, and lends itself to as much interpretation as if it were written in Martian.

--------

Honestly, I don't think the Commerce Clause was that difficult to understand. When you compare "the states" to the rest of the clause "foreign nations and indian tribes" it's hard to then imagine by "the states" they meant "the individual and a private company." The states would seem to be referring to actual, state action that has an effect on commerce.

The leading commerce clause case, Ogden, always stands for the idea that the commerce clause is expansive. That's what you're taught in law school. But that case actually fucking dealt with a situation that the commerce clause was intended to govern.. New York had given a monoply to one guy to run and control the ferry business across the entire New York harbor, which restricted trade not only to New York, but to New Jersey. This was a govt. action that actually hampered trade between multiple states DIRECTLY (it was not allowing a competing Ferry business, that operated from New Jersey to New York to continue). Here we have an actual, state caused restriction of commerce between one state and another state, and it is as direct as can be. This is EXACTLY the type of situation the commerce clause was meant to regulate over.

AND THIS IS THE CASE USED TO TELL US THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IS EVER EXPANSIVE, NEVER ENDING IN ITS LIMITS, AND REACHING ALL THE WAY TO THE UNINVOLVED INDIVIDUAL.

Amazing.

Posted by: Rich at March 28, 2012 03:11 PM (3lAjR)

70 Can't wait until the "best thing for the Democrats will be for Obama to lose in November" excuses start. Then you'll know they know they're ****ed.

Posted by: The Mega Independent at March 28, 2012 03:13 PM (mM9iR)

71 The irony is that the "black"justice is on the Conservative side of this decision, so Barky and his merry crew of race-baiters can't claim that SCOTUS is a bunch of"RAAAAACISTS!!!!!"

----------

Greater irony is the black justice is the MOST conservative.

Posted by: Rich at March 28, 2012 03:13 PM (3lAjR)

72 The sound of me fapping if this gets overturned will be audible on Triton, the largest moon of Neptune.

Posted by: Mr Pink at March 28, 2012 03:13 PM (jQJ5K)

73 Raunchy porn has ruined my appreciation of nautical metaphors.

Posted by: runninrebel at March 28, 2012 03:14 PM (N/1Dm)

74 I'd like to see how this all ties into Obama cutting Texas women's health Medicaid funds because Texas cut Planned Parenthood funding. Perry said FU and did it anyway. Could other states do the same and opt out of funds to maintain independence?

Posted by: Lauren at March 28, 2012 03:14 PM (32mdF)

75 I don't see these as a "on the one hand... on the other..." pairing. They're part of the same thing: "The Medicaid Expansion is coercive. The States have been compromised since the New Deal."

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 28, 2012 03:11 PM (8y9MW)


THIS. I don't know how those two points are at all counterbalanced. They're both weights on the negative side of the scale.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO Supporter at March 28, 2012 03:14 PM (4df7R)

76
Id like one of the justices to bring up the lefts pet theory of "emerging consensus" in the discussion.... and drop the fact that 2/3rds of the electorate think that this monstrosity is UN-constitutional right in Ruth's skinny lap.

Posted by: fixerupper at March 28, 2012 03:14 PM (C8hzL)

77
Why yes, my great-grandfather was a sailor on the SS Titanic. Hell of a lookout when on watch.

Posted by: Some Lawyer Named Verrilli at March 28, 2012 03:15 PM (XCHGh)

78 Prima nocta...now that's funneh.
"I have declared Elena Kagan to be my high counselor..."

Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at March 28, 2012 03:15 PM (uslQu)

79 74 I'd like to see how this all ties into Obama cutting Texas women's health Medicaid funds because Texas cut Planned Parenthood funding. Perry said FU and did it anyway. Could other states do the same and opt out of funds to maintain independence?

Posted by: Lauren at March 28, 2012 03:14 PM (32mdF)


They should!

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO Supporter at March 28, 2012 03:15 PM (4df7R)

80 Honestly, I don't think the Commerce Clause was that difficult to understand. When you compare "the states" to the rest of the clause "foreign nations and indian tribes" it's hard to then imagine by "the states" they meant "the individual and a private company."
**********
Now you know why I love foreign law so much. I plan to enforce Obamacare on other countries!

Posted by: Anthony Kennedy at March 28, 2012 03:16 PM (ggRof)

81 >>I'd like to see how this all ties into Obama cutting Texas women's
health Medicaid funds because Texas cut Planned Parenthood funding.

I remember him threatening to to cut off funds for Indiana's low-income-children's program if other funds weren't used for abortions, but I don't remember how that ended up.

Gotta kill the children to save the children, or some shit.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at March 28, 2012 03:17 PM (ZKzrr)

82 I like the tone coming out of SCOTUS, however, I currently still believe that they will find some way to find it constitutional. That is my fear still at least.

Posted by: JAFKIAC at March 28, 2012 03:17 PM (Rb0Fy)

83 The leading commerce clause case, Ogden, always
stands for the idea that the commerce clause is expansive. That's what
you're taught in law school. But that case actually fucking dealt with a
situation that the commerce clause was intended to govern..
Amazing.

Posted by: Rich


Indeed.

Now was that the first case the SCOTUS considered, not just granted cert? Or, were there previous cases that SCOTUS rejected?

Posted by: weft cut-loop at March 28, 2012 03:17 PM (qOfw/)

84 Can they order Nancy Pelosi to eat every page of the bill ?
Posted by: Cast Iron at March 28, 2012 03:07 PM (EL+OC)
----------------------------Well, she did say "We have to *pass* the bill to see what's in it."

Posted by: arhooley at March 28, 2012 03:18 PM (QSPWn)

85 The New Deal was a series of economic programs implemented in the United States between 1933 and 1936. They were passed by the U.S. Congress during the first term of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. You may now continue.

Posted by: @SOEarpiece at March 28, 2012 03:18 PM (GTbGH)

86 #56 I don't see any way it's good for Obama if his "signature initiative" gets thrown out, even on a 5-4 ruling. And I don't think it will be 5-4, I think John Roberts will do whatever it takes to get one or two of the libs to go along so that it is not seen as a partisan ruling. Or it could end up like Bush v. Gore, with the mandate being struck down by 7-2 but the entire law being struck down by only 5-4.

I would not assume that this decision will wait until June to be announced either.

Posted by: rockmom at March 28, 2012 03:18 PM (NYnoe)

87 >>The irony is that the "black"justice is on the Conservative side of this
decision, so Barky and his merry crew of race-baiters can't claim that
SCOTUS is a bunch of"RAAAAACISTS!!!!!"

Oh, are they allowing Clarence Thomas to be "black" again? Last I heard, he was kicked out of their little club for failure to believe as he was told.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at March 28, 2012 03:18 PM (ZKzrr)

88 Honestly, I don't think the Commerce Clause was that difficult to
understand. When you compare "the states" to the rest of the clause "foreign nations and indian tribes" it's hard to then imagine by "the states" they meant "the individual and a private company."



You cannot win an argument just by being right.

Posted by: Brother Barry, Four Lions at March 28, 2012 03:19 PM (X3lox)

89 Can they order Nancy Pelosi to eat every page of the bill

No... no... PLEASE!!!!!!! Nooooooooooooooooooo!!

Posted by: Every Page of the Bill at March 28, 2012 03:19 PM (mM9iR)

90 Don't make me tweet this. The next random elderly couple to be made homeless could be you!

Posted by: Spike Lee at March 28, 2012 03:20 PM (FcR7P)

91 The administrator should have had Tom Hagen as their lawyer.

Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at March 28, 2012 03:20 PM (uslQu)

92
-Scalia after Verrilli struggled to answer him: "I wouldn't think that would be a surprise question."-
Boom...taste my nightstick.

Posted by: Javelina Bomb at March 28, 2012 03:20 PM (VGlJT)

93 Well, she did say "We have to *pass* the bill to see what's in it."
Posted by: arhooley at March 28, 2012 03:18 PM (QSPWn)
************
Have you read the bill? We DID pass it first.

Posted by: Nancy Pelosi's bowels at March 28, 2012 03:21 PM (ggRof)

94 Ask any doctor, if there's one health insurance plan that is flush with cash and pays all of its bills on time, it's Medicaid....HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Medicaid is completely fucking broke. The various state Medicaid plans owe my company >$10million. What a joke. "Hey see that business that's drowning in debt and can't pay its bills, let's EXPAND it." The Democrap way.

Posted by: Hedgehog at March 28, 2012 03:21 PM (3jGS1)

95 "17
Can they bring up the Waivers that have been issued for Obamacare?

What about 'equal treatment under the law'? .....It seems to me like that's another gaping hole."


What other laws are we going to hand out waivers for? I want a waiver for my taxes.

Posted by: Lemmiwinks at March 28, 2012 03:21 PM (61yvg)

96 >>You cannot win an argument just by being right.

Don't we know that.

Posted by: Husbands Everywhere at March 28, 2012 03:22 PM (ZKzrr)

97 And the left killing Verrili over this is hilarious. They attribute his inability to answer the Scalie/Alito question of "if they can do this, what can't they do" to his own ineptitude. Fact is: NO ONE CAN FUCKING ANSWER THIS QUESTION. Because the only correct is, NOTHING. If they can do this, THERE IS NOTHING THEY CANT DO. And the left kills this guy because he didn't say that? If he says that, it's even worse. So, instead, he's left to stammer and studder because that's his only option as there is no other correct answer, or even believable answer that he could give.

Posted by: Rich at March 28, 2012 03:22 PM (3lAjR)

98 NYT headline over at Hot Air "If ObamaCare falls, liberals might push for greater government control of health care"

Yeah, that is the look of liberals trying to salvage something out of a major loss. It's either a threat (pass this law or the next one will be worse) or a fig leaf for the disappointed (next time we will get a BETTER law).

Posted by: Morgan and Morgan at March 28, 2012 03:22 PM (j+DX4)

99 Get Capt. Schettino on the phone. I may need to learn more about using lifeboats...

Posted by: Baraka O at March 28, 2012 03:22 PM (FcR7P)

100 "coercive mandates that states greatly expand Medicaid, on pain of losing all funds."

So? I pay taxes for medicaid, yet I receive nothing from it. I'd be most people who pay taxes are probably in a similar situation, so we are already losing our tax money.

So what is really happening is people who don't pay taxes are losing the benefit.

I'm not seeing the problem here.

Posted by: blindside at March 28, 2012 03:22 PM (x7g7t)

101 Does Clarence Thomas only count as 3/5 of a vote? Should still be 4.6 to 4.

Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at March 28, 2012 03:22 PM (uslQu)

102
keeping my fingers crossed for a full-body smackdown...

Posted by: Shoey at March 28, 2012 03:23 PM (jdOk/)

103 Yeah Kennedy is the one that laughingly cites foreign law. He wont vote to overturn this.

Posted by: Mr Pink at March 28, 2012 03:23 PM (jQJ5K)

104 What other laws are we going to hand out waivers for? I want a waiver for my taxes.


Posted by: Lemmiwinks at March 28, 2012 03:21 PM (61yvg)


Those waivers are only for cabinet positions. Try again.

Posted by: Timma Geithner at March 28, 2012 03:23 PM (X3lox)

105
96
>>You cannot win an argument just by being right.

Don't we know that.


Posted by: Husbands Everywhere at March 28, 2012 03:22 PM (ZKzrr)
-----------
Damn.... my IT guy is gonna be pissed I trashed another monitor.

Posted by: fixerupper at March 28, 2012 03:23 PM (C8hzL)

106 Well, she did say "We have to *pass* the bill to see what's in it."

Posted by: arhooley at March 28, 2012 03:18 PM (QSPWn)

************

Have you read the bill? We DID pass it first.

Posted by: Nancy Pelosi's bowels at March 28, 2012 03:21 PM (ggRof)Well, geez. If they had to wait to pass the bill until Shirley Jackson Lee finished reading it, it wouldn't get passed until our grandchildren's grandchildren were having grandchildren.

Posted by: WalrusRex at March 28, 2012 03:23 PM (Hx5uv)

107 What other laws are we going to hand out waivers for? I want a waiver for my taxes.


Posted by: Lemmiwinks at March 28, 2012 03:21 PM (61yvg)

Uhhhh, ummmm, sorry I gave GE the last one...

Posted by: Sir Golfs Alot at March 28, 2012 03:24 PM (3jGS1)

108 Now all we can do is wait. The SCOTUS is a fickle beast. Plus, the oral arguments were just a small part of what the justices will be looking at. Tick tick tick tick tick.

Posted by: Soona at March 28, 2012 03:24 PM (+QHB8)

109 Damn sock fail

Posted by: Dave in Fla at March 28, 2012 03:25 PM (j+DX4)

110 85 The New Deal was a series of economic programs implemented in the United States between 1933 and 1936. They were passed by the U.S. Congress during the first term of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. You may now continue.

Posted by: @SOEarpiece at March 28, 2012 03:18 PM (GTbGH)

Winner of the thread.

Posted by: Lance McCormick at March 28, 2012 03:26 PM (zgHLA)

111 101 Does Clarence Thomas only count as 3/5 of a vote? Should still be 4.6 to 4.
Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at March 28, 2012 03:22 PM (uslQu)

If the statist had their way, conservatives would count for 0/5 of a vote.

Posted by: blindside at March 28, 2012 03:27 PM (x7g7t)

112 Kos diary titled "Abandon Ship? Best Country for Progressive to Move To?"

In which the reality based community, considering thepotential strikedown of ObamaCare, weighs the pros and cons of going ex-pat somewhere, or staying and building a Progressive utopia.

Ironically, Detroit has not yet been mentioned. Though Cuba has.

Posted by: Count de Monet at March 28, 2012 03:27 PM (4q5tP)

113 hannity just played the part where one of the justices say (paraphrasing) "you can't expect us to read the whole law or make our law clerks read the whole law". When I heard that I thought to myself "where have I heard that before"...oh yeah it's what the legislators thought about the bill but didn't say.

why not have an amendment to the bill that cost us money, the one which is supposed to prevent them from making money on inside information, which says "a bill can only be a page"....

Posted by: chic at March 28, 2012 03:27 PM (oZfic)

114 To a lay person, this stuff doesn't seem like it should be complicated at all. The fact that it is would be all the indication we need that something is wrong with the system.

Look, I know this law stuff is important, but then so are colonscopies. I don't have any interest in looking up inside people's starfish either. Wake me when the decision is made, so I know whether to break out the party hats and cake, or the pitchfork and torches.

Posted by: BurtTC at March 28, 2012 03:27 PM (TOk1P)

115 "I'm going to be touching you near your crack."

This pretty much sums up the Solicitor Generals argument.

Come to think of it, this statement can be apropos to just about any subject discussed at AoSHQ.

Posted by: jwest at March 28, 2012 03:28 PM (FdndL)

116 Ironically, Detroit has not yet been mentioned. Though Cuba has.

I've seen Detroit (or, as my Michigander wife calls it: "Detoilet"), and I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.

I would absolutely love for them to emigrate to Cuba. I might literally hurt myself laughing so hard.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 28, 2012 03:28 PM (8y9MW)

117 What other laws are we going to hand out waivers for?

I'd like a waiver on enforcement of the 15th, 19th, 24thand 26th amendments, because some people are too stupid to be allowed to vote.

Also on the 16th amendment, because I don't like paying taxes.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO Supporter at March 28, 2012 03:29 PM (4df7R)

118 There aren't any laws against drinking cat urine, are there? I'd hate to be a criminal and get shot like poor Trayvon.

Posted by: chic at March 28, 2012 03:29 PM (ggRof)

119 Posted by: BurtTC at March 28, 2012 03:27 PM (TOk1P)

the irony is that a Supreme isn't required to be an attorney, yet they always are.

Posted by: chic at March 28, 2012 03:29 PM (oZfic)

120 118
There aren't any laws against drinking cat urine, are there? I'd hate to be a criminal and get shot like poor Trayvon.

Posted by: chic at March 28, 2012 03:29 PM (ggRof)
not me.....

Posted by: chic at March 28, 2012 03:30 PM (oZfic)

121 Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO Supporter at March 28, 2012 03:29 PM (4df7R)

Don't forget the 17th. I'd like my Senators actually to represent my State's interests.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 28, 2012 03:30 PM (8y9MW)

122 Kos diary titled "Abandon Ship? Best Country for Progressive to Move To?"


Now THAT's hot!!

But, lefty dipshits are lucky. For them, pretty much every other nation on Earth is closer to their "ideal" than America. Sadly, they won't go, for precisely that reason. Just the existence of America puts a burr up their ass that they just can't live with. The left HAS to kill America and turn it into the same sort of shit as the rest of the world (that they refuse to move to). They want nothing else.

To be honest, I don't consider any of these people to be my co-nationals. They are not Americans. They are just anti-Americans.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at March 28, 2012 03:30 PM (X3lox)

123 Fox reports that the White House spin team is working on an attack piece slamming SCOTUS for being partisan.


We all know that's the case, but how sad is it that an entity whose existence is to apply law against The Constitution and see if it fits within its boundaries has some kind of political slant.

There SHOULD be NO PARTISANSHIP in interpreting The Constitution.

Posted by: Sponge at March 28, 2012 03:30 PM (UK9cE)

124 I would absolutely love for them to emigrate to Cuba. I might literally hurt myself laughing so hard.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 28, 2012 03:28 PM (8y9MW)


I would LOVE to see some of these OWS clowns try to protest in Havana. Oh, the FUN that would be.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO Supporter at March 28, 2012 03:32 PM (4df7R)

125 not me.....
Posted by: chic at March 28, 2012 03:30 PM (oZfic)
***********
not me.....

Posted by: chic at March 28, 2012 03:32 PM (ggRof)

126 Posted by: Sponge at March 28, 2012 03:30 PM (UK9cE)

I heard that yesterday Dana Perino gave them an excellent face saving out to this entire mess on I think my friend said "hannity's show". He said it was so good that he wondered if she were a republican. Anyway, I'm not going to repeat what he said she said but they are so dumb if they are going to attack. It's like attacking all the American people, do they not realize this?

Posted by: chic at March 28, 2012 03:33 PM (oZfic)

127 Kos diary titled "Abandon Ship? Best Country for Progressive to Move To?"Posted by: Count de Monet[i/]

As encouraging as it sounds, we both know that the Left isn't exactly known for commitment, follow-through, or believing their own bong-induced declarations.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at March 28, 2012 03:33 PM (qOfw/)

128 is "sws" available as an abbreviation? maybe we could use it a "speaking while stupid"

Posted by: yankeefifth at March 28, 2012 03:33 PM (Z9EHQ)

129 not me.....

Posted by: chic at March 28, 2012 03:30 PM (oZfic)

***********

not me.....

Posted by: chic at March 28, 2012 03:32 PM (ggRof)


not me.....

Posted by: chic at March 28, 2012 03:33 PM (X6akg)

130 Eww

Posted by: toby928 at March 28, 2012 03:33 PM (GTbGH)

131 Here's a mildly diverting political quiz:
http://www.politopia.com/quiz

I lined up with Glenn Beck. heh.

Posted by: Y-not at March 28, 2012 03:33 PM (5H6zj)

132 not me.....


Posted by: chic at March 28, 2012 03:30 PM (oZfic)

Posted by: chic at March 28, 2012 03:34 PM (/izg2)

133 8 Fox reports that the White House spin team is working on an attack piece slamming SCOTUS for being partisan.
---------------------------------

Let them have at it. Our side better be asking the real question:

Why is a Democratic congress passing illegal legislation?

Posted by: Repub's SUCK @ Messaging at March 28, 2012 03:34 PM (ETgqz)

134 Not me either

Posted by: chic at March 28, 2012 03:36 PM (4q5tP)

135 95 , 17
What other laws are we going to hand out waivers for? I want a waiver for my taxes.

Exactly. ....The waivers have been applied to the whole law....Obamacare law. Which contains the mandate. ....That's why I was wondering if the Waivers had even been brought up.

Issuing waivers seems to be another instance of the 'Unconstitutionality' of this thing....and unlike the mandate, the waivers have already occurred.

Posted by: wheatie at March 28, 2012 03:36 PM (dEMjC)

136 Shouldn't President Constitutional Scholar know his laws are unconstitutional?

Posted by: nickless at March 28, 2012 03:37 PM (X7aC8)

137 If they are thinking of attacking the scotus it may be a harbinger of much worse things to come. soctus may rule what they will but they have no enforcement power.

Posted by: yankeefifth at March 28, 2012 03:37 PM (Z9EHQ)

138 Posted by: wheatie at March 28, 2012 03:06 PM (dEMjC)


The waiver business and the exemption from requirements for selected religious groups (muz) always interested me because they run counter to the argument that eventually everyone needs/uses/requires health care making it unique. So what about the reasonable case where I ask for the waiver on religious grounds, but undergo a medical "religious conversion" at age 75 and demand my right to the latest care. Seems that ANY waivers are (or at least should) be "illegal".


Right now, I think that no matter what the court decides or how the election turns out, the Repub establishment will decide that 0care repeal is not really the hill on which to take a stand and the US will wind up with an Amerikkkanized version of the NHS, except our IPAB experts will be Ivy League graduates, not Oxford ones.

Posted by: Hrothgar at March 28, 2012 03:37 PM (i3+c5)

139 136
Shouldn't President Constitutional Scholar know his laws are unconstitutional?

Posted by: nickless at March 28, 2012 03:37 PM (X7aC
Wouldn't you think he knew this and there is something else going on here? That it may not be as it seems?

Posted by: chic at March 28, 2012 03:38 PM (oZfic)

140
not me.....
Posted by: chic at March 28, 2012 03:30 PM (xxxxx)
not me.....
Posted by: chic at March 28, 2012 03:32 PM (xxxxx)
not me.....
Posted by: chic at March 28, 2012 03:33 PM (xxxxx)
not me.....
Posted by: chic at March 28, 2012 03:34 PM (xxxxx)
not me.....

Posted by: chic at March 28, 2012 03:39 PM (qOfw/)

141 Eh...Shannon Breem explains this shit alot better than you Ace.
*
And she has a great ASS!!
***
HoooHa!!!

Posted by: dananjcon at March 28, 2012 03:40 PM (8ieXv)

142
I would absolutely love for them to emigrate to Cuba. I might literally hurt myself laughing so hard.









Well, the worker's paradise of Cuba has always been touted as having universal health care.....which is why they flew in a Spanish medical team and planeloads of modern medical gear to care for Fidel when he got ass-cancer.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at March 28, 2012 03:40 PM (XCHGh)

143 And whatever we think about ObamaCare, we know, as a foundational fact, that the American system of government is not premised on the idea that the federal government can do whatever it likes.

Not a single Leftist I know knows that or believes that. They all think that the feds should be able to do whateverthe fedslike and any reliance on the Tenth Amendment or any other limiting language does not recognize the beautiful penumbric emanations that the Constitution breathes as it lives.

I cannot believe I am saying this but I feel bad for Verrilli. I've written briefs in which I have to defend utterly indefensible positions and I've coached the people who have to do oral arguments defending those indefensible positions andlet me tell you it sucks like Jenna Jameson.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD 2012 at March 28, 2012 03:41 PM (VtjlW)

144 Not a single Leftist I know knows that or believes that. They all think that the feds should be able to do whateverthe fedslike and any reliance on the Tenth Amendment or any other limiting language does not recognize the beautiful penumbric emanations that the Constitution breathes as it lives.

You forgot the, "just as long as a democrat is in charge"

Posted by: buzzion at March 28, 2012 03:43 PM (GULKT)

145 If they are thinking of attacking the scotus it may be a harbinger of much worse things to come. soctus may rule what they will but they have no enforcement power.
Posted by: yankeefifth at March 28, 2012 03:37 PM (Z9EHQ)

--------------------------------------------

I've been thinking about this also. Since the SCOAMT has, in the past, just ignored the rulings of the fed judiciary (gulf oil drilling), what makes us think that even if the SCOTUS rules against Ocare he'll abide by it. This will be his first really really big test of how much of a tyrant he thinks he's become.

Posted by: Soona at March 28, 2012 03:43 PM (+QHB8)

146 138....Seems that ANY waivers are (or at least should) be "illegal".

Yup. And one would hope that the Supremes would agree on this point.

I hope you're wrong about the Repub establisment, Hrothgar. ....It is depressing to think that they wouldn't keep fighting this.

Posted by: wheatie at March 28, 2012 03:43 PM (dEMjC)

147 Kos diary titled "Abandon Ship? Best Country for Progressive to Move To?"

Move and have to re-establish seniority in gov't teat-suckling? They'd never do it.

Posted by: t-bird at March 28, 2012 03:44 PM (FcR7P)

148 Jake Tapper




Inbox: "FIRST LADY MICHELLE OBAMA GUEST STARS ON THE EAGERLY-ANTICIPATED TWO-PART MAKEOVER EPISODE OF NBCS 'THE BIGGEST LOSER'"

Ya can't make this sh*t up....

Posted by: Tami at March 28, 2012 03:45 PM (X6akg)

149 Don't worry, soon I'll have all the flexibilty I need.

Posted by: Barnak The Horrible at March 28, 2012 03:45 PM (8ieXv)

150 I have a problem sorting the snark from the genuine comments on the Kos ex-pat question.

I believe this comment to be genuine:

"If worse comes to worse progressives could pick any locale in the US, move there, and take over the elected positions. Then, using a combination of nonprofit organizations, employee coops, and control of the school system, progs could simply dig in and wait out the collapse.

Best make sure that the locality has good water and agricultural land, though."

Posted by: Count de Monet at March 28, 2012 03:47 PM (4q5tP)

151 It is depressing to think that they wouldn't keep fighting this.

Posted by: wheatie at March 28, 2012 03:43 PM (dEMjC)

Unfortunately, Boner and Bitch don't have much of a track record since 2010.

Add Mr Inevitable to the mix, and that will make you feel much more confident in the future of Constitutional government.

Posted by: Hrothgar at March 28, 2012 03:48 PM (i3+c5)

152 Don't worry, soon I'll have all the flexibilty I need.

You do realize you're not sucking your own dick, don't you?

Posted by: Kal P. at March 28, 2012 03:48 PM (FcR7P)

153 Was reading a yahoo article on this. The author seems to think Roberts agrees with Ruthie and the girls.`

What is interesting is that they think they will leave the law intact and just remove the one constitutional impediment and "send it back to congress to work on it".

republicans/conservatives are interpreting the SCOTUS actions one way and the dems/libs, seeing the exact same things, are seeing something else. It's both funny and scary all at the same time.

Posted by: the original chic at March 28, 2012 03:49 PM (oZfic)

154 Any law that incourages young people to stay in their parents home is inherently evil.

Posted by: dananjcon at March 28, 2012 03:49 PM (8ieXv)

155 "If worse comes to worse progressives could pick any locale in the US, move there, and take over the elected positions. Then, using a combination of nonprofit organizations, employee coops, and control of the school system, progs could simply dig in and wait out the collapse. Best make sure that the locality has good water and agricultural land, though."
Posted by: Count de Monet at March 28, 2012 03:47 PM (4q5tP)

--------------------------------------------

Yup. Can't grow that much food in the middle of NYC or downtown L.A.

Posted by: Soona at March 28, 2012 03:50 PM (+QHB8)

156 150 I have a problem sorting the snark from the genuine comments on the Kos ex-pat question. I believe this comment to be genuine: "If worse comes to worse progressives could pick any locale in the US, move there, and take over the elected positions. Then, using a combination of nonprofit organizations, employee coops, and control of the school system, progs could simply dig in and wait out the collapse. Best make sure that the locality has good water and agricultural land, though."
Posted by: Count de Monet at March 28, 2012 03:47 PM (4q5tP)




It slays me that these "progressive" sooper-jeenyusses don't get that their ilk are the cause of the collapse!

Posted by: Insomniac at March 28, 2012 03:50 PM (DrWcr)

157 Best make sure that the locality has good water and agricultural land, though.

...and hope that somebody is kind enough to ignore enough regulations and economic reality to feed you.

Posted by: t-bird at March 28, 2012 03:51 PM (FcR7P)

158 "If worse comes to worse progressives could pick any locale in the US,
move there, and take over the elected positions. Then, using a
combination of nonprofit organizations, employee coops, and control of
the school system, progs could simply dig in and wait out the collapse.
Best make sure that the locality has good water and agricultural land,
though."


Posted by: Count de Monet at March 28, 2012 03:47 PM (4q5tP)




Also known as Detroit.

Posted by: Tami at March 28, 2012 03:52 PM (X6akg)

159 155

Uh....California?

Posted by: nickless at March 28, 2012 03:53 PM (X7aC8)

160 FIRST LADY MICHELLE OBAMA GUEST STARS ON THE EAGERLY-ANTICIPATED TWO-PART MAKEOVER EPISODE OF NBCS 'THE BIGGEST LOSER'"

It's even worse than you think. Go to theulstermanreport or whitehousedossier websites to see the picture of Mooch huffing and grunting on the floor of the East Room where they filmed. You'll see the pic quickest on the ulsterman site; on the other you have to scroll down and find the article.

Posted by: Mayday at March 28, 2012 03:53 PM (orrLR)

161 I think this one is snark:

"Cuba would be a better choice. You can have the political oppression and poverty without all the crime."

Posted by: Count de Monet at March 28, 2012 03:54 PM (4q5tP)

162 In which the reality based community, considering thepotential strikedown of ObamaCare, weighs the pros and cons of going ex-pat somewhere, or staying and building a Progressive utopia.

They are more than welcome to the wild of alextopia.

In a completely unrelated development, multiple openings are anticipated for the alextopia vermin eradication teams.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD 2012 at March 28, 2012 03:54 PM (VtjlW)

163 "If worse comes to worse progressives could pick any locale in the US, move there, and take over the elected positions. Then, using a combination of nonprofit organizations, employee coops, and control of the school system, progs could simply dig in and wait out the collapse. Best make sure that the locality has good water and agricultural land, though."
Posted by: Count de Monet at March 28, 2012 03:47 PM (4q5tP)
**
Sound like Berkely, Ca. Why don't they just get off there lazy asses and All go to California.

Posted by: dananjcon at March 28, 2012 03:54 PM (8ieXv)

164 It's even worse than you think. Go to theulstermanreport or whitehousedossier websites to see the picture of Mooch huffing and grunting on the floor of the East Room where they filmed. You'll see the pic quickest on the ulsterman site; on the other you have to scroll down and find the article.
Posted by: Mayday at March 28, 2012 03:53 PM (orrLR)




No thanks. Your vague description was enough to make me throw up in my mouth a little.

Posted by: Insomniac at March 28, 2012 03:55 PM (DrWcr)

165 employee coops

Wait, I was unaware that I could keep employees in coops now. *contemplates revisions to the alextopia sleeping indoors guidelines*

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD 2012 at March 28, 2012 03:56 PM (VtjlW)

166 Sound like Berkely, Ca. Why don't they just get off there lazy asses and All go to California.
Posted by: dananjcon at March 28, 2012 03:54 PM (8ieXv)



Can't use the water or farmland there. EPA regulations. Have to protect the delta smelt or some such bullsh*t.

Posted by: Insomniac at March 28, 2012 03:57 PM (v+QvA)

167 No thanks. Your vague description was enough to make me throw up in my mouth a little.

--

I don't blame you. I saw the pic late last night and was convinced it must be the onion, or photoshopped. Apparantely the WH has pulled the picture (?), perhaps realizing the visuals don't help their cause.

But really, The Biggest Loser? You can't make this stuff up.

Posted by: Mayday at March 28, 2012 03:57 PM (orrLR)

168 You know what's really scary? That I have 150 cats in a one-room apartment.

Posted by: the original chic at March 28, 2012 03:58 PM (ggRof)

169 A case for staying is made, sincerely I think (in opposite sun world though):

"the surest way to create change is to set up a working example, which becomes a fact of existence that cannot be denied.

Take any metrics of municipal wellbeing, such as low crime rate, high-achieving school performance, etc., and those facts will speak for themselves.

The progressive town will get ahead, the regressive one will fall behind. The evidence will be self-explanatory.

And then those progressives can write back to their old hometown news papers and suchlike, saying "I used to live there but I don't any more: where I am, the crime rate is low, the standard of living is high, blah blah blah, because we went for the progressive solution. And you can too: all you need to do is start using your vote for all it's worth."

To be quite blunt about it, if people insist on continuing to vote for Republicans in local government, despite getting screwed again and again and again, they deserve exactly what they get."

Posted by: Count de Monet at March 28, 2012 03:58 PM (4q5tP)

170 165 employee coops Wait, I was unaware that I could keep employees in coops now. *contemplates revisions to the alextopia sleeping indoors guidelines*
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD 2012 at March 28, 2012 03:56 PM (VtjlW)


Dammit! And I was so close to being free-range!

Posted by: The Chicken at March 28, 2012 03:58 PM (v+QvA)

171 It's both funny and scary all at the same time.


Posted by: the original chic at March 28, 2012 03:49 PM (oZfic)


Like when I look in a mirror.

Posted by: the original chic at March 28, 2012 03:58 PM (/izg2)

172 Sound like Berkely, Ca. Why don't they just get off there lazy asses and All go to California.





Posted by: dananjcon at March 28, 2012 03:54 PM (8ieXv)


Because ... what you all are missing ... is that leftists don't want to live like leftists - they want to FORCE EVERYONE ELSE to live like leftists (and say they love it, too!).

If there is one person not being a leftist ... somewhere in the nation ... that drives leftists absolutely crazy. All must conform to their "universal values" (funny how the moral relativism crowd also came up with universal values) or be punished, silenced and shipped off somewhere not to be seen or heard from.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at March 28, 2012 03:59 PM (X3lox)

173 Trust me. I know the left

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at March 28, 2012 04:01 PM (X3lox)

174 But really, The Biggest Loser? You can't make this stuff up.
Posted by: Mayday at March 28, 2012 03:57 PM (orrLR)



If that's real, it's just more evidence that theObamas have no decency, class, or respect.

Posted by: Insomniac at March 28, 2012 04:01 PM (v+QvA)

175 I for one support the Koskids vision of a utopian society. Amerikkka is so far gone, and there are soooo many proggies that one city really isn't big enough. (OWS has proved this.) Better to settle a whole new country, one that hasn't been corrupted by the evil Rethugs. I suggest Somalia, and eagerly await their reports.

Posted by: Mayday at March 28, 2012 04:03 PM (orrLR)

176 If that's real, it's just more evidence that theObamas have no decency, class, or respect.

Posted by: Insomniac at March 28, 2012 04:01 PM (v+QvA)


Oh it's real. Google 'the biggest loser michelle obama'....hits everywhere.

Posted by: Tami at March 28, 2012 04:04 PM (X6akg)

177 Can't use the water or farmland there. EPA regulations. Have to protect the delta smelt or some such bullsh*t.
Posted by: Insomniac at March 28, 2012 03:57 PM (v+QvA)
**
Great, foiled by Liberal lunacy again.

Posted by: dananjcon at March 28, 2012 04:06 PM (8ieXv)

178 Conservative justices pressed Obama's mouthpiece for a limiting
principle to his assertion that the government could compel you to buy
something.
C'mon, muthafucka -- compel me to do something. I double-dog dare you...

Posted by: Affenhauer at March 28, 2012 04:06 PM (PMbrs)

179 Delenda est Wickard.

Posted by: cthulhu at March 28, 2012 04:06 PM (kaalw)

180 If that's real, it's just more evidence that theObamas have no decency, class, or respect.

Go look for yourself...it is truly hard to believe. The title of the article with the pic on theulstermanreport website is "Michelle Obama Desecrates the White House Yet Again."

I'm really surprised this picture has not gone viral.

Posted by: Mayday at March 28, 2012 04:06 PM (orrLR)

181 Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at March 28, 2012 03:59 PM (X3lox)
*
Meh...No we just don't think like them. We are wired differently.

Posted by: dananjcon at March 28, 2012 04:08 PM (8ieXv)

182 135 95 , 17 What other laws are we going to hand out waivers for? I want a waiver for my taxes. Exactly. ....The waivers have been applied to the whole law....Obamacare law. Which contains the mandate. ....That's why I was wondering if the Waivers had even been brought up. Issuing waivers seems to be another instance of the 'Unconstitutionality' of this thing....and unlike the mandate, the waivers have already occurred.
Posted by: wheatie at March 28, 2012 03:36 PM (dEMjC)

WTF happened to equal treatment under the law ?

Posted by: The Jackhole at March 28, 2012 04:09 PM (nTgAI)

183 Best make sure that the locality has good water and agricultural land, though."

Posted by: Count de Monet at March 28, 2012 03:47 PM (4q5tP)

Why, water comes from my faucet and food comes from Whole Foods...

Posted by: Typical Kos Retard at March 28, 2012 04:10 PM (3jGS1)

184 I'm really surprised this picture has not gone viral.


Posted by: Mayday at March 28, 2012 04:06 PM (orrLR)


It appears Michelle has the magic end of the rope in the tug of war picture....it defies gravity.

Posted by: Tami at March 28, 2012 04:13 PM (X6akg)

185 The potato sack pic looks P-shopped.

Posted by: dananjcon at March 28, 2012 04:15 PM (8ieXv)

186 Oh it's real. Google 'the biggest loser michelle obama'....hits everywhere.
Posted by: Tami at March 28, 2012 04:04 PM (X6akg)



Holy cow. No class.

Posted by: Insomniac at March 28, 2012 04:16 PM (v+QvA)

187 The potato sack pic looks P-shopped.
--

I think so too, not sure what to make of it. In the whitehousedossier article they also show a tug-of-war picture and here's some of the text:



The White House may be trying to quash the photo, eitherbecause
officials realized the it might look like Michelle was trivializing the
White House orbecause they dont want to preempt the show by
advertising Michelles presence on it.
According to one of our readers Janice, who videoblogs at Granny Jan and Jihad Kitty and who provided White House Dossier with the shot the photo was on the White House Fickr photostream, from which she downloaded it. Its now gone.
The
photo is almost certainly by the White House. Its background coding
includes the name Herbert, which likely refers to Sonya Herbert, the
first ladys official photographer. And it has not been widely
circulated, which it would have been if news photographers had been
allowed into the workout session to shoot it.

Posted by: Mayday at March 28, 2012 04:22 PM (orrLR)

188 57 The irony is that the "black"justice is on the Conservative side of this decision, so Barky and his merry crew of race-baiters can't claim that SCOTUS is a bunch of"RAAAAACISTS!!!!!"

Who, Clarence "Uncle" Thomas? Yeah, like he's an authentic black man like King Barry. LOL!

Sorry, they're still racists. Except for the Black Wise Latina.

Posted by: Irrational Libtard at March 28, 2012 04:22 PM (YmPwQ)

189 182 135 95 , 17......WTF happened to equal treatment under the law ?

Yeah! .....I mean, to me that is, or should be, an even bigger issue than the Mandate.

....Because, the Obamacare Waivers have (1)already happened, and thus, have (2)already provided an example of how burdensome the mandate will be when it kicks in....if they are already issuing waivers to exempt the 'chosen few'.

Posted by: wheatie at March 28, 2012 04:26 PM (dEMjC)

190 WTF happened to equal treatment under the law?


It was drowned in empathy.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at March 28, 2012 04:38 PM (X3lox)

191 This would never happen, but could you image the sales of puddings cups if this were to happen: OC is struck down with prejudice and the majority opinion has some inside-baseball about how Roberts et al went to Sotomayor's chambers and explained how the Constitution worked and included first-person transcripts. Like, "She just didn't get it. She [literally] didn't understand enumerated powers, etc. Remember that when reading her dissent."

Posted by: Tonic Dog at March 28, 2012 04:49 PM (X/+QT)

192 The WH is seriously spinning the Court as partisan???? With Kagan burbling on about free government cheese???

Oh, partisan for leftists.

Posted by: PJ at March 28, 2012 05:12 PM (DQHjw)

193 Hey, didja notice that the conservative justices are picked on, vilified even, and accused of arriving to this with a fully formed opinion, but the liberal justices, who by their questions have given away that they've already made up their minds, go untouched by the righteous in the MSM? Not only that, but the liberals are even coaching and helping argue the government's case.

Posted by: steve walsh at March 28, 2012 06:06 PM (D2AyO)

194 <p align="center"><font size="2" face="Tahoma">
<span style="text-decoration: none"><a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f1.html">
الأقــســـام الــعـــامــة</a> <font color="#FF6600">| </font>
<a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f2.html">منتدى الحوار العام</a>
<font color="#FF6600">| </font><a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f3.html">المنتدي
الاسلامي</a> <font color="#FF6600">| </font>
<a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f4.html">المنتدي الاسلامي العام</a>
<font color="#FF6600">| </font><a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f5.html">صور x
صور</a> <font color="#FF6600">| </font>
<a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f6.html">فيديوهات - مقاطع يوتيوب - Youtube</a>
<font color="#FF6600">| </font><a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f7.html">توبيكات
MSN - ماسنجر - رسائل</a> <font color="#FF6600">| </font>
<a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f8.html">منوعات انسجام</a>
<font color="#FF6600">| </font><a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f9.html">اكلات -
مطبخ - طبخ - حلويات - معجنات</a> <font color="#FF6600">| </font>
<a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f10.html">ازياء 2012 - موضه - ازياء بنات -
موديلات 2012 - Fashion</a> <font color="#FF6600">| </font>
<a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f11.html">العنايه بالبشره - العنايه بالشعر -
العنايه بالجسم - العنايه بالملابس</a> <font color="#FF6600">| </font>
<a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f12.html">منتدى الجوالات</a>
<font color="#FF6600">| </font><a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f13.html">رسائل
الجوال</a> <font color="#FF6600">| </font>
<a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f14.html">ارشيف منتديات انسجام</a>
<font color="#FF6600">| </font><a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f15.html">
الارشيف والمواضيع المحذوفة</a> <font color="#FF6600">| </font>
<a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f16.html">احدث تسريحات شعر 2012 - احدث قصات شعر
2012</a> <font color="#FF6600">| </font>
<a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f17.html">مكياج2012 - ميك اب 2012 - مكياج خليجي
- Makeup</a> <font color="#FF6600">| </font>
<a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f18.html">نغمات الجوال</a>
<font color="#FF6600">| </font><a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f19.html">برامج
الجوال</a> <font color="#FF6600">| </font>
<a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f20.html">المنتديات الترفيهيه</a>
<font color="#FF6600">| </font><a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f21.html">افلام
عربية - افلام عربى جديدة 2012</a> <font color="#FF6600">| </font>
<a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f22.html">افلام اجنبية - افلام هندية 2012</a>
<font color="#FF6600">| </font><a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f23.html">
مسلسلات عربية - مسلسلات تركية 2012</a> <font color="#FF6600">| </font>
<a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f24.html">الحياة الزوجية</a>
<font color="#FF6600">| </font><a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f25.html">المنزل
الحديث</a> <font color="#FF6600">| </font>
<a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f26.html">اخر الاخبار - اخبار اليوم</a>
<font color="#FF6600">| </font><a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f27.html">ازياء
لانجري - ملابس داخلية - ملابس نوم - قمصان نوم</a> <font color="#FF6600">| </font>
<a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f28.html">مسرحيات مصرية - كويتية - عربية</a>
<font color="#FF6600">| </font><a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f29.html">اغانى
عربية - اجنبية 2012</a> <font color="#FF6600">| </font>
<a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f30.html">اغانى فردية عربية و اجنبية</a>
<font color="#FF6600">| </font><a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f31.html">مصارعة
حرة</a> <font color="#FF6600">| </font>
<a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f32.html">يوتيوب برامج تليفزيونية</a>
<font color="#FF6600">| </font></span></font></p>

Posted by: يوتيوب at April 05, 2012 12:18 PM (wb/at)

195 <p align="center"><font size="2" face="Tahoma">
<span style="text-decoration: none"><a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f1.html">
الأقــســـام الــعـــامــة</a> | <a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f2.html">منتدى
الحوار العام</a> | <a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f3.html">المنتدي الاسلامي</a>
| <a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f4.html">المنتدي الاسلامي العام</a> |
<a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f5.html">صور x صور</a> |
<a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f6.html">فيديوهات - مقاطع يوتيوب - Youtube</a>
| <a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f7.html">توبيكات MSN - ماسنجر - رسائل</a> |
<a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f8.html">منوعات انسجام</a> |
<a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f9.html">اكلات - مطبخ - طبخ - حلويات - معجنات</a>
| <a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f10.html">ازياء 2012 - موضه - ازياء بنات -
موديلات 2012 - Fashion</a> | <a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f11.html">العنايه
بالبشره - العنايه بالشعر - العنايه بالجسم - العنايه بالملابس</a> |
<a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f12.html">منتدى الجوالات</a> |
<a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f13.html">رسائل الجوال</a> |
<a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f14.html">ارشيف منتديات انسجام</a> |
<a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f15.html">الارشيف والمواضيع المحذوفة</a> |
<a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f16.html">احدث تسريحات شعر 2012 - احدث قصات شعر
2012</a> | <a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f17.html">مكياج2012 - ميك اب 2012 -
مكياج خليجي - Makeup</a> | <a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f18.html">نغمات
الجوال</a> | <a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f19.html">برامج الجوال</a> |
<a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f20.html">المنتديات الترفيهيه</a> |
<a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f21.html">افلام عربية - افلام عربى جديدة 2012</a>
| <a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f22.html">افلام اجنبية - افلام هندية 2012</a>
| <a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f23.html">مسلسلات عربية - مسلسلات تركية 2012</a>
| <a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f24.html">الحياة الزوجية</a> |
<a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f25.html">المنزل الحديث</a> |
<a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f26.html">اخر الاخبار - اخبار اليوم</a> |
<a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f27.html">ازياء لانجري - ملابس داخلية - ملابس
نوم - قمصان نوم</a> | <a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f28.html">مسرحيات مصرية -
كويتية - عربية</a> | <a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f29.html">اغانى عربية -
اجنبية 2012</a> | <a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f30.html">اغانى فردية عربية و
اجنبية</a> | <a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f31.html">مصارعة حرة</a> |
<a href="http://forum.ensgam.com/f32.html">يوتيوب برامج تليفزيونية</a> | </span>
</font></p>

Posted by: يوتيوب at April 05, 2012 12:19 PM (wb/at)






Processing 0.04, elapsed 0.0417 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0154 seconds, 204 records returned.
Page size 124 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat