Six Important Take-Aways From Yesterday's Decision Striking Down The Contraception Mandate in New York

Yesterday, a district court judge struck down the Obamacare contraception mandate as applied to the Catholic Archdiocese of New York and its constituent organizations as a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. You can read the decision here (PDF), but I wanted to highlight some important parts.

1. This is the first litigation to result in a final injunction against the contraception mandate for religious non-profit organizations that come within the Obama Administration's purported exemption to the mandate. The 7th, 10th, and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeals have all found the mandate to be an unacceptable burden on the free exercise of religion for for-profit businesses that don't come under the exemption. This case is important, though, because it recognizes that even the act of having to claim the exemption is an unacceptable burden on religion.

I explained in February how the Obama administration proposed to conjure contraception from thin air in order to make it available to the employees of religious organizations. What I didn't mention then was that, for this act of sorcery to work, the religious organizations would have to "self-certify" in order to direct that a third party provide contraception. The Archdiocese of New York, and many other religious organizations, pointed out that the act of self-certifying is itself a violation of its religious beliefs and sued.

2. Not even the Obama administration knows what its proposed regulations do. Very late in this case, the government realized that, although the Archdiocese and its constituent organizations are covered by the mandate, the regulations might not actually force a third party they designate to provide the objectionable contraception coverage. The judge was not amused:

The Government’s belated “realization” that the challenged regulations may not actually result in the provision of contraceptive coverage to plaintiffs’ employees is difficult to fathom. . . . It is unclear how citizens like plaintiffs . . . are supposed to know what the law requires of them if the Government itself is unsure. After almost 18 months of litigation, defendants now effectively concede that the regulatory tale told by the Government was a non-sequitur.

The judge found that, despite the administration's contortions to suggest the Archdiocese might not even be covered, the contraception mandate scheme was sufficiently burdensome to proceed to a decision.

3. The Obama administration doesn't take religious beliefs seriously. In an astonishing display of anti-religious sentiment, the administration argued that forcing religious organizations to designate a third party to provide contraception coverage to their employees isn't a big deal (legally: de minimis) because it's "just a form" to fill out, "a purely administrative task." The district court rightly found that whether a violation of religious freedom is small or large isn't for the courts to decide. It would be too easy to simply sweep away deeply-held religious beliefs under the claim that government action is merely "de minimis" infringement of rights.

There is no way that a court can, or should, determine that a coerced violation of conscience is of insufficient quantum to merit constitutional protection.

4. The Obama administration has handed out so many exceptions to the law, it can no longer claim the law serves a compelling purpose. In the past, courts have allowed the government to infringe religious rights if the government demonstrates a compelling interest and narrow tailoring, for example, income tax laws or criminal laws related to marijuana and peyote. But in this case, the administration was not able to claim that the contraception mandate serves a compelling purpose because it has been falling all over itself (largely for political reasons) to offer exceptions to the law.

The Government has not made a similar showing of a compelling interest in uniform enforcement of the Mandate, for the simple reason that enforcement of the Mandate is currently anything but uniform. Tens of millions of people are exempt from the Mandate, under exemptions for grandfathered health plans, small businesses, and “religious employers” like the Diocesan plaintiffs here. Millions of women thus will not receive contraceptive coverage without cost-sharing through the Mandate. Having granted so many exemptions already, the Government cannot show a compelling interest in denying one to these plaintiffs.

5. The Obama administration's belated argument that the religious organizations may not actually end up providing any contraception coverage fatally undermined the administration's case. This comes under the category of bad litigation strategies. As I mentioned up in the second item on this list, the administration realized near the end of the litigation that the third parties designated by the Archdiocese to provide coverage may not actually be required to provide contraception. The district court rightly noticed that if that argument is true, the mandate obviously serves no purpose.

Here, the Government implicitly acknowledges that applying the Mandate to plaintiffs may in fact do nothing at all to expand contraceptive coverage, because plaintiffs’ [designated third party providers] aren’t actually required to do anything after receiving the self-certification. In other words, the Mandate forces plaintiffs to fill out a form which, though it violates their religious beliefs, may ultimately serve no purpose whatsoever.

I have italicized the last portion of that quote for emphasis simply because, when you put it like that, the administration's argument is so obviously bad and hostile to religion.

6. The Obama administration thinks it has a general exception from complying with the Constitution. The administration, as it has frequently done with respect to disobeying laws it does not like, argued that it had to enforce the contraception mandate in such an infringing manner because it could not do it any other way. The district court pointed out the obvious flaw in this line of thinking:

The Government first argues that the alternatives above are infeasible because the defendants lack statutory authority to enact some of them. This argument makes no sense; in any challenge to the constitutionality of a federal law, the question is whether the federal government could adopt a less restrictive means, not any particular branch within it. It would set a dangerous precedent to hold that if the Executive Branch cannot act unilaterally, then there is no alternative solution. If defendants lack the required statutory authority, Congress may pass appropriate legislation.

Of course, we all know that President Obama cannot go back to Congress to fix this since Congress would most likely provide a wider exemption to the contraception mandate than Obama's HHS has provided via regulation, assuming Congress doesn't just start trimming out major portions of the law, altogether. This is a problem of the administration's own making, and there it will stay -- until the courts finish knocking it down, that is.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 10:00 AM



Comments

1 First!

Posted by: EC at December 17, 2013 09:59 AM (GQ8sn)

2 And New York shall lead them.

Wait, that doesn't sound right...

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at December 17, 2013 10:01 AM (7ObY1)

3 Wait for it......Unexpected!


That there judge is gonna get an IRS audit.

Posted by: Ribald Conservative riding Orca at December 17, 2013 10:01 AM (RFeQD)

4 Interesting. Obamacare won't work.

Posted by: the littl shyning man at December 17, 2013 10:02 AM (Z2HBg)

5 Would Obamacare help a person strangling on a turd?

Posted by: Buddha at December 17, 2013 10:03 AM (s/sIv)

6 I see the case was before Brian Cogan. Having had a case before him, i can see why he shredded the govt, he is a very no-nonsense kind of judge and not one to tolerate stupidity regardless of who advances it. To have been a witness to that oral argument would have been an experience.

Posted by: Penfold at December 17, 2013 10:03 AM (Fbt5B)

7 And that is that. Sweeping judgement.

Thanks Gabe.

Oh, by the way, Chief Justice Roberts might watch and learn: this is how judges work.

Posted by: MTF at December 17, 2013 10:04 AM (aG9Vk)

8 So if religiously run companies shouldn't provide birth control coverage, should they be forced to bake cakes for certain gatherings?

Posted by: --- at December 17, 2013 10:06 AM (MMC8r)

9 How many divisions does the judiciary have? Hah-- I thought so! I think we can just put this decision in the same file we put Congressional drafting we don't like.

Posted by: President For Life Obama at December 17, 2013 10:07 AM (aG9Vk)

10 Great post, Gabe! Good to see that when we Okies get the book-learnin' we can do alright!

Posted by: Beckster at December 17, 2013 10:07 AM (kj0P/)

11
The purpose of this
Was to punish the churches
Not give Birth Control

The court makes a big deal out of how the rule infringes on religious liberty without providing birth control, as if this is a bug and not a feature. The entire purpose was to beat up on the religious institutions, using birth control as a convenient cudgel. The fact that the law was written as it was, where the actual provision of birth control was not even included, proves this fact.

The entire purpose was to get religious institutions to sign off on violating their religious concience, to eliminate the last principled objections to his pro choice agenda and to make every citizen complicit in his crimes.

Posted by: Haiku Guy at December 17, 2013 10:08 AM (bIy5N)

12 2 And New York shall lead them.

Wait, that doesn't sound right...

---

The colony of New York abstains, respectfully...

Posted by: Lewis Morris at December 17, 2013 10:08 AM (/Crba)

13 Oh shit. Guess it's back to anal for me.

Posted by: Sandra Fluke at December 17, 2013 10:08 AM (NF2Bf)

14 Happily, the President is a better Constitutional scholar and judge than this judge. He will rewrite the opinion, forward it to Judge Cogan and that new opinion will of course become the official judicial record of the case.

Posted by: Val JarJar at December 17, 2013 10:09 AM (aG9Vk)

15 13 Oh shit. Guess it's back to anal for me.

---

We're going to need the Magical Pleasure Bag over your hear no matter which end it goes in.

Posted by: Zombie Jerome Chef McElroy at December 17, 2013 10:09 AM (/Crba)

16 Judge Roberts will rule it a tax.

Posted by: --- at December 17, 2013 10:10 AM (MMC8r)

17 @14

To be the fly on the wall in Judge Cogan's chambers when he gets ValJar's letter and the "proper" decision.

Posted by: Penfold at December 17, 2013 10:11 AM (Fbt5B)

18 Excellent post, Gabe! Been wanting to know the details of this one, seems the Oministration's incompetence knows no bounds.

Posted by: mugiwara at December 17, 2013 10:13 AM (W7ffl)

19 At this point, what difference will it make anyway?

Posted by: The Smartest Woman in the World at December 17, 2013 10:17 AM (gvqyH)

20 The attack on religion from this mandate (and other regime actions) has had a broader purpose as well. They have continued to endeavor to replace "freedom of religion" with "freedom of worship," thereby limiting faith to 1 hour a week instead of hardened principles that color all interactions. This mandate specifically tried to define down what was deemed "religious," where entities like Notre Dame and Catholic Charities would somehow not qualify.

Posted by: AMDG at December 17, 2013 10:17 AM (t7OO0)

21
Ace, or some coblogger, please throw out a little blurb to help people regarding the double billings by some of the exchanges.

simply put, if the people who were double billed, or erroneously billed, can't get through to the exchange for a refund on the first try, call your bank and dispute the charge. Your bank will give you a provisional credit for the charge and if they can't get it resolved the credit becomes permanent. If this occurs regulalry the exchanges bank will move t stop this nonsense or just yank their ability to debit accounts directly. The schadenboner I would get from that headline would be priceless.

Posted by: allenlou at December 17, 2013 10:18 AM (z/dJ6)

22 where entities like Notre Dame and Catholic Charities would somehow not qualify.

---

ND generally doesn't qualify as religious for letting that jackass give the commencement address a few years ago.

Posted by: Zombie Jerome Chef McElroy at December 17, 2013 10:18 AM (/Crba)

23 The Obama administration doesn't take religious beliefs seriously.





Barry: Unless you worship me.

Posted by: TheQuietMan at December 17, 2013 10:19 AM (1Jaio)

24 Naturally I finish posting a long-winded, rambling comment on the last thread, JUST in time for the new thread. This is how my day is going to go from here forward, isn't it?

Anyway, back up to read the actual post now.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at December 17, 2013 10:20 AM (4df7R)

25 To continue my thought, good luck building a back end billing system if your bank stops letting you debit accounts due to a high error rate.

Posted by: allenlou at December 17, 2013 10:20 AM (z/dJ6)

26 Thanks for the write-up Gabe. I had to re-read a few sentences because this was the first I'd heard of this ( I've been remodeling instead of internet reading lately ). Thanks Judge Cogan! And thanks too to the inept US attorneys I help pay for that tried to defend this in court.

Posted by: Yip at December 17, 2013 10:20 AM (/jHWN)

27 So wait - they've had all this time now and they basically just flat-out refused to think this one through?

Way to go, Government!

Posted by: akula51 at December 17, 2013 10:20 AM (Ob/LA)

28 If this occurs regulalry the exchanges bank will move t stop this nonsense or just yank their ability to debit accounts directly. The schadenboner I would get from that headline would be priceless.

---

A state agency in Louisiana I know once double-debited a bunch of accounts one weekend because the supervisor mishandled a potential error.

That agency spent months cleaning up the mess and paying out all kinds of money to make-good on penalties and other issues caused by the people's accounts getting hit twice.


I somehow doubt that the feds will be taking the same stance on the subject, either in effort to fix it or paying out damages.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at December 17, 2013 10:20 AM (/Crba)

29 Wonderful analysis, Gabriel! I felt like I was reading a lawyer's writing. Oh, never mind.

Posted by: DesiDad at December 17, 2013 10:21 AM (jMEPy)

30 >>Here, the Government implicitly acknowledges that applying the Mandate to plaintiffs may in fact do nothing at all to expand contraceptive coverage, because plaintiffs’ [designated third party providers] aren’t actually required to do anything after receiving the self-certification. In other words, the Mandate forces plaintiffs to fill out a form which, though it violates their religious beliefs, may ultimately serve no purpose whatsoever.

What?

Posted by: Mama AJ at December 17, 2013 10:21 AM (SUKHu)

31 Re: 22

I think they've made up for that by directly suing the HHS and inviting Cardinal Dolan (the impetus for and winner in this suit) this past year.

But yes, that was bad.

Posted by: AMDG at December 17, 2013 10:21 AM (t7OO0)

32 Great post.

Basically, the Obama administration continues to pursue its "Smell the Glove" policy with regard to religious organizations.

Posted by: edj at December 17, 2013 10:21 AM (klzyR)

33 The finding that the exemptions handed out undermine the compelling purpose of the law seems like something to latch onto and push into a broader objection to the law as a whole and not just the contraception mandate.

Posted by: no good deed at December 17, 2013 10:21 AM (HsJeN)

34

*Hee hee hee* Just wait until the appeal gets to me.

Posted by: Justice John "Smilin' Jack" Roberts

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 17, 2013 10:21 AM (kdS6q)

35 The administration certainly takes Moslem beliefs seriously.

Posted by: Null at December 17, 2013 10:22 AM (DuH+r)

36 Glenn Beck read Gabriel Malor's Twitter posts about left-wing mass shooters yesterday. Important things like this are documented because the media & academics will deliberately suppress things that don't fit the progressive narrative.

Posted by: Moonbat_One at December 17, 2013 10:22 AM (s/hs9)

37 Thanks Gabe.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at December 17, 2013 10:23 AM (IXrOn)

38 Wait. I thought all of us peeps with actual principles and beliefs (you know, us mouthbreathing SoCons) were bad and had to be purged?

But now a victoryof principle and belief is being upheld as a good thing?

I'm not certain what I should think of this, but I still can't shake the feeling that I am about to be ran over by a very nice truck soon...

Posted by: Azenogoth at December 17, 2013 10:23 AM (/qzu7)

39 All of the exchanges are different evidently. The one I'm working with sends an 834 to a carrier who then handles all actual invoicing and payment (since they've been doing this sort of thing for decades, it kinda makes sense to have them continue to handle it, ya know?).

At least we don't have Washington State's problems (yet).

Posted by: akula51 at December 17, 2013 10:24 AM (Ob/LA)

40 This is great stuff. I wonder how that judge will do during his audit.

Posted by: t-bird at December 17, 2013 10:25 AM (FcR7P)

41 DAAAYUMMM. That decision is all kinds of brutal towards the regime. But I've got to say that this is my "favorite" part.


After almost 18 months of litigation, defendants now effectively concede that the regulatory tale told by the Government was a non-sequitur.


Hey Obammy, how's it feel to lose your eyebrows? Cuz you just got BURNED, baby.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at December 17, 2013 10:26 AM (4df7R)

42 39 All of the exchanges are different evidently. The one I'm working with sends an 834 to a carrier who then handles all actual invoicing and payment (since they've been doing this sort of thing for decades, it kinda makes sense to have them continue to handle it, ya know?).

At least we don't have Washington State's problems (yet).

---

That's thanks to DC's way of telling states how to build an exchange.

Instead of giving them a bunch of diagrams showing how the system is supposed to work, they decided to tell each state "hot" or "cold" with regards to whether their design was in keeping with what the Feds wanted.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at December 17, 2013 10:26 AM (/Crba)

43 This Bullshit law is unconstitutional from beginning to end. Not just the contraception part.

Posted by: Vic at December 17, 2013 10:26 AM (T2V/1)

44
What?
Posted by: Mama AJ at December 17, 2013 10:21 AM (SUKHu)


"Kneel before Zod"

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at December 17, 2013 10:27 AM (V3kRK)

45 #28 Brandon, yeah the exchanges would throw a fit but it'd be fun to watch. Plus the laws in play are a mix of state and federal banking law, not on the aca. Would love to watch Obama waiver away penalties for banking violations by his exchanges. That would make the news for sure.

Posted by: allenlou at December 17, 2013 10:28 AM (z/dJ6)

46 So, in other words, ObamaCare is a pissed-off cat leaping onto America's face.

Posted by: eman at December 17, 2013 10:28 AM (AO9UG)

47
24 Naturally I finish posting a long-winded, rambling comment on the last thread, JUST in time for the new thread. This is how my day is going to go from here forward, isn't it?

Welcome to my life. I started three new threads yesterday.

I think if there was an AOSHQ contest as to who posted last the most I'd win every week.

Posted by: Ed Anger at December 17, 2013 10:28 AM (tOkJB)

48 24
Naturally I finish posting a long-winded, rambling comment on the last
thread, JUST in time for the new thread. This is how my day is going to
go from here forward, isn't it?



Anyway, back up to read the actual post now.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at December 17, 2013 10:20 AM (4df7R)
And a fine post it is/was, Hobbit. I actually read it - course I'm the guy who always comes late to the party/thread, a slow typist, and have to compose my thoughts before typing shit. My associates ( I like to call them "friends", but not in their presence), fondly call me hapless. It's a calling.

Posted by: tubal at December 17, 2013 10:29 AM (YEQ2h)

49 Good grief, Gabe, turning into some kind of SoCon Warrior, aren't you?

Next thing you know, you'll be working the phones for Santorum.

Posted by: J. Random FisCon at December 17, 2013 10:29 AM (YYJjz)

50 So, in other words, ObamaCare is a pissed-off cat leaping onto America's face.
Posted by: eman at December 17, 2013 10:28 AM (AO9UG)


I think it's the reverse, actually. Obamacare is kicking snow at America, and America's fucking PISSED.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at December 17, 2013 10:29 AM (4df7R)

51 How about that, a victory.

Posted by: rrpjr at December 17, 2013 10:29 AM (s/yC1)

52 >> the administration realized near the end of the litigation that the third parties designated by the Archdiocese to provide coverage may not actually be required to provide contraception

Seriously, I don't get this.

These lawyers actually stood up and said "don't worry about this, because the law is so badly written that it doesn't make people do what we've been saying they have to do"?

It's not unconstitutional because it's broken?

Posted by: Mama AJ at December 17, 2013 10:29 AM (SUKHu)

53 It would set a dangerous precedent to hold that if the Executive Branch cannot act unilaterally, then there is no alternative solution. If defendants lack the required statutory authority, Congress may pass appropriate legislation.


I'm going to have to read the decision in full but that part is just fantastic.


There are some interesting bits just in the tiny portions quoted. At first blush, it sure seems that language in this decision would support an unequal treatment claim by any person who receives a fine. After all, why did Entity X get a waiver but not Person Y?

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at December 17, 2013 10:30 AM (VtjlW)

54 43 This Bullshit law is unconstitutional from beginning to end. Not just the contraception part.


In a nutshell. Laws for ye but not for we. When a law is not even read by those who suppose to represent us? Laws that don't apply to them? We are no longer a Constitutional Republic.

Posted by: Cicero Kid at December 17, 2013 10:30 AM (6fSty)

55 Nice commentry Gabriel. I think #6 is the kicker in that this administration does not care about the Constitution at all. #6 is what fuels the rest.

Posted by: Draki at December 17, 2013 10:31 AM (L8r/r)

56 42 That's thanks to DC's way of telling states how to build an exchange.

I managed to avoid all of these projects during the initial fails...the clean-up phases are certainly proving somewhat problematic.

In the end, we're performing basically the same business process that Medicare/Medicare Advantage and Medicaid agencies have done for years - we're sending enrollment data to a carrier via a frigging 834 (one of the simpler HIPAA EDI documents), who then responds with another 834 that says "yeah, they're covered".

It never had to be as complicated as it's become, but Top. Men. and all that.

Posted by: akula51 at December 17, 2013 10:31 AM (Ob/LA)

57 Hey Obammy, how's it feel to lose your eyebrows? Cuz you just got BURNED, baby.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at December 17, 2013 10:26 AM (4df7R)

Well, it's not like Obammy really understands all these $10 words, so he really doesn't feel all that bad anyway.

Posted by: tcn at December 17, 2013 10:32 AM (fwcEs)

58 Excellent excellent analysis Really well done. Really a relief to hear that some courts do not think he is king

Posted by: Thunderb at December 17, 2013 10:32 AM (zOTsN)

59 Number 4 is really interesting:

4. The Obama administration has handed out so many exceptions to the law, it can no longer claim the law serves a compelling purpose.

Could this be used to argue that the whole thing should be repealed?

Posted by: Lickmuffin at December 17, 2013 10:32 AM (oMNfV)

60 Great summary!

Posted by: Clark at December 17, 2013 10:32 AM (105rY)

61 I think it is time for Barack to once again come among us and deal with these pesky messaging problems

Posted by: Chris Matthews at December 17, 2013 10:33 AM (wXcOC)

62 The Obama administration doesn't take religious beliefs seriously.

They don't take Christian belief seriously. I'd bet a week's pay that they would have carved out some sort of exemption for wiccans, Far East hippie nonsense or Muslim scum.

I said it before and I repeat it - if the Democrat party thought they could get away with proscribing Christianity, they would do it in a heartbeat.

The Obama administration thinks it has a general exception from complying with the Constitution.

**puts hand on chin.**
Well, golly gee, Gabe, wherever could they have got such an idea?

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at December 17, 2013 10:33 AM (zF6Iw)

63 Some disturbing things have just recently come to light in Judge Cogan's background.

Posted by: David Axelrod at December 17, 2013 10:34 AM (wXcOC)

64 So, in other words, ObamaCare is a pissed-off cat leaping onto America's face.

This is why I come here.

Posted by: toby928© from the Phantom Zone at December 17, 2013 10:34 AM (evdj2)

65 I guess in that "church" Obammy attended, they never got around to the Book of Revelation. You know, the part where Jesus wins? And not that Chocolate Jesus, either.

Posted by: tcn at December 17, 2013 10:34 AM (fwcEs)

66 The colony of New York abstains, respectfully...

Posted by: Lewis Morris at December 17, 2013 10:08 AM (/Crba)


Mister Morris. . .what in hell goes on in New York?

Posted by: The Honorable John Hancock, President at December 17, 2013 10:34 AM (zF6Iw)

67 59 Number 4 is really interesting:

4. The Obama administration has handed out so many exceptions to the law, it can no longer claim the law serves a compelling purpose.

Could this be used to argue that the whole thing should be repealed?
Posted by: Lickmuffin at December 17, 2013 10:32 AM (oMNfV)

Sure, but argued to whom?

The Supremes?

Boehner?

The GOP leadership?

Posted by: eman at December 17, 2013 10:35 AM (AO9UG)

68 At first blush, it sure seems that language in this decision would
support an unequal treatment claim by any person who receives a fine.
After all, why did Entity X get a waiver but not Person Y?
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at December 17, 2013 10:30 AM (VtjlW)

-----------

I've been wondering about that with regards to people in the individual insurance market. How is it legal that they get slapped with the full force of the law a year earlier than everyone else?

Posted by: Long Haul Plucker at December 17, 2013 10:35 AM (ufVHp)

69 Not even the Obama administration knows what its proposed regulations do.


Obammy's just waitingfor the newspapers to tell him what the regulations do, then he'll know.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at December 17, 2013 10:35 AM (4df7R)

70 MP4, are you saying that our overlords engage in discrimination? That Xtians are the new untermenschen?

Posted by: tubal at December 17, 2013 10:36 AM (YEQ2h)

71
Could this be used to argue that the whole thing should be repealed?

---

Good question.

I'm thinking that the exceptions could be used to argue that portions of the law are no longer valid or enforceable and that, in turn, the law is dead because it has been determined by the courts to have NO severability clause.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at December 17, 2013 10:36 AM (/Crba)

72 I've been wondering about that with regards to
people in the individual insurance market. How is it legal that they get
slapped with the full force of the law a year earlier than everyone
else?


Posted by: Long Haul Plucker at December 17, 2013 10:35 AM (ufVHp)


Because..... TAX.

That's why.

Posted by: tcn at December 17, 2013 10:36 AM (fwcEs)

73 Obama -- here, sign this confirming your denial of the existence of God. Its no big deal. It's just a piece of paper. A mere form.

Posted by: polynikes at December 17, 2013 10:36 AM (m2CN7)

74 67 59 Number 4 is really interesting:

4. The Obama administration has handed out so many exceptions to the law, it can no longer claim the law serves a compelling purpose.

Could this be used to argue that the whole thing should be repealed?
Posted by: Lickmuffin at December 17, 2013 10:32 AM (oMNfV)

Sure, but argued to whom?

The Supremes?

Boehner?

The GOP leadership?

---

STOP! In the name of love... before you break my heart...

Posted by: Supreme CJ John Roberts at December 17, 2013 10:37 AM (/Crba)

75 -

The Fierce Urgency of 'FIRE! FIRE! FIRE! AIM!"
_

Posted by: BumperStickerist at December 17, 2013 10:37 AM (NQyj0)

76 How is it legal that they get slapped with the full force of the law a year earlier than everyone else?
Posted by: Long Haul Plucker at December 17, 2013 10:35 AM (ufVHp)



Congrats! It's not!

Not that that stopped Obammy from doing it, even though he has no such power.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at December 17, 2013 10:37 AM (4df7R)

77 I think reason 4 is what is going to kill it. Tax or no tax, you can't arbitrarily decide who to tax ignoring the law you promulgated. The uneven application will give SCOTUS the excuse to shitcan it

Posted by: Thunderb at December 17, 2013 10:37 AM (zOTsN)

78 Oh no, Poly, he believes. Oh yes, he does. He is just waiting for us to acknowledge that what he sees in the mirror is truly divine.

Posted by: tcn at December 17, 2013 10:37 AM (fwcEs)

79
Contrast this with the Pope's decision yesterday to remove Raymond Burke and Justin Rigali from the Congregation of Bishops.

Two American Cardinals with reputations as conservatives, replaced by at least one guy who is a known "moderate."

The Pope is trying to surround the hierarchy of the Church with people who won't be so harsh on topics like contraception, abortion, and gay marriage.

Brave new world we're living in...

Posted by: BurtTC at December 17, 2013 10:38 AM (xCw24)

80 Marx is a jealous god.

Posted by: toby928© from the Phantom Zone at December 17, 2013 10:39 AM (evdj2)

81 I would like to congratulate this judge for pissing in Narcissus' pool, in any event. Doubtless, this gentleman's tenure in office will be short, if the court-packers get their way.

Posted by: tubal at December 17, 2013 10:40 AM (YEQ2h)

82 So, does this mean Michelle's children may end up getting burdened with a child?

Posted by: Havedash at December 17, 2013 10:40 AM (gvqyH)

83 It's pretty ironic. Wasn't he sold as a constitutional scholar?

Posted by: Thunderb at December 17, 2013 10:41 AM (zOTsN)

84 Did anyone quote the Piss-Yellow Coward John Roberts?

"It's a TAX!!!"

Posted by: RoyalOil at December 17, 2013 10:41 AM (VjL9S)

85 The "de minimis" argument is an interesting one, because it applies most obviously to gun control.

A purely administrative task that infringes upon religious rights is unacceptable to this court.

So the significant and sometimes impossible administrative tasks that all gun owners must suffer are acceptable?


Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at December 17, 2013 10:42 AM (QFxY5)

86
>>>Wasn't he sold as a constitutional scholar?

SOLD?!? ray-cisssss

Posted by: Bigby's Semaphore Hands at December 17, 2013 10:42 AM (3ZtZW)

87 I'm going to have to read the decision in full but that part is just fantastic.


It gave me a downright "Pissy Chrissy Matthews tingle" feeling all up my leg.

It's a shame that judges can't just summarize their opinions with a quick, "You guys from the government are fucking idiots, this whole case is a fucking joke, and you'd better get out of my fucking courtroom before I have you thrown in jail for wasting the taxpayers' money with this bullshit. Oh, and your shit's all retarded."

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at December 17, 2013 10:42 AM (4df7R)

88 Not that that stopped Obammy from doing it, even though he has no such power.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at December 17, 2013 10:37 AM (4df7R)



Heh. DiT and I got into a...heated...exchange over at the splitter blog. It started with a discussion of impeachment, but really centered around the idea of authority vs power.

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at December 17, 2013 10:42 AM (da5Wo)

89 So the significant and sometimes impossible administrative tasks that all gun owners must suffer are acceptable?




Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at December 17, 2013 10:42 AM (QFxY5)
Consider Illinois - ALL applicants for a concealed carry license "must" apply online.

Posted by: tubal at December 17, 2013 10:43 AM (YEQ2h)

90
It's a shame that judges can't just summarize their opinions with a quick, "You guys from the government are fucking idiots, this whole case is a fucking joke, and you'd better get out of my fucking courtroom before I have you thrown in jail for wasting the taxpayers' money with this bullshit. Oh, and your shit's all retarded."

---

You can take some rulings and excerpt part of them and know exactly what happened.

Witness the judge who excerpted the Billy Madison "You receive no points and may God have mercy on your soul" speech in his decision.

Posted by: Supreme CJ John Roberts at December 17, 2013 10:44 AM (/Crba)

91 The "de minimis" argument is an interesting one, because it applies most obviously to gun control.

A purely administrative task that infringes upon religious rights is unacceptable to this court.

So the significant and sometimes impossible administrative tasks that all gun owners must suffer are acceptable?



Could this ruling be applied to other areas as well?

Posted by: rickb223 at December 17, 2013 10:45 AM (GjYxB)

92 Posted by: BurtTC at December 17, 2013 10:38 AM (xCw24)

Heh, and here I thought my only recourse to being ignored by the healthcare ethicists in the church was going to be the Bishops.

At this rate I'll be Orthodox Catholic by the end of the year . And I hate Orthodox Catholics.....

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at December 17, 2013 10:45 AM (GaqMa)

93 Nice work Gabe.

Bottom line?

This is a crooked lying bunch of bastards.

Posted by: Nip Sip at December 17, 2013 10:45 AM (0FSuD)

94 Everything the Left fretted and worried about with Bush and the creation of the 'Unitary Executive' has been fulfilled by Obama in spades.


-

what? It's a phrase from Bridge. It's okay for me to use it. I play Bridge. I can even keep score.

Posted by: BumperStickerist at December 17, 2013 10:45 AM (NQyj0)

95 Convoluted and cumbersome intellectual and scholarly arguments from an Administration that could be shot down by any informed 5th grader.

Posted by: dfbaskwill at December 17, 2013 10:45 AM (fA3u5)

96 10 Great post, Gabe! Good to see that when we Okies get the book-learnin' we can do alright!

Posted by: Beckster at December 17, 2013 10:07 AM (kj0P/)

LOL!!!

Posted by: Nip Sip at December 17, 2013 10:46 AM (0FSuD)

97 It seems to me that ObamaCare is going down slowly. It isn't being repealed in own fell swoop, but is instead getting shot to pieces. This is dragging out its agony which is really inhumane, but in this case I am enjoying its painful writhings.

Posted by: Mikey NTH - Death Capades - ObamaCare on Ice! Sponsored by the Outrage Outlet at December 17, 2013 10:46 AM (hLRSq)

98 Great post, Gabe! Good to see that when we Okies get the book-learnin' we can do alright!

Posted by: Beckster at December 17, 2013 10:07 AM (kj0P/)

LOL!!!


How well do they do at cipherin'?

Posted by: rickb223 at December 17, 2013 10:47 AM (GjYxB)

99 So, in other words, ObamaCare is a pissed-off cat leaping onto America's face.

And thus the true reason FSS isn't around much anymore--it's in mortal fear of Facecat. As it should be.

Posted by: Brother Cavil at December 17, 2013 10:47 AM (naUcP)

100 So yet another judicial smackdown of the Obama Administration's attempts to assault religious freedom.

I would ask if they might possibly have learned their lesson now, but sadly I know the answer to that.

Posted by: rockmom at December 17, 2013 10:48 AM (aBlZ1)

101 Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at December 17, 2013 10:42 AM (4df7R)


How about this:

"What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at December 17, 2013 10:48 AM (QFxY5)

102 How well do they do at cipherin'?

Better than they do in Kansas. Their governor went to Washington for something or another, but she sure doesn't seem to figure with squat...

Posted by: Brother Cavil at December 17, 2013 10:48 AM (naUcP)

103 This is dragging out its agony which is really inhumane, but in this case I am enjoying its painful writhings.
Posted by: Mikey NTH - Death Capades - ObamaCare on Ice! Sponsored by the Outrage Outlet at December 17, 2013 10:46 AM (hLRSq)



The only reason I want it to be dead and gone quickly is so that the people who are genuinely hurting because of this debacle can get some peace of mind. I don't care about the stupid progs who voted for Dinglefuck and chose to ignore all of our warnings about this clusterfuck; they can suffer for all I care. But so many people here at teh HQ and elsewhere in the conservative world are being hit hard by this monstrosity, and I want them to get some relief.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at December 17, 2013 10:49 AM (4df7R)

104 You've got to litigate against it to find out what's in it.

Posted by: Nancy Pelosi at December 17, 2013 10:49 AM (FcR7P)

105 Biggest takeaway: until the Supreme Legislature rules, no ruling matters.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 17, 2013 10:49 AM (pYXiI)

106 This is the work of extreme Xtianist judges left behind by the Bush Administration to sabotage the work of our wise multiracial President Barack Obama. The will of correctly-thinking persons to transform this country cannot be subverted forever, haters.

Posted by: Mary Cloggenstein from Brattleboro, Vermont at December 17, 2013 10:49 AM (5ZI7f)

107
>>>This is dragging out its agony which is really inhumane, but in this case I am enjoying its painful writhings.

It'll take about 3 years, at the closing days of which you'll see Sebelius screaming a version of "respeck mah authoritah!" before stepping down to little notice.

Posted by: Bigby's Semaphore Hands at December 17, 2013 10:50 AM (3ZtZW)

108 How well do they do at cipherin'?

Better than they do in Kansas. Their governor went to Washington for something or another, but she sure doesn't seem to figure with squat...


Maybe she went as a double naught spy?

Posted by: rickb223 at December 17, 2013 10:50 AM (GjYxB)

109 There are so many exceptions that the administration cannot argue its purpose is to provide contraceptive care



Their behavior only makes sense if their purpose is to punish and suppress religious people

Posted by: Thunderb at December 17, 2013 10:51 AM (zOTsN)

110 Budget sell-out passes the Senate 67-33 and no relief for vets. And yes, RINOs helped pass it just as I thought they would.


I beginning to think I will not make it to the 2016 primaries before I abandon the Party of stupid.

Posted by: Vic at December 17, 2013 10:51 AM (T2V/1)

111 Their behavior only makes sense if their purpose is to punish and suppress religious people their enemies

Umm...noshit?

Posted by: Brother Cavil at December 17, 2013 10:52 AM (naUcP)

112 It'll take about 3 years, at the closing days of
which you'll see Sebelius screaming a version of "respeck mah
authoritah!" before stepping down to little notice.

Posted by: Bigby's Semaphore Hands at December 17, 2013 10:50 AM (3ZtZW)
After which, she will repurpose herself, no doubt, with a website, "Lady Kathleen's House of Discipline".

Posted by: tubal at December 17, 2013 10:52 AM (YEQ2h)

113 I've been wondering about that with regards to people in the individual insurance market. How is it legal that they get slapped with the full force of the law a year earlier than everyone else?
Posted by: Long Haul Plucker at December 17, 2013 10:35 AM (ufVHp)



It's not. It's just that no one has, all together now!, standing to challenge it until the fine I mean tax I mean floor wax no dessert topping is levied.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at December 17, 2013 10:53 AM (VtjlW)

114 Posted by: Lewis Morris at December 17, 2013 10:08 AM

That's why I come here.


I'd bet a week's pay that they would have carved out some sort of
exemption for wiccans, Far East hippie nonsense or Muslim scum.


Muslims are exempt from the whole thing.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at December 17, 2013 10:54 AM (ZKzrr)

115 And thanks again, "Chief" "Justice" Roberts, for betraying the Law and your Country. I hope you choke to death on a chicken bone the day -- the very day -- that the next Republican President takes office. Oh, and in case I haven't been clear enough, FUCK YOU, ASSHOLE.

Posted by: JDPlumber at December 17, 2013 10:54 AM (yhJhK)

116 After which, she will repurpose herself, no doubt, with a website, "Lady Kathleen's House of Discipline".

I figured that she'd open her own chain of late-term abortion abattoirs.

Posted by: toby928© from the Phantom Zone at December 17, 2013 10:54 AM (evdj2)

117 Face-sized spider > Obamacare facecat.

Posted by: akula51 at December 17, 2013 10:54 AM (Ob/LA)

118
So the significant and sometimes impossible administrative tasks that all gun owners must suffer are acceptable?

The current trajectory for RKBA is headed toward constitutional carry.

Please note that I'm not suggesting we're ever getting there.

Federal-level gun control since NFA '34 is founded on a widely shared belief in blatant falsehoods about the 2A's "militia clause" and the plain meaning of clearly stated and simple words written in English. That delusion has been coming apart both in public opinion and in the courts over the last couple of decades.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at December 17, 2013 10:54 AM (V3kRK)

119 Just wait until we have to knock this little thing around again when tax time comes and some 'people' have not complied.



In the case of an individual who is seeking an exemptioncertificateunder section 1311(d)(4)(H) from any requirement or penalty imposed by section 5000A, the following information:
In the case of an individual seeking exemption based on the individual’s status as amember of an exempt religious sect or division, as a member of a health care sharing ministry, as an Indian,or as an individual eligible for a hardship exemption, such information as the Secretary shall prescribe.”
Senate Bill, H.R. 3590, pages 273-274



Will someone with more knowledge let me know if they have another section which specifically defines who is an exempt religious sect or is that to be determined. I know the Amish and Christian Scientists are exempt but can others also start to claim that or do they need to be specifically named in the ACA?

Posted by: polynikes at December 17, 2013 10:55 AM (m2CN7)

120
I figured that she'd open her own chain of late-term abortion abattoirs.

---

Why not? I taught her everything she knows!

Posted by: Zombie Tiller The Killer at December 17, 2013 10:57 AM (/Crba)

121 Excellent post, Malor. Thanks!

Posted by: mrp at December 17, 2013 10:57 AM (HjPtV)

122 I beginning to think I will not make it to the 2016 primaries before I abandon the Party of stupid.
Posted by: Vic at December 17, 2013 10:51 AM (T2V/1)



The POS has long since abandoned us, Vic. It's high time we catch up and act accordingly.

Posted by: Havedash at December 17, 2013 10:57 AM (gvqyH)

123
That "faithfully execute the laws" clause is such a beeyotch, ain't it, Barky?

Posted by: Krebs v Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars at December 17, 2013 10:57 AM (R7uOf)

124
103 -

I don't profess to fully understand the best tactics, but my major objection to people saying "oh, let this law go into full effect so people can see what a mess it is, and then they'll vote Republican" is that we have no idea how this will shake out, and more importantly, since when is it the morally acceptable position to wish harm on people so they will learn the lesson we want them to learn?

Posted by: BurtTC at December 17, 2013 10:58 AM (xCw24)

125 Poly it sounds like the law refers you to a list of exempt religious groups which the Secretary creates


Promoting one religion over another

Posted by: Thunderb at December 17, 2013 10:58 AM (zOTsN)

126 Face-sized spider > Obamacare facecat.
Posted by: akula51 at December 17, 2013 10:54 AM (Ob/LA)



Maybe it's:

American people = Face-sized Spider
Obamacare= Facecat

FIGHT!

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at December 17, 2013 10:58 AM (4df7R)

127 The Big Nasty of these mandates is that it requires getting a permit from Government to practice your religion.

Posted by: SGT Ted at December 17, 2013 10:59 AM (CtKeI)

128 The racist disrespect for our President in all these threads for the last five years is just sickening.

Posted by: Mary Cloggenstein from Brattleboro, Vermont at December 17, 2013 10:59 AM (5ZI7f)

129 Yes Mary. You shouldn't lower your expectations just because he's black. So racist

Posted by: Thunderb at December 17, 2013 11:00 AM (zOTsN)

130 So the significant and sometimes impossible administrative tasks that all gun owners must suffer are acceptable?



I know I've told this story before but I shall repurpose for here. Boy BFF's last job was at a health care facility that provided mental health care in addition to other things. The facility was housed in a historic building. In order to comply with state and Federal medical record privacy laws, the room with the hard copy of the records, and they were still required to keep hard copies because some other regulations, had to be kept locked at all times. The only room that could hold the records was the secondary exit for fire purposes so those doors had to be kept unlocked at all times.

The state and Feds wouldn't waive the lock requirement. The fire department wouldn't waive the unlock requirement. The zoning board wouldn't grant a variance to build an addition. An addition was necessary because the only wall that could be knocked out to make a different room was a load bearing wall so that couldn't be knocked down.

He's telling me all this and I only kinda sorta jokingly suggest a tunnel. He said he looked into that and due to where the sewer pipes were, they couldn't build a tunnel.


It was physically impossible for the facility to comply. Every single entity's response to that? Fuck you, do it or pay the fine.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at December 17, 2013 11:00 AM (VtjlW)

131 The State Dept and Obama just announced our willingness to ally with the Islamic Front in Syria. Not sure how we go about claiming terrorism is a bad thing when the US is becoming a major state sponsor. Not to mention material support for and actions supporting genocide of the Shia, a bit problematic in light of the 1949 Convention.

Posted by: Beagle at December 17, 2013 11:00 AM (sOtz/)

132 since when is it the morally acceptable position to wish harm on people so they will learn the lesson we want them to learn?



Sometimes, after being REPEATEDLY & REPEATEDLY told, experience is the only teacher.

Posted by: rickb223 at December 17, 2013 11:00 AM (GjYxB)

133 The Big Nasty of these mandates is that it requires getting a permit from Government to practice your religion.
Posted by: SGT Ted at December 17, 2013 10:59 AM (CtKeI)


And in so doing it requires telling the gubmint what your religion IS. That will come in so handy when it comes to figuring out who to ship to the camps. The Nazis would approve.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at December 17, 2013 11:01 AM (4df7R)

134 It isn't being repealed in own fell swoop, but is instead getting shot to pieces.

Because lawyered to bits isn't part of the problem?
Our fail leftward slower GOP determined to get their amnesty and be in 2nd place when the wheels fall off vs. squashing the Dems with this shitpile.

Posted by: DaveA at December 17, 2013 11:01 AM (DL2i+)

135 But so many people here at teh HQ and elsewhere in the conservative world are being hit hard by this monstrosity, and I want them to get some relief.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at December 17, 2013 10:49 AM (4df7R)


I know they are, andI am sympathetic to what they are going through. Unfortunately the pride of one political party and of one man in particular refuses to do the right thing for these people and provide them with the relief they need. Repealing this would be good, and replacing it with nothing would be best, however it is not to be because of prideful people.

So I am left with enjoying the spectacle of the prideful ones having their pride cut into in little painful nicks dragging it all out over time.

Posted by: Mikey NTH - Death Capades - ObamaCare on Ice! Sponsored by the Outrage Outlet at December 17, 2013 11:01 AM (hLRSq)

136 I know the Amish and Christian Scientists are exempt but can others also start to claim that or do they need to be specifically named in the ACA?

****

I believe that the "Sisters of the Upper Diocese of Lower Peruvia Church of Pentecostal Devotionalism and Grill" is also exempt.

Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at December 17, 2013 11:01 AM (lHb9q)

137
128 -

If you are going to do the Mary sock, and that's a big IF, you should at least adopt the silly and ditzy tone of the "original" Mary. Otherwise, you just look like a typical lefty troll.

Posted by: BurtTC at December 17, 2013 11:02 AM (xCw24)

138 It was physically impossible for the facility to comply. Every single entity's response to that? Fuck you, do it or pay the fine.

---

The Paul Vario edict - "Fuck you, pay me!"

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at December 17, 2013 11:03 AM (/Crba)

139 The Pope is trying to surround the hierarchy of the Church with people who won't be so harsh on topics like contraception, abortion, and gay marriage.

Maybe there'll be a schism and Benedict can be Pope again.

Posted by: The Honorable John Hancock, President at December 17, 2013 11:03 AM (zF6Iw)

140 "@18 Excellent post, Gabe! Been wanting to know the details of this one, seems the Oministration's incompetence knows no bounds."



Seconded!!

Posted by: Optimizer at December 17, 2013 11:03 AM (Mxt9o)

141 I believe that the "Sisters of the Upper Diocese of Lower Peruvia Church of Pentecostal Devotionalism and Grill" is also exempt.


Online menu?

Posted by: rickb223 at December 17, 2013 11:04 AM (GjYxB)

142 129
Yes Mary. You shouldn't lower your expectations just because he's black. So racist

Posted by: Thunderb at December 17, 2013 11:00 AM (zOTsN)























Mary better get busy and write a letter to the Miami Herald right now, denouncing that awful racist Leonard Pitts, Junior, who had the effrontery to use the NNNNN-word, and the SSSSS- word in the editorial section of my local Commie rag today!!!! The horror! Just because Mr. Pitts is of the chocolate persuasion should not matter, right Mary?

Posted by: tubal at December 17, 2013 11:04 AM (YEQ2h)

143
>>>I don't profess to fully understand the best tactics, but my major objection to people saying "oh, let this law go into full effect so people can see what a mess it is, and then they'll vote Republican" is that we have no idea how this will shake out, and more importantly, since when is it the morally acceptable position to wish harm on people so they will learn the lesson we want them to learn?

My answer, not mainstream to this blog even, is that I recognise the GOP brand is so completely trashed that no matter how bad it gets many/most will not do 'something crazy like vote for a Republican' - a phrase I've heard often enough. It really is at the point where any interference done with the best of intentions is regarded as interloping by a bunch of racist idiot retards who never should be allowed to speak in public in the first place and should be pelted with literal shit should they dare to speak in public now.

So, seeing that, I'm happy to see them wail and gnash teeth and rend garments and such. Its morally acceptable for you to allow me some happiness in life.

Posted by: Bigby's Semaphore Hands at December 17, 2013 11:04 AM (3ZtZW)

144 The state and Feds wouldn't waive the lock requirement. The fire department wouldn't waive the unlock requirement. The zoning board wouldn't grant a variance to build an addition. An addition was necessary because the only wall that could be knocked out to make a different room was a load bearing wall so that couldn't be knocked down.

Isn't that something that should be having a lawsuit filed to settle? Or am I just being crazy in thinking that a practical use of the judicial system is ever done anymore.

Posted by: buzzion at December 17, 2013 11:04 AM (LI48c)

145 If you are going to do the Mary sock, and that's a big IF, you should at
least adopt the silly and ditzy tone of the "original" Mary. Otherwise,
you just look like a typical lefty troll.



True. Mary Cloggenstein posts used to be kind of an art form. Now they're just dimwitted and obvious.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at December 17, 2013 11:05 AM (KgpQn)

146 Online menu?
Posted by: rickb223 at December 17, 2013 11:04 AM (GjYxB)

*****


It's usually an insert in the hymnal.

Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at December 17, 2013 11:05 AM (lHb9q)

147 Seems point no. 4 re: exemptions, could be used to strike all of Obamacare.

Posted by: NoBroccoli4U at December 17, 2013 11:05 AM (3p7iG)

148 It's outrageous how poorly the left treated George W. Bush for eight years -- simply because he's white!!!

Posted by: Failure Mercure at December 17, 2013 11:06 AM (yhJhK)

149 144 The state and Feds wouldn't waive the lock requirement. The fire department wouldn't waive the unlock requirement. The zoning board wouldn't grant a variance to build an addition. An addition was necessary because the only wall that could be knocked out to make a different room was a load bearing wall so that couldn't be knocked down.

Isn't that something that should be having a lawsuit filed to settle? Or am I just being crazy in thinking that a practical use of the judicial system is ever done anymore.

---

This assumes that the various entities weren't just fucking with the facility to get it to close down.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at December 17, 2013 11:06 AM (/Crba)

150 Judge to government lawyer, "I find the spittoon in the corner has a more compelling argument than you sir."

I could almost hear the judge chortling and laughing as he slapped the government around.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at December 17, 2013 11:06 AM (HIbcx)

151 since when is it the morally acceptable position to wish harm on people so they will learn the lesson we want them to learn?

I would say there's a difference between wishing harm on someone and wanting them to understand the consequences of their actions. Had Obammycare been repealed before it ever went into practice I'd ahve been happy. I didn't need for the idiot progs to suffer for their stupidity for me to be happy. But now that it's in effect I have no compunction about proclaiming how little I care about the progs' suffering, because WE TOLD THEM IT WOULD HAPPEN.

Sometimes you've got to touch the hot stove to figure out that your parents were right when they said you'd burn yourself.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at December 17, 2013 11:06 AM (4df7R)

152 I believe that the "Sisters of the Upper Diocese of Lower Peruvia Church of Pentecostal Devotionalism and Grill" is also exempt.

The Fellowship Revival of Ancient Kobol's is pending.

Posted by: Brother Cavil at December 17, 2013 11:06 AM (naUcP)

153 152 I believe that the "Sisters of the Upper Diocese of Lower Peruvia Church of Pentecostal Devotionalism and Grill" is also exempt.

The Fellowship Revival of Ancient Kobol's is pending.

---

Do we get Chamalla extract with that?

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at December 17, 2013 11:07 AM (/Crba)

154 Gah. Someone put that smug hipster "Little Drummer Boy" video on the office big screen. Guess I'm going out for lunch.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at December 17, 2013 11:07 AM (ZKzrr)

155 I believe that the "Sisters of the Upper Diocese of Lower Peruvia Church of Pentecostal Devotionalism and Grill" is also exempt.


That's the one whose sacraments include Jello shots, isn't it?

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at December 17, 2013 11:08 AM (KgpQn)

156 "@79 ... The Pope is trying to surround the hierarchy of the Church with people who won't be so harsh on topics like contraception, abortion, and gay marriage."



I'm so old, I remember when someone would ask, "Is the Pope Catholic?" was a kind of snarky, sarcastic way to say, DUHHHH!!!

These days it's probably something that half the Catholics in this country (and more than half, elsewhere) ask themselves on a semi-regular basis...

Posted by: Optimizer at December 17, 2013 11:08 AM (Mxt9o)

157 Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at December 17, 2013 11:00 AM (VtjlW)

Your story is a lot worse than mine, but it reminds me of when i put a water heater in for a neighbor and the city inspector wouldn't pass it because there was no vent pipe to vent into the attic, but this was a closet in the garage built specifically for the heater so there was no ceiling to it, it all vented into the attic as it was. But nope, no pipe so no pass, so i went and got a cheap aluminium pipe and stapled it to the wall and he passed it.

Posted by: booger at December 17, 2013 11:08 AM (xRDdL)

158
147 Seems point no. 4 re: exemptions, could be used to strike all of Obamacare.
Posted by: NoBroccoli4U at December 17, 2013 11:05 AM (3p7iG


But it won't, because that cowardly shit Roberts has already demonstrated that he will not allow the court to strike down the entirety of the law.

Posted by: buzzion at December 17, 2013 11:08 AM (LI48c)

159 Seems point no. 4 re: exemptions, could be used to strike all of Obamacare.

And point no. 6 to get rid of everything else he's done.

Posted by: t-bird at December 17, 2013 11:08 AM (FcR7P)

160 The facility was housed in a historic building. In order to comply
with state and Federal medical record privacy laws, the room with the
hard copy of the records, and they were still required to keep hard
copies because some other regulations, had to be kept locked at all
times.
===

404 Website - not secure. Rules, fines, and penalties apply to serfs only. "If Congress won't act, I will!" And Washington DC waxes fat on the suffering of the people.

Posted by: mrp at December 17, 2013 11:09 AM (HjPtV)

161 I would say there's a difference between wishing harm on someone and wanting them to understand the consequences of their actions.

Oh, frak that.

I don't always admit it, but occasionally, in the deep dark recesses of what's left of my shriveled heart, the fact is that "Let It Burn" is subtitled: Because you've proven you earned it.

Cause and effect. Sometimes, "deserve" really does have something to do with it.

Posted by: Brother Cavil at December 17, 2013 11:09 AM (naUcP)

162 HeatherRadish I first read that as the "Little Dummer Boy" My bad.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at December 17, 2013 11:10 AM (HIbcx)

163 Do we get Chamalla extract with that?
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at December 17, 2013 11:07 AM (/Crba)

*****


You can have chamalla da extract you want.

Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at December 17, 2013 11:10 AM (lHb9q)

164
132 and 143 -

The thing is though, there are people who DID NOT vote for these people who are being made to suffer by their actions. These people deserve representation in a democratic society, and they need to be fought for by the people who were ostensibly sent to Washington (and other capitols) to fight for them.

The Republican Party has no business being passive when it comes to fighting Obamacare, because there are people who voted for them who are suffering because of Obamacare.

It's as simple as that.

Posted by: BurtTC at December 17, 2013 11:10 AM (xCw24)

165
152 jeez you guys are reminding me of Cerebus now.

I'm sure the Cirinists and Illusionists are totes cool with the mandate as is. Not so sure about the Orthodox Tarimites.

Posted by: Bigby's Semaphore Hands at December 17, 2013 11:11 AM (3ZtZW)

166 If you use point no. 4 to strike down Obamacare, then you have to use it against the federal tax code, as well.

Posted by: t-bird at December 17, 2013 11:11 AM (FcR7P)

167 Isn't that something that should be having a lawsuit filed to settle? Or am I just being crazy in thinking that a practical use of the judicial system is ever done anymore.
Posted by: buzzion at December 17, 2013 11:04 AM (LI48c)



An appeal of the zoning board decision was in the works when Boy BFF got fired. Eventually, that's what would have happened but considering it was in the Philadelphia area, it was a matter of making sure that wink wink nudge nudge the right hearing officers wink wink nudge nudge heard the matter.


The hilarious end to that story is that Boy BFF was trying to be sure the facility was in compliance with all the various laws. He got fired Because Reasons. Well, from his recent conversations with the lovely people with the FBI and the US Attorney's office who are investigating his former bosses, he appears to have been the only one who cared about pesky things like that.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at December 17, 2013 11:11 AM (VtjlW)

168 My friends, you have nothing to fear with Barack Obama in the White House.

Posted by: John McCain at December 17, 2013 11:11 AM (Pr6hk)

169 124: " since when is it the morally acceptable position to wish harm on people so they will learn the lesson we want them to learn?"

It is my belief that some pain now is preferable to greater pain later.

The only lessons that are remembered are those that are taught by pain.

This has been known for millennia.

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at December 17, 2013 11:13 AM (LJpVo)

170 The IRS is really gonna be staffing up their judicial audit group, aren't they?

Posted by: JEM at December 17, 2013 11:13 AM (o+SC1)

171 An appeal of the zoning board decision was in the works when Boy BFF got fired. Eventually, that's what would have happened but considering it was in the Philadelphia area, it was a matter of making sure that wink wink nudge nudge the right hearing officers wink wink nudge nudge heard the matter. The hilarious end to that story is that Boy BFF was trying to be sure the facility was in compliance with all the various laws. He got fired Because Reasons. Well, from his recent conversations with the lovely people with the FBI and the US Attorney's office who are investigating his former bosses, he appears to have been the only one who cared about pesky things like that.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at December 17, 2013 11:11 AM (VtjlW)


Gee you mean a Democrat run city is full of corrupt officials trying to shakedown corrupt businessmen. Shocking.

Posted by: buzzion at December 17, 2013 11:14 AM (LI48c)

172 The only lessons that are remembered are those that are taught by pain.


That's why Torquemada was such a great piano teacher.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at December 17, 2013 11:14 AM (KgpQn)

173 The only lessons that are remembered are those that are taught by pain.

A dear school, but fools will learn in no other--and there are a frakton of fools around these days.

Posted by: Brother Cavil at December 17, 2013 11:15 AM (naUcP)

174 That's why Torquemada was such a great piano teacher.
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at December 17, 2013 11:14 AM (KgpQn)

***

Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at December 17, 2013 11:15 AM (lHb9q)

175 there was no vent pipe to vent into the attic

Would you vent your car's heavier-than-air exhaust into the attic? What a weird building code, but at least it helps kill some rats. Mine vents thru the roof.

Posted by: t-bird at December 17, 2013 11:15 AM (FcR7P)

176 #149
"This assumes that the various entities weren't just fucking with the facility to get it to close down."

Yeah, sounds like it. Cheaper than a Kelo action and a lot less traumatizing for the pols. Historic building? Primo target.

Posted by: mrp at December 17, 2013 11:15 AM (HjPtV)

177 The only lessons that are remembered are those that are taught by pain.


"If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball."

- The Exalted Philosopher Laureate Patches O'Houlihan

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at December 17, 2013 11:17 AM (4df7R)

178 Thanks for the clear summary and exposition, Gabe.

I face a dilemma. Seeing Judge Cogan's comments reminds me that, on occasion, federal courts actually do their jobs, and are manned by capable people who understand language, the law, and their role in the system.

But overall, and see specifically the O-Care SCOTUS atrocity, or Hamdan, or DOMA ruling, and on and on, the general rule is that the whole process is a breathtakingly unimpressive, unserious, tendentious bunch of bullshit that has made a mockery of the rule of law (from the judicial side - the executive branch side's lawlessness is now well recognized).

My favorite absurdity - and it is no less than that - is the "compelling interest" concept. Don't force me to dig out my Soviet Criminal Code (any version, Stalin's or the 1977 one) and translate all the sections where the essential Russian equivalent of "compelling state interest" is used as a bedrock of a restriction or mandate or govt. power.

This whole "compelling state interest" and "narrowly tailored" and "strict scrutiny" nonsense is a laughable disemboweling of the letter and spirit of the constitution, and of law itself.It amounts to one gigantic "never mind" clause that, in effect, empties the constitution of meaning, insofar as the document's primary animating principle is limiting state power over the individual.

It is darkly amusing to see once again what pathetic, sub-mediocre intellects and personalities now hold the once-highest and most prestigious positions in the country. But even that gallows humor is wearing thin. And as stated above, the whole system is so unserious and capricious and divorced from logic that even replacing these idiots with less cretinous ones still will leave us being ruled by such ridiculous figures as Kennedy and Sotomayor.

Posted by: non-purist at December 17, 2013 11:17 AM (afQnV)

179 Posted by: BurtTC at December 17, 2013 11:10 AM (xCw24)

Burt:
No Republican voted for this law, and the Republicans alone cannot repeal it. The Democrats in the Senate will not take up any repeal measure, and if they do the President will veto it. I really can't see what more the Republicans can do about this.


As for your other complaint, that people are getting hurt and they did not vote for the representatives who did pass this - I really do not know what the response to that is other than to say that yes, sometimes the candidate you would rather have in office doesn't win.

Posted by: Mikey NTH - Death Capades - ObamaCare on Ice! Sponsored by the Outrage Outlet at December 17, 2013 11:17 AM (hLRSq)

180 Could we get someone who knows to explain how the non-severability issue plays here.

I thought if one part was unconstitutional the whole law was as well?

Posted by: Dandolo at December 17, 2013 11:17 AM (0itOz)

181
>>>since when is it the morally acceptable position to wish harm on people so they will learn the lesson we want them to learn?"

>>>It is my belief that some pain now is preferable to greater pain later.

Correct.

Unless provision of free heroin is the morally superior position? Becoz you know, its kinda painful when addicts don't have any, and oddly enough a lot of people want them to learn something from that.

Posted by: Bigby's Semaphore Hands at December 17, 2013 11:17 AM (3ZtZW)

182 My friends, you have nothing to fear with Barack Obama in the White House.

Whoever primaries McCain should have a commercial consisting of that statement plus maybe a few obviously dumb things from his daughter Tits McGee.

Posted by: Ian S. at December 17, 2013 11:18 AM (B/VB5)

183
182 My friends, you have nothing to fear with Barack Obama in the White House.Whoever primaries McCain should have a commercial consisting of that statement plus maybe a few obviously dumb things from his daughter Tits McGee.
Posted by: Ian S. at December 17, 2013 11:18 AM (B/VB5)


Don't forget "Obamacare is the law of the land."

You can probably also throw in some of his bullshit flip flopping on amnesty and border security.

Posted by: buzzion at December 17, 2013 11:20 AM (LI48c)

184 161: "Cause and effect. Sometimes, "deserve" really does have something to do with it."

Truth is its own virtue. You should start a card company and get paid for this.

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at December 17, 2013 11:20 AM (/qzu7)

185 180 Could we get someone who knows to explain how the non-severability issue plays here. I thought if one part was unconstitutional the whole law was as well?
Posted by: Dandolo at December 17, 2013 11:17 AM (0itOz)

The contraception mandate and its narrow religious exemptionsare in a HHS regulation, not in the statute. Regulations, or portions thereof,can always be tossed by a court without touching the underlying law.

Posted by: rockmom at December 17, 2013 11:21 AM (aBlZ1)

186 I really can't see what more the Republicans can do about this.

They could give some Democrats a group they could join. If you decide your opponent is going to win, you're right. Ted Cruz knows this.

Posted by: t-bird at December 17, 2013 11:21 AM (FcR7P)

187 I saw Tits McGee open for Andrew WK at a warehouse party in Brooklyn, summer 2006.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at December 17, 2013 11:21 AM (7ObY1)

188 185

Thank you.
i was under the impression that the mandate was in the law.

Posted by: Dandolo at December 17, 2013 11:22 AM (0itOz)

189 >>Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge

Uh, Brandon, buddy, have you gone on any little driving trips lately that we should know about??

http://tinyurl.com/mylpoj4

Posted by: Mama AJ at December 17, 2013 11:22 AM (SUKHu)

190 It's outrageous that sinister outside groups are agitating against laws they haven't even read!

Oh wait.

Posted by: John Boehner at December 17, 2013 11:23 AM (XPZpj)

191 The Administrations Case was SO bad it is at least one of two things.

It is amateur put together by second rate legal minds with any argument that remotely resembled something that might work, that while not understanding the law nor the arguments they were making about it, hoped that in the wash a valid argument would come out someplace. E.g. Pure legal amateurism.

That's really the best they had so they had to go with it and hope they got a progressive judge that would find an excuse to put politics before law, and then pray the Supreme Court just didn't take the case.


I'd like it to be the latter, but it looks a lot like the former.


Posted by: MikeTheMoose Laughing Maniacally While Throwing Matches. at December 17, 2013 11:23 AM (0q2P7)

192 I assume the records could not be stored off site? That's where I send mine to be eventually lost.

Posted by: polynikes at December 17, 2013 11:23 AM (m2CN7)

193 Also, should point out that the operating principle of at least this admin, and perhaps the liberals in general now, is the whole Nudge thinger - where they want to make the choices you make in life such a PITA that you shift behaviors towards what they want you to do. And they have no trouble seeing that as the morally superior position.

Posted by: Bigby's Semaphore Hands at December 17, 2013 11:23 AM (3ZtZW)

194 We believe in liberty that isn't required to explain itself first to the government.

Posted by: Brothers of Chinchilla Fur and Post-Coital Glow at December 17, 2013 11:24 AM (XPZpj)

195 182 My friends, you have nothing to fear with Barack Obama in the White House.

Whoever primaries McCain should have a commercial consisting of that statement plus maybe a few obviously dumb things from his daughter Tits McGee.

---

I'm Veronica Corningstone, Tits McGee is off tonight, thank God...

Posted by: Veronica Corningstone at December 17, 2013 11:24 AM (/Crba)

196 I think the IRS is going to be busy the next few months auditing church donors

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at December 17, 2013 11:25 AM (O3C36)

197 Obamacare started out as bad heroin and has turned into Krokodil.

Posted by: polynikes at December 17, 2013 11:26 AM (m2CN7)

198 vent pipe to vent into the attic

It was OK under code to vent a gas appliance into the attic, instead of to outside? Wow.

Posted by: Ian S. at December 17, 2013 11:27 AM (B/VB5)

199 The Republican Party has no business being passive when it comes to
fighting Obamacare, because there are people who voted for them who are
suffering because of Obamacare.

It's as simple as that.


Point is- there's really nothing of significance they can do.

Obama isn't going to wake up next week, miraculously see the light and agree to repeal Obamacare. It's his only major achievement. Without it, he has no legacy to speak of.

Where do we want the focus right now? On the failures of Obamacare, or those big meanie unreasonable Republicans tilting at windmills again?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 17, 2013 11:27 AM (SY2Kh)

200 Pelosi said that if you passed this pile of progressive policy poop, you'd see what was in it. Seems clear to me that after four years even the geniuses in the Obama White House haven't figured out just what's in the bill. And if they can't figure it out, how the hell are we peons supposed to know what's in it?

In life sometimes you're the hydrant, and sometimes you're the pit bull. Glad to see a judge splashing a little on Pelosi and Obama.

Posted by: Comanche Voter at December 17, 2013 11:28 AM (VAche)

201 Mr. T is getting Twitter-hammered by the Progs for coming out in support of school prayer.

Here's hoping that Mr. T still gots no time fo' the jibba jabba.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at December 17, 2013 11:29 AM (7ObY1)

202 Posted by: Ian S. at December 17, 2013 11:27 AM (B/VB5)

One wonders if the inspector was a poorly trained idiot who misunderstood "vent through attic"

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at December 17, 2013 11:29 AM (GaqMa)

203 A word of caution for the Moron who wins the Mega Million tonight. After winning hire Megan McCain to be your food tester.

Case of the poisoned lottery winner has been settled but police still list it as a homicide.
http://tinyurl.com/k4sdbzm

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at December 17, 2013 11:29 AM (HIbcx)

204 185 180 Could we get someone who knows to explain how the non-severability issue plays here. I thought if one part was unconstitutional the whole law was as well?
Posted by: Dandolo at December 17, 2013 11:17 AM (0itOz)

The contraception mandate and its narrow religious exemptionsare in a HHS regulation, not in the statute. Regulations, or portions thereof,can always be tossed by a court without touching the underlying law.
Posted by: rockmom at December 17, 2013 11:21 AM (aBlZ1)
=========================

But the underlying power to mandate coverage to all Americans is in the law and, unless I'm mistaken, its a fair inference that if the Government lacks the power to mandate to one group of Americans, it lacks the power to mandate to all Americans. Obviously religion underlies the reasoning, but if we are not required to explain ourselves to the State in order to claim liberty from mandate, as Judge Cogan explicitly says we are not, then how can the Government discriminate between Americans free of the mandate from those subject to it?

Gabe or AP might be able to explain, but i think this blows up the mandate for everyone.

Posted by: Brothers of Chinchilla Fur and Post-Coital Glow at December 17, 2013 11:29 AM (97jsO)

205 201 Mr. T is getting Twitter-hammered by the Progs for coming out in support of school prayer.

Here's hoping that Mr. T still gots no time fo' the jibba jabba.

---

Don't talk to milk! Drink your drugs! Don't do strangers!

Posted by: Mr. T at December 17, 2013 11:30 AM (/Crba)

206 Meh...

Mark my words loyal subjects, in my 4th and 5th (term lol) in the Monarchy of Barak, I will end religion and make a tree and the sun your new gods.

Well make that Demi-gods, after me of course and Money and health to be the seconds.

That will be all.

-EB I

Posted by: Emperor Barak I at December 17, 2013 11:30 AM (DVC2D)

207 The Administrations Case was SO bad it is at least one of two things.

There's a third option, which is a variant of your first one: Obama actually made up the case himself, and this is an actual example of his allegedly brilliant legal mind.

Posted by: Ian S. at December 17, 2013 11:30 AM (B/VB5)

208 I disagree that experiencing Obamacare's pain will cause many people to vote Republican, because what exactly are the Republicans doing to earn that?

Posted by: KG at December 17, 2013 11:31 AM (p7BzH)

209 203 A word of caution for the Moron who wins the Mega Million tonight. After winning hire Megan McCain to be your food tester.
==================

If I win, I thought I'd hire her to be Judge Cogan's food tester.

Posted by: MTF at December 17, 2013 11:31 AM (97jsO)

210 But so many people here at teh HQ and elsewhere in the conservative world are being hit hard by this monstrosity, and I want them to get some relief.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at December 17, 2013 10:49 AM (4df7R)

When your party is the party of the rich (whom can afford it) and the freeloaders, and the other party is the party of neither, the fact that your law disproportionately affects the other party's members is not accidental.

If all of your money is going to pay for healthcare, it makes it kind of hard to donate to political causes, doesn't it?

Posted by: blindside at December 17, 2013 11:32 AM (WzWmY)

211
179 -

You're describing the position the Republican party has taken. Shrugging their collective shoulders, sitting back and letting government as usual take place, hoping that people will suddenly decide to vote for them next time because they didn't vote for the original bill.

Good plan.

Posted by: BurtTC at December 17, 2013 11:32 AM (xCw24)

212
Also, should point out that the operating principle of at least this admin, and perhaps the liberals in general now, is the whole Nudge thinger - where they want to make the choices you make in life such a PITA that you shift behaviors towards what they want you to do. And they have no trouble seeing that as the morally superior position.

Have you seen this?

http://www.thefuntheory.com/

Somehow, your description of Nudge seems a lot less tyrannical to me than what Sunstein and his ilk have in mind.

I completely agree that fucking with people's behavior is bad thing, but I see a fairly bright dividing line between discouraging people from doing things and manipulating people into doing things with the latter as worse by far.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at December 17, 2013 11:34 AM (V3kRK)

213 Could we get someone who knows to explain how the non-severability issue plays here.



I thought if one part was unconstitutional the whole law was as well?


They'll play the "judicial restraint" card. Even without a severability clause, there's little chance that SCOTUS would invalidate the entire law over such a narrow aspect of it.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 17, 2013 11:34 AM (SY2Kh)

214 Doesn't the Act itself depend upon IRS regulations to determine if groups are exempt. For example the Amish and Muslims?

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at December 17, 2013 11:34 AM (HIbcx)

215 Anna Puma (+SmuD) at December 17, 2013 11:29 AM (HIbcx)

or as Tammy might say, hire Tim Tebow to spoon you your food personally...

Then even if it's poisoned, you'll be so, so happy you won't care ...

Posted by: Adriane... at December 17, 2013 11:34 AM (jdRXP)

216 >>>since when is it the morally acceptable position to wish harm on people so they will learn the lesson we want them to learn?"

>>>It is my belief that some pain now is preferable to greater pain later.

Correct.

Unless provision of free heroin is the morally superior position? Becoz you know, its kinda painful when addicts don't have any, and oddly enough a lot of people want them to learn something from that.

Posted by: Bigby's Semaphore
---------------------------------------------

In re 'Pathological Altruism'


http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324688404578545523824389986

Posted by: Mike Hammer at December 17, 2013 11:35 AM (aDwsi)

217 154 Gah. Someone put that smug hipster "Little Drummer Boy" video on the office big screen. Guess I'm going out for lunch.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at December 17, 2013 11:07 AM (ZKzrr)

--------

The definitive version (GrooveShark)

http://tny.gs/1hZanhZ


Posted by: Cold Rage at December 17, 2013 11:35 AM (w+Fue)

218 This thread is starting to smell like Nancy disGrace's face looks.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at December 17, 2013 11:35 AM (7ObY1)

219 Be prepared for a new mandated section of the Bible called "Stuff that should be in there but ain't."

They are going to shoehorn it in between Acts, and Romans.

Posted by: ASK21 at December 17, 2013 11:36 AM (hppbQ)

220 219 They are going to shoehorn it in between Acts, and Romans.

Don't worry - another supreme entity will just rewrite Revelations.

Posted by: akula51 at December 17, 2013 11:36 AM (Ob/LA)

221 Be prepared for a new mandated section of the Bible called "Stuff that should be in there but ain't."

They are going to shoehorn it in between Acts, and Romans.

Posted by: ASK21
----------------------

...and redaction of the inconvenient portions.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at December 17, 2013 11:38 AM (aDwsi)

222 MWR,

"Mr. Mom" and "Mrs. Doubtfire", although comedies, showed that a man can do all the nurturing stuff.

Posted by: Jimbo at December 17, 2013 11:38 AM (V70Uh)

223 Also I believe that far too many Americans have been brainwashed to the extent that no amount of physical or financial pain will exceed the psychological pain of the possibility of voting Republican.

Posted by: KG at December 17, 2013 11:38 AM (p7BzH)

224 NASA has spent $390,000 to create a cartoon superhero, the “Green Ninja,” to teach children about global warming.

The character fights his archenemies “plastic man, coal man, and "corporate man.”

Yeah, that's only the worst superhero ever. Aquaman is relieved to FINALLY get out of last place. He's so happy, he went waterskiing on the backs of two bottle-nose dolphins...nekkid.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at December 17, 2013 11:39 AM (7ObY1)

225 Also I believe that far too many Americans have been brainwashed to the extent that no amount of physical or financial pain will exceed the psychological pain of the possibility of voting Republican.

Posted by: KG
----------------------

Once their minds have been co-opted by the Liberal mindset, they become unresponsive to reality. It is just a fact. Ergo, they are at least just slightly insane, and should be treated as such.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at December 17, 2013 11:41 AM (aDwsi)

226 205: "Don't do strangers!"

Hey, what goes TDY stays TDY!

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at December 17, 2013 11:41 AM (Kh+vp)

227 NASA's arch enemy is corporate man?

The children are obviously running the asylum.

Posted by: akula51 at December 17, 2013 11:41 AM (Ob/LA)

228 Don't worry - another supreme entity will just rewrite Revelations.

Which is funny, because the relevant sections of the Koran are more or less a mirror image of Revelations. Obama probably thinks he's the missing imam.

Posted by: Ian S. at December 17, 2013 11:42 AM (B/VB5)

229 Posted by: non-purist at December 17, 2013 11:17 AM (afQnV)

concur...


The entire idea of 'State Interest' treats the State as though it was an entity with Rights... As if it was a thinking thing... not a man made construct subservient to the People...


Which, come to the think of it, is the root of the problem we have in America today.



The State itself has no interest. It is given direction by the People at its Helm... which are supposed to be accountable to the Electorate. When you say 'State' interest, it no longer holds PEOPLE accountable.

It also makes it so you can't Change things... because it was the faceless STATE which did it...

This is the entire reason Congress keeps ceding Legislative Power to 'Boards' and Regulations... because then they are unaccountable to the people...

Started out with the Federal Reserve Bank, but they have now taken the idea into many other venues... (Environment, Schools, Labor... Even Elections Law Enforcement ).

Hell.... I even catch myself Personifying the GOP.... the GOP this.. the GOP that... when it is the LEADERS of the GOP who give it direction, and should be fought against...

Because a Person can be defeated... a person can change their mind....

But you can't change the course or direction of something which does not have the ability to decide for itself...

Posted by: Romeo13 at December 17, 2013 11:42 AM (lZBBB)

230 NASA has spent $390,000 to create a cartoon superhero, the “Green Ninja,” to teach children about global warming.



The character fights his archenemies “plastic man, coal man, and "corporate man.”


Wait, so they played GTA V and decided to make a real Impotent Rage?

Posted by: Ian S. at December 17, 2013 11:42 AM (B/VB5)

231 One wonders if the inspector was a poorly trained idiot who misunderstood "vent through attic"

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at December 17, 2013

If I lived in a big city, my assumption would be that all city inspectors are highly trained to focus on the important details of their assigned duties. If you know what I mean and etc. etc.

Posted by: mrp at December 17, 2013 11:43 AM (HjPtV)

232 "Contrast this with the Pope's decision yesterday to remove Raymond Burke and Justin Rigali from the Congregation of Bishops.

Two American Cardinals with reputations as conservatives, replaced by at least one guy who is a known "moderate."

The
Pope is trying to surround the hierarchy of the Church with people who
won't be so harsh on topics like contraception, abortion, and gay
marriage.

Brave new world we're living in...

Posted by: BurtTC at December 17, 2013 10:38 AM (xCw24)"
I think Francis is going to allow giving Holy Communion to folks that have remarried after divorce.

Posted by: Jimbo at December 17, 2013 11:43 AM (V70Uh)

233 They could give some Democrats a group they could join. If you decide your opponent is going to win, you're right. Ted Cruz knows this.
Posted by: t-bird at December 17, 2013 11:21 AM (FcR7P)


A repeal measure cannot get onto the Senate floor for a vote because Harry Reid, as senate majority leader, controls the agenda. The Democrats in the Senate would have to revolt and remove Reid as Senate majority leader.


I do not see that happening yet.

Posted by: Mikey NTH - Death Capades - ObamaCare on Ice! Sponsored by the Outrage Outlet at December 17, 2013 11:44 AM (hLRSq)

234 Posted by: BlueStateRebel at December 17, 2013 11:39 AM (7ObY1)

And... he's a F'n NINJA.... we fought those bastards in the Big One....


Now.... get off my lawn...

Posted by: Capt. America, from his Porch at December 17, 2013 11:45 AM (lZBBB)

235 They are going to shoehorn it in between Acts, and Romans.

Don't worry - another supreme entity will just rewrite Revelations.



Here comes the boom!
(No, not the movie)

Posted by: rickb223 at December 17, 2013 11:46 AM (GjYxB)

236 You're describing the position the Republican party has taken. Shrugging
their collective shoulders, sitting back and letting government as
usual take place, hoping that people will suddenly decide to vote for
them next time because they didn't vote for the original bill.


And what's your Grand Plan, sport?

Another doomed-to-fail shutdown where the focus will not be on the failings of Obamacare, but instead on the poor children who can't visit the National Parks along with the grave, imminent danger that Republicans are putting the country in over the prospect of default?

Or perhaps some other equally futile distraction that gives the MSM an excuse to rally around the Obama flag instead of reporting about the failures of Obamacare and the lies told to defend it?

Don't you worry- if there's anybody in the country who still doesn't understand that Republicans are opposed to this monstrosity and it's suckage, they'll be reminded repeatedly in campaign ads this Fall.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 17, 2013 11:46 AM (SY2Kh)

237 "We are no longer a Constitutional Republic."

That ship sailed when the country elected a guy who refused to prove his eligibility for the office, and nobody cared.

Posted by: whoever at December 17, 2013 11:47 AM (zu9Ee)

238 BREAKING NEWS: Hillary will not be running in 2016 due to a Brain Tumor found during her latest Colonoscopy.

Posted by: Heywood Jablowme at December 17, 2013 11:47 AM (jsWA8)

239 238 BREAKING NEWS: Hillary will not be running in 2016 due to a Brain Tumor found during her latest Colonoscopy.

---

What about the snuke in her snizz?

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at December 17, 2013 11:48 AM (/Crba)

240 That ship sailed when the country elected a guy who refused to prove his eligibility for the office, and nobody cared.
Posted by: whoever at December 17, 2013 11:47 AM (zu9Ee)



Shhhhhhhh! Don't mention that! Do you want to look like a Tea-Tard?

(snark off)

Posted by: Havedash at December 17, 2013 11:49 AM (gvqyH)

241 The only thing that can save the Dems from a tsunami-like defeat next year is a Supreme Court ruling that overturns ObamaCare legislation in toto. That's why they are still hanging in there with Reid.

Posted by: mrp at December 17, 2013 11:50 AM (HjPtV)

242 Posted by: Brothers of Chinchilla Fur and Post-Coital Glow at December 17, 2013 11:29 AM (97jsO)

More so.... how can the US Government, which is explicitly told not to give one religion an advantage over another... say that we can use Religion as a Test for who Pays this TAX? (Per Judge Roberts).

Posted by: Romeo13 at December 17, 2013 11:50 AM (lZBBB)

243 I didn't see a thing in the news about his yesterday??

How did everyone miss this ruling?

(It is Tues, right? )

Posted by: weft cut-loop at December 17, 2013 11:52 AM (B0gqn)

244 I don't think Superstorm Sandy's going to save them this time.

Posted by: akula51 at December 17, 2013 11:52 AM (Ob/LA)

245 And what's your Grand Plan, sport?

Pass the Ryan budget without the blowjobs for Harry Reid in it? I mean, at this point they aren't even trying to appear Republican.

Posted by: Ian S. at December 17, 2013 11:52 AM (B/VB5)

246 224 NASA has spent $390,000 to create a cartoon superhero, the “Green Ninja,” to teach children about global warming. The character fights his archenemies “plastic man, coal man, and "corporate man.”




I'd love to see what the good ole boys of the Mercury - Apollo era would think about today's NASA, Glenn asside. He's probably all for their liberal BS.

Posted by: Havedash at December 17, 2013 11:53 AM (gvqyH)

247 Supposing that people who vote D will switch to R as a result of the fucked up laws and policies of D presupposes that they can think rationally about something they never reasoned into in the first place. For such people, politics is about the Tribe, My People, it is their emotional crutch. If pain could get such people to switch their votes, Detroit would not have remained a D stronghold for all these decades.

What all this means is that even if Republicans were to ever get back their reins of power, they would find it no easier to enact conservative laws and policies than it is now, supposing that they actually *want* to enact such. If they cannot stand on principle now, they will certainly not do so later.

Posted by: KG at December 17, 2013 11:53 AM (p7BzH)

248 Good plan.
Posted by: BurtTC at December 17, 2013 11:32 AM (xCw24)


Burt - what can the Republicans do? They don't have the votes in the Senate to repeal it and if they somehow got the votes in the Senate the President will veto any repeal. What, exactly, can the Republicans do about this?

All I can see that can actually be done is keep pointing out the problems and keep stating that the Democrats caused this. If you have something else that can be done, please share it.

Posted by: Mikey NTH - Death Capades - ObamaCare on Ice! Sponsored by the Outrage Outlet at December 17, 2013 11:53 AM (hLRSq)

249 Hell.... I even catch myself Personifying the GOP.... the GOP this.. the
GOP that... when it is the LEADERS of the GOP who give it direction,
and should be fought against...


That's partially true, and I agree there's too much blanket criticism of "The GOP" when it should be against individual Republicans who deserve it for their actions.

That said, you're leaving out an even bigger influence: The Voters.

Tell them you're cutting a wasteful Dept of Education program, and all they'll hear is "Republicans cutting education budget because they're mean and hate kids".

Sure, one could argue that they should do what's right without regard to electoral consequences, but then who replaces them?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 17, 2013 11:53 AM (SY2Kh)

250 Does this explain why the Dems did the nuclear option when they did? They see so many challenges to Ocrapacare that they need to stock the courts as fast as they can?

Posted by: Brass Bancroft at December 17, 2013 11:53 AM (2iHnw)

251 Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 17, 2013 11:46 AM (SY2Kh)

Yeah.... because even though we're behind... we scored last possession...


So lets just run out the clock and punt on third down....

Hell.... lets have QB Ryan take a knee in the End Zone... its only a Safety.... and we scored last time...

Posted by: Romeo13 at December 17, 2013 11:54 AM (lZBBB)

252 Burt - what can the Republicans do?

Posted by: Mikey NTH - Death Capades - ObamaCare on Ice! Sponsored by the Outrage Outlet at December 17, 2013 11:53 AM (hLRSq)


It's more like, what should they not do? Well, the Ryan budget is a pretty good example...

Posted by: KG at December 17, 2013 11:55 AM (p7BzH)

253 Posted by: mrp at December 17, 2013 11:43 AM (HjPtV)

Since it was fixed sans bribe, I opted for "stupid" over "corrupt."

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at December 17, 2013 11:56 AM (GaqMa)

254 Would you vent your car's heavier-than-air exhaust into the attic? What
a weird building code, but at least it helps kill some rats. Mine
vents thru the roof.


Yeah, the heater itself vents through the roof, this was the vent for the closet it was housed in.

Posted by: booger at December 17, 2013 11:56 AM (xRDdL)

255
241 -

I suspect the Dems are not going to lose as many seats as you think they will. Oh, people may not vote for them like they have in the past, but that certainly does not mean they are going to vote for Republicans.

Option C is sitting at home.

Posted by: BurtTC at December 17, 2013 11:57 AM (xCw24)

256 Mega millions jackpot is now up to $636 million!

Posted by: Tami at December 17, 2013 11:57 AM (bCEmE)

257 243 I didn't see a thing in the news about his yesterday??How did everyone miss this ruling?(It is Tues, right? )
Posted by: weft cut-loop at December 17, 2013 11:52 AM (B0gqn)



Probably the same way that we've yet to hear a description of the carjacking "thugs" who murdered the guy in NJ. I actually heard a news tard on Fox say people should be on the lookout for 2 armed thugs, but gave no description whatsoever of the thugs. Wonder why?

Posted by: Havedash at December 17, 2013 11:58 AM (gvqyH)

258 Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 17, 2013 11:53 AM (SY2Kh)

So instead, the Leaders of YOUR GOP... break the Contract you have with Retired Veterans...

To save LESS money than will be spent on INTEREST on the NEW debt this bill will entail.


Hell.... they are going to spend more on Common Core Crap this year, than they will save by cutting Retired Military Salary....

And don't get me started on Ethanol subsidies...

Sooo... apparently the GOP is NOT really afraid... at least of those of us who gave our Youth Defending this country.

Posted by: Romeo13 at December 17, 2013 11:59 AM (lZBBB)

259 >>>Could we get someone who knows to explain how the non-severability issue plays here. I thought if one part was unconstitutional the whole law was as well?

No. The absence of a severability clause has never been a reason to strike the whole law merely because one piece is unconstitutional. Courts will try and carve out any unconstitutional pieces, so long as doing so doesn't invalidate or make inoperable the rest of the law.

In our current circumstance, the rest of the law operates just fine (well, so far as it goes heh) without a contraception mandate. If the contraception mandate were struck down in part, or entirely, the rest of Obamacare would continue in force.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 17, 2013 11:59 AM (oGiQr)

260
248 -

Keep pointing out? Keep stating?

All I see is the leadership of your party demonizing the Tea Partiers. How does that translate into them fighting the Democrats?

Posted by: BurtTC at December 17, 2013 11:59 AM (xCw24)

261 Since it was fixed sans bribe, I opted for "stupid" over "corrupt."

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really!

Ok.

Posted by: mrp at December 17, 2013 11:59 AM (HjPtV)

262 Tell them you're cutting a wasteful Dept of Education program, and all
they'll hear is "Republicans cutting education budget because they're
mean and hate kids".


They could actually hold some press
conferences and do some messaging of their own. I mean, for purposes
other than slamming their own base. A couple of Ross Perot-style charts showing education spending vs. quality could sell the heck out of whatever cuts they want to do.

Posted by: Ian S. at December 17, 2013 12:00 PM (B/VB5)

263 Question for a knowledgeable moron.

Wasn't this POS passed without a "severability" clause? Wouldn't this mean that, normally, the whole goes down with the part?

Posted by: phaedrus at December 17, 2013 12:01 PM (k5lLF)

264 Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 17, 2013 11:59 AM (oGiQr)

But how can you, under the Constitution, use enforce this TAX (per Judge Roberts) on one religion, without enforcing it on another religion?


Isn't that the REAL reason the Founders put that clause in the Constitution? Not to take down Mt. Soledad Crosses?

Posted by: Romeo13 at December 17, 2013 12:04 PM (lZBBB)

265
Probably the same way that we've yet to hear a description of the carjacking "thugs" who murdered the guy in NJ. I actually heard a news tard on Fox say people should be on the lookout for 2 armed thugs, but gave no description whatsoever of the thugs. Wonder why?

---

Suspects are hatless, repeat, hatless!

Posted by: Chief Clancy Wiggum at December 17, 2013 12:05 PM (/Crba)

266
263 -

That was certainly one of the arguments in 2112, but apparently John Roberts isn't all that concerned with what the law says. He's a big fan of letting things go the way they are going, so if the Prez decides not to enforce some components of the law, or create whole new ones out of nothing, Roberts seems to be pretty much ok with that.

Posted by: BurtTC at December 17, 2013 12:06 PM (xCw24)

267 262: " A couple of Ross Perot-style charts showing education spending vs. quality could sell the heck out of whatever cuts they want to do."

I tend to think that charts only work with adults.

The people that KEEP voting for these crap sammiches are the same ones that just transfer the utilties into someone else's name when they get shut off for non-payment, and who also see lottery tickets as their way out of the ghetto/barrio/trailer park.

And unfortunately, they now outnumber us. Demographics = Destiny.

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at December 17, 2013 12:06 PM (/qzu7)

268 Six exploding cigars just went off in the Little King's face.

Posted by: wth at December 17, 2013 12:07 PM (wAQA5)

269 262 ---They could actually hold some press
conferences and do some messaging of their own. I mean, for purposes other than slamming their own base. A couple of Ross Perot-style charts showing education spending vs. quality could sell the heck out of whatever cuts they want to do.

Posted by: Ian S. at December 17, 2013 12:00 PM (B/VB5)
-------------------------------
Who is going to give them that air time?
Who is going to publicize this?

It's practically impossible to "sell" anything when the Left has a grip on the media.

Of course, one thing they COULD do is stop trashing conservatives, stop giving the media all of those soundbites to put us down. Because the MSM will gladly publicize THAT.

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at December 17, 2013 12:08 PM (dfYL9)

270 Question for a knowledgeable moron.Wasn't this POS passed without a "severability" clause? Wouldn't this mean that, normally, the whole goes down with the part?
Posted by: phaedrus at December 17, 2013 12:01 PM (k5lLF)

I keep wondering about this too. They intentionally left out a severability clause in the legislation. I really doubt a judge would strike the whole thing based on a small part. The will just come up with some BS to justify not striking in.

I would be curious to hear from somebody with a lawyers background

Posted by: The Jackhole at December 17, 2013 12:09 PM (nTgAI)

271 270 I would be curious to hear from somebody with a lawyers background

See above. Gabe has chimed in with the bad news already.

Posted by: akula51 at December 17, 2013 12:10 PM (Ob/LA)

272 When your party is the party of the rich (whom can
afford it) and the freeloaders, and the other party is the party of
neither, the fact that your law disproportionately affects the other
party's members is not accidental.



If all of your money is going to pay for healthcare, it makes it kind of hard to donate to political causes, doesn't it?

Posted by: blindside at December 17, 2013 11:32 AM (WzWmY)

My vaguely semi-serious conspiracy theory is the reason we keep seeing these feints towards gun control is that the admin wants gun owners spending their money on guns and ammo and not on politics. Granted a lot of that money goes to the NRA and gun friendly pols but given the Searchlight Stranglers good NRA rating, some of that cash benefits their side.I didn't say it was a GOOD theory. Just one I like to take out and noodle with every so often.

Posted by: J. Random Dude at December 17, 2013 12:10 PM (8OfdL)

273 Microsoft exec to take over 404care.

Posted by: RWC at December 17, 2013 12:11 PM (fWAjv)

274 270 I would be curious to hear from somebody with a lawyers background See above. Gabe has chimed in with the bad news already.
Posted by: akula51 at December 17, 2013 12:10 PM (Ob/LA)

Thanks

Posted by: The Jackhole at December 17, 2013 12:11 PM (nTgAI)

275
>>>They could actually hold some press
conferences and do some messaging of their own. I mean, for purposes
other than slamming their own base. A couple of Ross Perot-style charts showing education spending vs. quality could sell the heck out of whatever cuts they want to do.
.
.
.Big problem with that is no one from any news network in the MSM will cover it or broadcast it. Libs own the media, and they will show everything about Republican in-fighting and intra-party wars and all, but they won't show much of anything else, certainly nothing that helps the Republican Party. Fox may show it, but that won't sway many people.

Posted by: Registered voter at December 17, 2013 12:11 PM (BGFPo)

276 Demographics = Destiny.

Perhaps. Perhaps in the beginning.

But then, there is me.

Posted by: Reality at December 17, 2013 12:12 PM (6T8Ay)

277 >>I would be curious to hear from somebody with a lawyers background
Posted by: The Jackhole at December 17, 2013 12:09 PM (nTgAI)



You'll just get 50 shades of Bull Shit

Parse The Constitution

Posted by: ontherocks at December 17, 2013 12:13 PM (42o0q)

278
269 -

If the leadership of the Republican party wanted to get a message out there, it would get out there. The fact that their message isn't out there pretty much proves they aren't interested in sending one.

People tend to hear conservatives when they speak up, but if you are Ted Cruz or Sarah Palin, and get attacked by people in both parties when you do, I would hardly blame the media for that.

Posted by: BurtTC at December 17, 2013 12:14 PM (xCw24)

279 It's practically impossible to "sell" anything when the Left has a grip on the media.

Yeah, because CBS definitely didn't report on Benghazi, and nobody covered the ObamaCare failures.

The MFM is, surprisingly, in a position of being kind of lukewarm on TFG. The Republicans should be at least attempting to take advantage. If you assume failure, you will most certainly get it.

Posted by: Ian S. at December 17, 2013 12:14 PM (B/VB5)

280 So instead, the Leaders of YOUR GOP... break the Contract you have with Retired Veterans...


Perhaps you should list out for us which Sacred Cows should never face spending cuts.

While we're at it, let everybody else add their personal Sacred Cows to the list.

Know what'll be left to cut? Approximately nothing.

The cut to military pensions only pertains to retirees under 62 years old (those still of working age), and then it's a 1% cut to cost of living increases.

Once they turn 62, those cuts no longer apply.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 17, 2013 12:15 PM (SY2Kh)

281
279 -

Yeah, I simply don't buy the notion that there is no room for the Republican position to get heard. The media has an interest in Obama, sure, but they also like selling newspapers and tv ads. If somebody in the R party was interested in being heard, the networks would find room for them on their shows.

Newt managed to do it, and he wasn't exactly loved by the media either. Reagan was famous for speaking over the media, directly to the people.

It can be done, but somebody in charge of the party has to want to do it. Apparently, they don't.

Posted by: BurtTC at December 17, 2013 12:19 PM (xCw24)

282
>>The cut to military pensions only pertains to retirees under 62 years old (those still of working age), and then it's a 1% cut to cost of living increases.

Once they turn 62, those cuts no longer apply.
.
.
.As one of those affected (my wife is also Retired Navy) I have zero issues with helping out if, and I mean if, everyone else that is getting a government check of any kind, takes a hit also. The food stamps people already took their hit earlier this year so that's two groups doneleaving about 11eleventy bazillion to go.

Posted by: Registered voter at December 17, 2013 12:20 PM (BGFPo)

283 224
NASA has spent $390,000 to create a cartoon superhero, the “Green Ninja,” to teach children about global warming.






Posted by: BlueStateRebel at December 17, 2013 11:39 AM (7ObY1)


Every elementary school kid knows that Lloyd Garmadon is the Green Ninja, and he is a Lego-dude. NASA is fixing to get sued with this one.

Posted by: tcn at December 17, 2013 12:22 PM (fwcEs)

284 How bout we cut the EPA, ATF, USDA, Depts of Energy, Education, TSA and DHS for Starters,

Let's see what that gets us besides some breathing room for a better country.

Posted by: ontherocks at December 17, 2013 12:23 PM (42o0q)

285 Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 17, 2013 12:15 PM (SY2Kh)


Uh... do you understand the concept of Compounding interest?

Those cuts will still be there for each individual... even after they reach that age.

They will just no longer be penalized on their further increase.

Posted by: Math at December 17, 2013 12:24 PM (lZBBB)

286 Is this where we're headed at AoSHQ? Some guy claws and maneuvers his way into the belly of the beltway beast is now feeding so-called free thinking adults talking points?

Fanfuckingtastic.

Thanks for the talking points, McBackStaffer.

Posted by: 13times at December 17, 2013 12:26 PM (fGPLK)

287 I wonder if this principle:

"There is no way that a court can, or should, determine that a coerced violation of conscience is of insufficient quantum to merit constitutional protection."

can be applied to the 2nd Amendment, something like:

"There is no way that a court can, or should, determine that a coerced infringement (of the 2nd Amendment) is of insufficient quantum to merit constitutional protection."

Posted by: AC at December 17, 2013 12:26 PM (u8cdA)

288 284
How bout we cut the EPA, ATF, USDA, Depts of Energy, Education, TSA and DHS for Starters,



Let's see what that gets us besides some breathing room for a better country.

Posted by: ontherocks at December 17, 2013 12:23 PM (42o0q)

Cut. Jib. Newsletter.

Email and call ALL reps, current and future, please.

Posted by: tcn at December 17, 2013 12:27 PM (fwcEs)

289 Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 17, 2013 12:15 PM (SY2Kh)

Sooo... you START with the Veterans...

Because I guess Ethanol subsidies are more of a 'Sacred Cow' than the Implicit CONTRACT you gave people to lay their lives on the line to protect you?


And at the same time... you say to justify this... that you will make FUTURE Federal Employees pay more for their own retirement? (not past, not already employed, ohhh... and THEY keep their cost of living increase...).


Sorry... Leaders of the GOP stepped in it this time...

Self inflicted wound...

Posted by: Romeo13 at December 17, 2013 12:28 PM (lZBBB)

290 So, when's the next lawsuit and what's the question next time?

There have to be multiple cracks in this POS law.

Posted by: Meremortal, writing briefs at December 17, 2013 12:30 PM (1Y+hH)

291 Only you stupid right-wing haters in your trailer parks and Faux News echo chamber would think that no one elsewhere disagrees with you, that I am a sock puppet. I am as real as that horrible Mr. O'Spades person!

Posted by: Mary Cloggenstein from Brattleboro, Vermont at December 17, 2013 01:07 PM (5ZI7f)

292 248 -Keep pointing out? Keep stating?All I see is the leadership of your party demonizing the Tea Partiers. How does that translate into them fighting the Democrats?
Posted by: BurtTC at December 17, 2013 11:59 AM (xCw24)


Congratulations. You didn't answer my question about what the Republicans can do about ObamaCare. I suspect you just want to vent on the Republicans for their venal habits (which is always appropriate to slag them for). Yep, some Republicans are really going after the Tea Partiers, and that has been reciprocated in the typical intra-party faction squabbling that always goes on.

There really isn't any point in taking this any further, is there?

Posted by: Mikey NTH - Death Capades - ObamaCare on Ice! Sponsored by the Outrage Outlet at December 17, 2013 01:08 PM (hLRSq)

293 The cut to military pensions only pertains to retirees under 62 years old (those still of working age), and then it's a 1% cut to cost of living increases.

How does this affect a 26-year old grunt who lost a leg or two to an IED in Iraq? He or she only has to suffer for 46 years before they turn 62?

Posted by: akula51 at December 17, 2013 01:10 PM (Ob/LA)

294 Thanks for the mess Justice Roberts, you fucking fuck! sheesh

Posted by: torabora at December 17, 2013 08:35 PM (1jp4v)






Processing 0.06, elapsed 0.0552 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0179 seconds, 303 records returned.
Page size 178 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