PDA

View Full Version : Legal I'm pretty sure Roberts changed his vote at the last moment.


Direckshun
06-28-2012, 06:02 PM
Scalia believed he was writing the majority, which would have overturned the entire law.

Ginsburg was writing the dissent.

Then, Roberts changed.

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/28/did_john_roberts_switch_his_vote/

Did John Roberts switch his vote?
Updated: The dissents suggest the court was set to overturn Obamacare -- until Roberts suddenly changed his vote
By Paul Campos
Thursday, Jun 28, 2012 01:56 PM CDT

Has a second “switch in time” saved nine? That’s the unavoidable impression that a reading of the four dissenters’ joint opinion in the PPACA case leaves. The first “switch in time” also involved a Justice Roberts – Owen Roberts, who in 1937 suddenly switched his vote in a case whose outcome signaled the end of a five-vote majority that was blocking much of the Roosevelt administration’s New Deal.

At the time, Roberts’ jurisprudential conversion seemed extremely suspicious to many observers, given that it was announced just a few weeks after FDR had presented legislation proposing an expansion of the Supreme Court to 15 members – a plan attacked by critics as a scheme to “pack the Court” with justices who would uphold New Deal laws. Cynics began referring to Roberts’ sudden change of heart as “the switch in time that saved nine” – that is, that kept the court’s membership at nine justices.

Subsequent historical research suggests that Roberts had already decided to change his vote before FDR announced his plan to expand the court, but we shouldn’t let that detail interfere with the delightful semantic coincidence that it very much looks as if the second Justice Roberts did “switch in time” — at least in part to shield nine justices from the political fallout sure to result from overturning the ACA.

Rumors had been circulating in legal circles for weeks that Chief Justice Roberts in particular was under enormous political pressure not to be the vote that would overturn the most significant piece of social legislation passed by Congress in decades. Indeed, in April President Obama took the unusual step of issuing something of a public warning on the subject, saying that he was “confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

It is impossible for a lawyer to read even the first few pages of the dissent without coming away with the impression that this is a majority opinion that at the last moment lost its fifth vote. Its structure and tone are those of a winning coalition, not that of the losing side in the most controversial Supreme Court case in many years. But when we get to Page 13, far more conclusive evidence appears: No less than 15 times in the space of the next few pages, the dissent refers to Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s concurring opinion as “Justice Ginsburg’s dissent.”

There is one likely explanation for this: The dissent was the majority opinion when those who voted to overturn the entire ACA signed off on sending their text to the printer. In other words, Chief Justice Roberts changed his vote at the very last possible moment.

It is inconceivable that the dissent reads as it does by inadvertence. We can be sure every word of it was proofread countless times by the dissenters’ 16 clerks, all of whom know how to make a global change on a word processing program.

Another unavoidable conclusion seems to be that the dissenters intentionally left the parts of their text referring to Ginsburg’s “dissent” unchanged. This was a symbolic gesture, intended to reveal, without formally breaking the justices’ code of silence, what the Chief Justice did to them — and, as they no doubt see it, to the country and the Constitution — through his last-moment reversal.

Update: As commenters point out, it is true that Ginsburg does dissent to part of the majority opinion, while concurring with most of it, but it’s also clear that the four joint dissenters are referring to a full dissent, not a dissent in part, as the following passage makes clear:

Finally, we must observe that rewriting §5000A as a tax in order to sustain its constitutionality would force us to confront a difficult constitutional question: whether this is a direct tax that must be apportioned among the States according to their population. Art. I, §9, cl. 4. Perhaps it is not (we have no need to address the point); but the meaning of the Direct Tax Clause is famously unclear, and its application here is a question of first impression that deserves more thoughtful consideration.

The dissenters are saying that construing the mandate as a tax would require them to address a constitutional question that they don’t have to address. But the only reason the Court would not have to address this question is if the majority in fact refused to construe the mandate as a tax – which is exactly what the Court’s majority ended up doing.

In addition, the joint dissenters refer consistently to Ginsburg’s item as “the Dissent.” This phrase makes no sense except in the context of a majority opinion referring to a single dissent.

Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Iz Zat Chew
06-28-2012, 06:09 PM
I wondeer how much pressure from the White House was involved in the overall conversations.

My question remains, what happens when those that don't buy the insurance refuse to pay the "penalty" tax placed on them by the IRS? The same effect comes from the IRS with bigger consequences if you defy the IRS, and it's a lasting involvement with the IRS.

Those that choose not to play the Obama game will have to pay, be it taxes or penalty, either way the country will be worse off.

Health care does need to be reformed, but the current pile of paper is worthless with the exception of a few. I'd like to see a full committe of people involved that aren't on the payroll of the government lay out a plan of action that would be paletable for all Americans.

I'm not big on social medicine, I've seen it first hand and it is not all it's talked up to be.

cosmo20002
06-28-2012, 06:13 PM
That Roberts faced "pressure" to uphold the law is ridiculous. If he felt pressure, it was surely from the right, which he knew would go apeshit on him for upholding it. He's got a lifetime job. What pressure from the left is going to matter?

fan4ever
06-28-2012, 06:30 PM
Yeah, because the general population could f*ck with Roberts way more than the President, with all the factions at his disposal, ever could.

Iz Zat Chew
06-28-2012, 06:40 PM
That Roberts faced "pressure" to uphold the law is ridiculous. If he felt pressure, it was surely from the right, which he knew would go apeshit on him for upholding it. He's got a lifetime job. What pressure from the left is going to matter?

Overlooking the obvious? Probably are if you can type that response with a clear conscience.

cosmo20002
06-28-2012, 07:00 PM
Overlooking the obvious? Probably are if you can type that response with a clear conscience.

Apparently it is not obvious enough. The moon men made him do it?

Iz Zat Chew
06-28-2012, 07:10 PM
Apparently it is not obvious enough. The moon men made him do it?

If I thought you had the capability of understanding I'd explain, but, without a doubt, there is no way someone of your belief can see the trees as the forrest is in the way.

cosmo20002
06-28-2012, 07:23 PM
If I thought you had the capability of understanding I'd explain, but, without a doubt, there is no way someone of your belief can see the trees as the forrest is in the way.

OK, so you got nothing.

Iz Zat Chew
06-28-2012, 07:58 PM
OK, so you got nothing.

I might have nothing, but I have way more than you could ever have.

I have peace in my heart, you may never find the peace that will solve your problems.

alnorth
06-28-2012, 08:16 PM
That last part is key.

The only reason why they would "need not address the point" was if the majority disagreed that the mandate was constitutional only as a tax, but thats exactly what Roberts did.

Brock
06-28-2012, 08:23 PM
I might have nothing, but I have way more than you could ever have.

I have peace in my heart, you may never find the peace that will solve your problems.

Sure, Tom. that's why you keep coming back for the same old arguments time after time after time.

VAChief
06-28-2012, 08:25 PM
Yeah, because the general population could f*ck with Roberts way more than the President, with all the factions at his disposal, ever could.

Specifically what are you hallucinating, I mean imagining could happen from the POTUS that would be worse than what he would experience from his own side who thinks he deserted them?

VAChief
06-28-2012, 08:31 PM
I wondeer how much pressure from the White House was involved in the overall conversations.

My question remains, what happens when those that don't buy the insurance refuse to pay the "penalty" tax placed on them by the IRS? The same effect comes from the IRS with bigger consequences if you defy the IRS, and it's a lasting involvement with the IRS.

Those that choose not to play the Obama game will have to pay, be it taxes or penalty, either way the country will be worse off.

Health care does need to be reformed, but the current pile of paper is worthless with the exception of a few. I'd like to see a full committe of people involved that aren't on the payroll of the government lay out a plan of action that would be paletable for all Americans.

I'm not big on social medicine, I've seen it first hand and it is not all it's talked up to be.

Get rid of the middle men (insurance companies) that add nothing of value to care would be a great start. They don't want to deal with the needs of small businesses unless they don't have any sick employees. There isn't any profit in it for them. Billions going to a broker.

alnorth
06-28-2012, 08:38 PM
http://www.volokh.com/2012/06/28/more-hints-that-roberts-switched-his-vote/

Several more clues, two of them seem very clear to me.

The dissent was unsigned. Isn't that weird for a case of this magnitude? We kept referring to it as the Kennedy dissent (because he read some of it from the bench) or the Scalia dissent (since his name was listed first), but its unsigned.

It is nobody's dissent, its unsigned, joined by those 4. That really makes no sense unless the Chief Justice originally wrote most of it, then changed his mind. If THATS what happened, it makes more sense.

Also, its understandable that Ginsburg would want to disagree with the Chief Justice's reasoning while concurring, but she seemed rather hostile to the Chief Justice. While reading her opinion, you keep wondering "gee, rather harsh language to direct at the guy who saved your side."

However, if she was originally directing her ire at the guy who wrote the conservative majority opinion, it makes a lot more sense.

alnorth
06-28-2012, 09:02 PM
Also, why in the hell would the dissent (other than a few pages tacked onto the end) constantly refer to and attack Ginsburg's opinion, but not say one word about the Chief Justice? He almost had to have written it, then the 4 he ditched said "screw it, tradition says we can't talk about this, but we're leaving this thing untouched as an obvious clue of what you did to us!"

Taco John
06-28-2012, 09:18 PM
This is the day the music died. To see a so-called conservative bend reality to interpret an insurance mandate as a tax - to say I'm disillusioned is an understatement. There is literally nothing the government can't force on us now using taxation to legitimize it. So long as there is a threat of a fine that can be called a "tax," the government can require anything of us now. If the constitution wasn't dead before - it's f*cking buried now. Buried by a so-called conservative who legitimized one of the ugliest power grabs in our nation's history - one that allowed an entire corporate industry to tax us. Sad day for liberty. Sad day for America.

alnorth
06-28-2012, 09:25 PM
This is the day the music died. To see a so-called conservative bend reality to interpret an insurance mandate as a tax - to say I'm disillusioned is an understatement. There is literally nothing the government can't force on us now using taxation to legitimize it. So long as there is a threat of a fine that can be called a "tax," the government can require anything of us now. If the constitution wasn't dead before - it's f*cking buried now. Buried by a so-called conservative who legitimized one of the ugliest power grabs in our nation's history - one that allowed an entire corporate industry to tax us. Sad day for liberty. Sad day for America.

In the end, its really up to people and political parties to win elections. It is unwise to depend on courts. As Roberts said:

It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.

Taco John
06-28-2012, 09:33 PM
In the end, its really up to people and political parties to win elections. It is unwise to depend on courts. As Roberts said: It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.


That's exactly their job. Roberts can burn in hell.

alnorth
06-28-2012, 09:36 PM
That's exactly their job. Roberts can burn in hell.

Well, since I agree with him that the mandate was basically a tax, I disagree with your point.

No one disputes that this would have passed with flying colors if congress called it a tax. People on the right are freaking out about a label, but prior decisions have discarded the label as irrelevant and evaluated whether an excise was a tax or not.

cosmo20002
06-28-2012, 10:15 PM
http://www.volokh.com/2012/06/28/more-hints-that-roberts-switched-his-vote/

Several more clues, two of them seem very clear to me.

The dissent was unsigned. Isn't that weird for a case of this magnitude? We kept referring to it as the Kennedy dissent (because he read some of it from the bench) or the Scalia dissent (since his name was listed first), but its unsigned.

It is nobody's dissent, its unsigned, joined by those 4. That really makes no sense unless the Chief Justice originally wrote most of it, then changed his mind. If THATS what happened, it makes more sense.

Also, its understandable that Ginsburg would want to disagree with the Chief Justice's reasoning while concurring, but she seemed rather hostile to the Chief Justice. While reading her opinion, you keep wondering "gee, rather harsh language to direct at the guy who saved your side."

However, if she was originally directing her ire at the guy who wrote the conservative majority opinion, it makes a lot more sense.

Also, why in the hell would the dissent (other than a few pages tacked onto the end) constantly refer to and attack Ginsburg's opinion, but not say one word about the Chief Justice? He almost had to have written it, then the 4 he ditched said "screw it, tradition says we can't talk about this, but we're leaving this thing untouched as an obvious clue of what you did to us!"

OK, so what's the bottom line here? A conspiracy of some sort, the opinion was forged, Obama actually wrote it? Why do we care and what does it matter?

alnorth
06-28-2012, 10:32 PM
Why do we care and what does it matter?

We care because its rare, and extremely interesting. (For the record, I think Roberts honestly changed his mind on his own. I'm not buying the "pressure" theory, he's the F'ing Chief Justice of the United States. The most anyone can ever do to him is call him names)

The random dude on the street doesn't care, but by posting in this forum, you identify yourself as a political/legal nerd. This is the single biggest accomplishment of Obama's presidency, even if he wins re-election, he wont have anything bigger than this, the GOP basically declared jihad on Obamacare, and a GWB appointee, who had NEVER, EVER been in a 5-4 decision with the 4 liberals, who had pretty well established himself as a legal conservative in most issues, THAT dude is going to be the guy who saves Obamacare in a presidential election year? Really?

cosmo20002
06-28-2012, 10:48 PM
We care because its rare, and extremely interesting. (For the record, I think Roberts honestly changed his mind on his own. I'm not buying the "pressure" theory, he's the F'ing Chief Justice of the United States. The most anyone can ever do to him is call him names)

The random dude on the street doesn't care, but by posting in this forum, you identify yourself as a political/legal nerd. This is the single biggest accomplishment of Obama's presidency, even if he wins re-election, he wont have anything bigger than this, the GOP basically declared jihad on Obamacare, and a GWB appointee, who had NEVER, EVER been in a 5-4 decision with the 4 liberals, who had pretty well established himself as a legal conservative in most issues, THAT dude is going to be the guy who saves Obamacare in a presidential election year? Really?

I agree that the case itself is interesting, important, and all that. Just this angle about if Roberts 'changed his mind' at some point I guess I don't see that as such a big thing, if it is even true.

alnorth
06-28-2012, 11:02 PM
I agree that the case itself is interesting, important, and all that. Just this angle about if Roberts 'changed his mind' at some point I guess I don't see that as such a big thing, if it is even true.

Its a big thing because its very rare, and amusing.

Its also obvious. Roberts had plenty of time to write his opinion, so the dissenters had plenty of time to edit the dissent. They didn't do that, they took Robert's orphaned opinion, updated some citations, and entered it as the dissent in full, which is a hilarious "F you" to Roberts.

Everything before the stars (below the stars an opinion summarizes things, and thats where they tacked something on to attack Roberts) is the original, unedited, majority opinion.

cdcox
06-28-2012, 11:07 PM
I think it is pretty clear that Roberts changed his opinion, I agree that it is fascinating to get a peak behind the curtain.

Chiefshrink
06-28-2012, 11:33 PM
As I said earlier, it's all about ego for Roberts. How can I save this bill and build on my legacy and be loved by the LeftPBJ. And precisely what Levin talked about in his commentary giving the Left an 'option' helping them.:shake:

cosmo20002
06-29-2012, 12:45 AM
Its a big thing because its very rare, and amusing.

Its also obvious. Roberts had plenty of time to write his opinion, so the dissenters had plenty of time to edit the dissent. They didn't do that, they took Robert's orphaned opinion, updated some citations, and entered it as the dissent in full, which is a hilarious "F you" to Roberts.

Everything before the stars (below the stars an opinion summarizes things, and thats where they tacked something on to attack Roberts) is the original, unedited, majority opinion.

How do we know that? I know a little about the process, and I don't think it is all that unusual for a justice to come to a preliminary decision, have a position draft written (generally by a clerk), but then have his mind swayed after further thought or discussion with the other justices.

cosmo20002
06-29-2012, 12:49 AM
As I said earlier, it's all about ego for Roberts. How can I save this bill and build on my legacy and be loved by the LeftPBJ. And precisely what Levin talked about in his commentary giving the Left an 'option' helping them.:shake:

THAT makes no sense. Whenever someone does something you don't like, you give the nonsensical "its all about their ego." I hear it about Obama all the time.

His ego would have been fed most and his legacy built by staying with the conservatives. He's been a solid conservative and likely will be for the next 30 years. But suddenly he decided he wanted to be a hero of the left? Ridiculous.

Otter
06-29-2012, 01:20 AM
Will you go to bed already and STFU?

You're happy, we get it, congrats, you helped take down a once great nation. Come back in 5 years and tell us what you think.

BucEyedPea
06-29-2012, 06:49 AM
As I said earlier, it's all about ego for Roberts. How can I save this bill and build on my legacy and be loved by the LeftPBJ. And precisely what Levin talked about in his commentary giving the Left an 'option' helping them.:shake:

Coulter said when he was nominated the the record of Roberts was ambiguous as a conservative anyway. There were other stronger conservatives ( stricter construction) per her too. I wasn't crazy about him either as I recall. Gonna have to go check some of my posts from back then. I think patteeu was plugging for him.

BucEyedPea
06-29-2012, 06:51 AM
Well, since I agree with him that the mandate was basically a tax, I disagree with your point.

No one disputes that this would have passed with flying colors if congress called it a tax. People on the right are freaking out about a label, but prior decisions have discarded the label as irrelevant and evaluated whether an excise was a tax or not.

I read all along that this not being called a tax was what would create the problem. I even argued it. It's not merely a label. A label has a definition because it's just another word to identify something. It was not the intent of the legislature, under Obama's leadership, to make this a tax as that would have been unpopular and may have not even passed when you look at some of the deciding votes.

BucEyedPea
06-29-2012, 07:00 AM
Also, a tax is supposed to generate revenue not be used as a punishment as it is in the case here.

FD
06-29-2012, 08:41 AM
I think it will be very interesting to read the full story in 20-30 years.

La literatura
06-29-2012, 09:19 AM
I read all along that this not being called a tax was what would create the problem. I even argued it. It's not merely a label. A label has a definition because it's just another word to identify something. It was not the intent of the legislature, under Obama's leadership, to make this a tax as that would have been unpopular and may have not even passed when you look at some of the deciding votes.

Are you disputing that it is a tax? And your evidence rests on the political rhetoric of the Democrats? That's really absurd.

Since Roberts found it essentially a tax, denying Congress the ability to raise taxes would have been a significant departure from the past 75 years of precedent. Congress can tax for social security, for medicare and medicaid, for food stamps, for all sorts of federal programs.

This wasn't an unprincipled decision.

BucEyedPea
06-29-2012, 09:23 AM
Well, let's look at what would have happened if Robert's went with the others and knocked it down. The Obama administration, along with the left, was prepared to launch a full attack on the court being a tool of the right overturning what an elected congress passed. This would have been backed up with a flurry of regulatory activity without Congressional approval through the backdoor which is what the Obama administration has been doing as if the President is a king. So much for the claim of respecting a democratically elected congress. Obama is a lying fraud and has operates lawlessly when that same elected congress won't pass what he wants. Remember, even Hillary re-wrote Medicaid rules and regulations to implement some of what she wanted when her Hillarycare didn't pass. This is the kind of people we have in office—lying frauds.

So, now let's see what happens if Obama is not re-elected and this is repealed ( if it is repealed ). The same elected congress can throw out any Constitutional law if they think it's a bad law. Just as Prohibition was repealed—and that was an amendment.

Iz Zat Chew
06-29-2012, 11:30 AM
The discussion I heard this morning at breakfast centered around a comment that Roberts changed the way he tought because of something Oliver Wendel Holmes said. Roughly translated he said do everything that can be done to save the act, even if it borders on illegal.

What would cause Roberts to think that and act on it? A penalaty on the mandade was illegal, but a tax was not.

At the end of the argument the SCOTUS decided to legislate from teh bench. I thought the three branches were not supposed to tresspass into the territory of the other.

Is there not a procedure for passing laws in the U.S.? I seem to remember from government classes, way back, that first the congress had to come up with a bill, pass it and then send it to the senate, not vice versa.

Obamacare came from the senate, should be thrown out on that point alone.

cosmo20002
06-29-2012, 11:39 AM
At the end of the argument the SCOTUS decided to legislate from teh bench.

No, it didn't. Part of the govt argument was that it was allowed to do this through the power to tax. The Court agreed. Simple as that.

Iowanian
06-29-2012, 11:44 AM
Roberts probably got some Chicago strong arming.....


iBama is scum enough to do it.

J Diddy
06-29-2012, 11:45 AM
The discussion I heard this morning at breakfast centered around a comment that Roberts changed the way he tought because of something Oliver Wendel Holmes said. Roughly translated he said do everything that can be done to save the act, even if it borders on illegal.

What would cause Roberts to think that and act on it? A penalaty on the mandade was illegal, but a tax was not.

At the end of the argument the SCOTUS decided to legislate from teh bench. I thought the three branches were not supposed to tresspass into the territory of the other.

Is there not a procedure for passing laws in the U.S.? I seem to remember from government classes, way back, that first the congress had to come up with a bill, pass it and then send it to the senate, not vice versa.

Obamacare came from the senate, should be thrown out on that point alone.

Okay I'm done talking politics with you. You don't even know how a bill becomes a law.


For the record the bill did originate in the HOR

J Diddy
06-29-2012, 11:46 AM
Also, a tax is supposed to generate revenue not be used as a punishment as it is in the case here.

A tax is levied against all, however if you do certain things then you shall be exempt from the tax. It's called a tax break.

mikey23545
06-29-2012, 11:54 AM
Next, when a penalty will be levied against all who do not vote democrat, it will simply be called a tax...

Of course, voting dem will entitle one to a "tax break"...

go bowe
06-29-2012, 11:56 AM
A tax is levied against all, however if you do certain things then you shall be exempt from the tax. It's called a tax break.

a tax break?????

flippin communists taking over our guns, er... our taxes, er... our courts...

damned socialist arm-twisters and congenital liars!!!

send them all to hawaii, that'll teach em!

J Diddy
06-29-2012, 11:56 AM
Next, when a penalty will be levied against all who do not vote democrat, it will simply be called a tax...

Of course, voting dem will entitle one to a "tax break"...

You make me laugh. You're a funny guy.

J Diddy
06-29-2012, 11:57 AM
a tax break?????

flippin communists taking over our guns, er... our taxes, er... our courts...

damned socialist arm-twisters and congenital liars!!!

send them all to hawaii, that'll teach em!

Lol, damn commies. This certainly was "[a] vast program thrown together, imperfectly conceived and grossly mismanaged, and in due course becoming a veritable playground for extravagance, waste and corruption.”

go bowe
06-29-2012, 11:59 AM
You make me laugh. You're a funny guy.

now hold on there...

i'm supposed to be the funny guy, not mikey...

mikey is serious, very very serious...

he will let us know when the jack-booted chicago thugs take away our freedom (because we are too stupid to know when those god-awful chicago terrorists are putting us under their heels)...

think of it as a community service...

mikey23545
06-29-2012, 12:05 PM
now hold on there...

i'm supposed to be the funny guy, not mikey...

mikey is serious, very very serious...

he will let us know when the jack-booted chicago thugs take away our freedom (because we are too stupid to know when those god-awful chicago terrorists are putting us under their heels)...

think of it as a community service...

Way to run interference for your little Hitler...Planning on a chair right by the big boy's side, aren't you?

J Diddy
06-29-2012, 12:12 PM
Way to run interference for your little Hitler...Planning on a chair right by the big boy's side, aren't you?

Little Hitler?

I see what you did there.:LOL:

Mikey's Playbook:

First, take someone who is hated by virtually everyone. Next, call someone that person's name, even though there are absolutely no resemblances. Finally, step back and bask in your own glory.


The way I see it, you're the one who's all for denying healthcare, food and various other necessities to a lower class.

BucEyedPea
06-29-2012, 12:31 PM
Little Hitler?

I see what you did there.:LOL:

Mikey's Playbook:

First, take someone who is hated by virtually everyone. Next, call someone that person's name, even though there are absolutely no resemblances. Finally, step back and bask in your own glory.


The way I see it, you're the one who's all for denying healthcare, food and various other necessities to a lower class.

Well, actually, this bolded part sounds more like Marx and Lenin. It'd also make the one mentioned, and his buddy, Mussolini, the two corporatists, proud.

J Diddy
06-29-2012, 12:34 PM
Well, actually, this bolded part sounds more like Marx and Lenin. It'd also make the one mentioned, and his buddy, Mussolini, the two corporatists, proud.

I was thinking of the similarities between his beliefs and concentration camps.

Direckshun
06-29-2012, 12:36 PM
http://www.volokh.com/2012/06/28/more-hints-that-roberts-switched-his-vote/

Several more clues, two of them seem very clear to me.

The dissent was unsigned. Isn't that weird for a case of this magnitude? We kept referring to it as the Kennedy dissent (because he read some of it from the bench) or the Scalia dissent (since his name was listed first), but its unsigned.

It is nobody's dissent, its unsigned, joined by those 4. That really makes no sense unless the Chief Justice originally wrote most of it, then changed his mind. If THATS what happened, it makes more sense.

Also, its understandable that Ginsburg would want to disagree with the Chief Justice's reasoning while concurring, but she seemed rather hostile to the Chief Justice. While reading her opinion, you keep wondering "gee, rather harsh language to direct at the guy who saved your side."

However, if she was originally directing her ire at the guy who wrote the conservative majority opinion, it makes a lot more sense.

Also, why in the hell would the dissent (other than a few pages tacked onto the end) constantly refer to and attack Ginsburg's opinion, but not say one word about the Chief Justice? He almost had to have written it, then the 4 he ditched said "screw it, tradition says we can't talk about this, but we're leaving this thing untouched as an obvious clue of what you did to us!"

Wooooooooow.

BucEyedPea
06-29-2012, 12:53 PM
I was thinking of the similarities between his beliefs and concentration camps.

I was obviously thinking economics.

The four justices who knew all along they were going decide for it did so because they are disgusting socialists who want socialized medicine for America and a socialist America. Very objective. *cough* Roberts is disgusting for entirely different reasons though.

mikey23545
06-29-2012, 12:58 PM
Little Hitler?

I see what you did there.:LOL:

Mikey's Playbook:

First, take someone who is hated by virtually everyone. Next, call someone that person's name, even though there are absolutely no resemblances. Finally, step back and bask in your own glory.

If you were over 15 years of age you'd realize that "Little Hitler" is just a term people use for any leader who exerts undue control over others...Did you really think I thought Hussein has a little moustache? Anyway, Hitler was capable of speaking without reading from a teleprompter, so right there is another big difference...

Bask in my own glory?..LMAO

WTF does that mean?..LMAO


The way I see it, you're the one who's all for denying healthcare, food and various other necessities to a lower class.

Not at all...I believe all people should be allowed to work for those things...

BucEyedPea
06-29-2012, 01:22 PM
If you were over 15 years of age you'd realize that "Little Hitler" is just a term people use for any leader who exerts undue control over others...Did you really think I thought Hussein has a little moustache? Anyway, Hitler was capable of speaking without reading from a teleprompter, so right there is another big difference...

Bask in my own glory?..LMAO

WTF does that mean?..LMAO



Not at all...I believe all people should be allowed to work for those things...

Don't forget you're talkin' to someone who claims he was offered a 4 year free-ride at a 4 year university/college but opted for a community college first instead. How's that for logic?

go bowe
06-29-2012, 01:22 PM
Way to run interference for your little Hitler...Planning on a chair right by the big boy's side, aren't you?

i was hoping for the department of defense, but that's already taken...

Radar Chief
06-29-2012, 01:26 PM
You make me laugh. You're a funny guy.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2lmvzTwgRsk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

mikey23545
06-29-2012, 02:39 PM
Don't forget you're talkin' to someone who claims he was offered a 4 year free-ride at a 4 year university/college but opted for a community college first instead. How's that for logic?

No, I guess I missed that...what was his reasoning behind that?

mikey23545
06-29-2012, 02:42 PM
i was hoping for the department of defense, but that's already taken...



I was thinking more along the lines of:


http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/3978/schleichcourtjester.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/3/schleichcourtjester.jpg/)

cosmo20002
06-29-2012, 03:30 PM
"Little Hitler" is just a term people use for any leader who exerts undue control over others


FYP

"Little Hitler" is just a term hysteric narrow-minded people, almost always right-wing nuts, use for any leader who they don't agree with

J Diddy
06-29-2012, 03:30 PM
Don't forget you're talkin' to someone who claims he was offered a 4 year free-ride at a 4 year university/college but opted for a community college first instead. How's that for logic?

It was also 20 years ago and I wasn't ready for college yet, tbh. Furthermore, it was to a 2 year school not 4 year.

It's all good though

listopencil
06-29-2012, 06:45 PM
In the end, its really up to people and political parties to win elections. It is unwise to depend on courts. As Roberts said:

“Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

I found this quote on a Fox News website, I assume it to be true. Wow. That is a very powerful statement.

Mr. Flopnuts
06-29-2012, 07:27 PM
Also, a tax is supposed to generate revenue not be used as a punishment as it is in the case here.

A tax is levied against all, however if you do certain things then you shall be exempt from the tax. It's called a tax break.

You're both wrong in regard to that pesky thing called a sin tax. Or even a luxury tax.

BucEyedPea
06-29-2012, 07:32 PM
No, I guess I missed that...what was his reasoning behind that?

To him lack of funds. Just don't see how a free-ride to a better university affects that though.:spock:

He told me that before I went away to the lovely the land of the corn-feds.

BucEyedPea
06-29-2012, 07:33 PM
FYP

"Little Hitler" is just a term hysteric narrow-minded people, almost always right-wing nuts, use for any leader who they don't agree with

That's why there were plenty on the left calling Bush this heh? Hitler was a dictator...and Obama has some disturbing tendencies in that area.

BucEyedPea
06-29-2012, 07:35 PM
You're both wrong in regard to that pesky thing called a sin tax. Or even a luxury tax.

I didn't call it a sin tax. At least when you pay for cigarettes you are buying something, aka doing something—not from inactivity.
Nor do I consider the mandate a tax. I was using the majority's argument. So I am not wrong.

I'm not necessarily in favor of sin taxes either. When people say legalize weed and tax it. I say legalize but don't tax it.

cosmo20002
06-29-2012, 08:09 PM
That's why there were plenty on the left calling Bush this heh? Hitler was a dictator...and Obama has some disturbing tendencies in that area.

I did say ALMOST always right-wing nuts.

alnorth
06-29-2012, 08:56 PM
I didn't call it a sin tax. At least when you pay for cigarettes you are buying something, aka doing something—not from inactivity.
Nor do I consider the mandate a tax. I was using the majority's argument. So I am not wrong.

I'm not necessarily in favor of sin taxes either. When people say legalize weed and tax it. I say legalize but don't tax it.

Cigarette taxes are prohibitively high if the intention was not to discourage people from smoking. That goes behind a typical revenue-raising sales tax, squarely into "we don't care if this raises a dime, we just want to discourage smoking." Roberts even pointed at cigarette taxes as an example of a tax that is not really intended to raise revenue, but is instead intended to encourage or discourage specific behavior.

BucEyedPea
06-29-2012, 09:06 PM
Cigarette taxes are prohibitively high if the intention was not to discourage people from smoking. That goes behind a typical revenue-raising sales tax, squarely into "we don't care if this raises a dime, we just want to discourage smoking." Roberts even pointed at cigarette taxes as an example of a tax that is not really intended to raise revenue, but is instead intended to encourage or discourage specific behavior.

That may be, but I don't agree that's proper for the Federal govt; nor does it stay within the enumerated powers clause. Still, it was not promoted as a tax, in order to get votes from others who would not have voted for it as a tax. So using that to make their case later is a fraud. Being a tax was not the intent of the legislation.

cosmo20002
06-29-2012, 09:16 PM
That may be, but I don't agree that's proper for the Federal govt; nor does it stay within the enumerated powers clause. Still, it was not promoted as a tax, in order to get votes from others who would not have voted for it as a tax. So using that to make their case later is a fraud. Being a tax was not the intent of the legislation.

Geez, the harping over "He didn't call it a tax!" is embarassing already. There was a finanical penalty for not getting insurance. Its right there in the law and was thoroughly discussed--that why its called a mandate--because there was a financial penalty for not doing it.

What the hell difference does it make if someone referred to it as a tax, fine, penalty, or whatever. Everyone knew the bottom line--it was an adverse financial consequence. This argument sounds like a child--"You said I'd be punished! You didn't say I'd be grounded!" It is a distinction without a difference.

BucEyedPea
06-30-2012, 06:09 AM
Geez, the harping over "He didn't call it a tax!" is embarassing already. There was a finanical penalty for not getting insurance. Its right there in the law and was thoroughly discussed--that why its called a mandate--because there was a financial penalty for not doing it.

What the hell difference does it make if someone referred to it as a tax, fine, penalty, or whatever. Everyone knew the bottom line--it was an adverse financial consequence. This argument sounds like a child--"You said I'd be punished! You didn't say I'd be grounded!" It is a distinction without a difference.
Uhm...because Obama insisted it wasn't a tax. Remember, the power to tax is the power to destroy.

The tax thing is a distinction without a difference when it comes to compelling people to do what the govt wants them to do ( Big Brother) so long as it's a tax. Now they can use a tax for anything. Very dangerous, very bad precedent. Tax you for eating. Tax you for not eating. Tax you for going into a mall. Tax you for avoiding malls. Tax you for protesting. Tax you for going to church.

Oh and a fine is not a tax. It's a fine and a penalty. Now, let's sit back and watch Europe Crash. Their socialism is not working out so well afterall.

Direckshun
06-30-2012, 07:54 AM
Geez, the harping over "He didn't call it a tax!" is embarassing already. There was a finanical penalty for not getting insurance. Its right there in the law and was thoroughly discussed--that why its called a mandate--because there was a financial penalty for not doing it.

What the hell difference does it make if someone referred to it as a tax, fine, penalty, or whatever. Everyone knew the bottom line--it was an adverse financial consequence. This argument sounds like a child--"You said I'd be punished! You didn't say I'd be grounded!" It is a distinction without a difference.

My thing is, I don't care if you call it a tax or a premium.

I just want the cheaper/better deal. The mandate is a better deal.

Iz Zat Chew
06-30-2012, 07:56 AM
I just want the cheaper/better deal. The mandate is a better deal.

How is the mandate a better deal?

patteeu
06-30-2012, 07:59 AM
My thing is, I don't care if you call it a tax or a premium.

I just want the cheaper/better deal. The mandate is a better deal.

I'm in favor of a mandate, but it's not the cheaper deal in the aggregate.

Brainiac
06-30-2012, 08:27 AM
I'm in favor of a mandate, but it's not the cheaper deal in the aggregate.
Agreed. The mandate is the least objectionable aspect of Obamacare.

Mr. Flopnuts
06-30-2012, 08:35 AM
Here's how the cigarette tax relates to this for me. You can pull my post history if you don't flat out remember me posting it at the time. At some point, long after you've shifted your tax burden onto smokers there will come a time when their tax burden is shifted onto you. Don't expect them to give a shit when that time comes because you don't "think it's fair".

Fucking prophetic. And we're just getting started. Fat asses, I'm looking at you.

RedNeckRaider
06-30-2012, 08:36 AM
Here's how the cigarette tax relates to this for me. You can pull my post history if you don't flat out remember me posting it at the time. At some point, long after you've shifted your tax burden onto smokers there will come a time when their tax burden is shifted onto you. Don't expect them to give a shit when that time comes because you don't "think it's fair".

****ing prophetic. And we're just getting started. Fat asses, I'm looking at you.

LMAO

mlyonsd
06-30-2012, 08:40 AM
Agreed. The mandate is the least objectionable aspect of Obamacare.The problem I have with the mandate is not every one will pay it because they're exempt.

Everyone, and I mean everyone short of the disabled should be paying something.

Mr. Flopnuts
06-30-2012, 08:45 AM
LMAO

I firmly believe the moment we realized we could fuck people over without repercussion, we all became fucked.

stonedstooge
06-30-2012, 08:51 AM
The problem I have with the mandate is not every one will pay it because they're exempt.

Everyone, and I mean everyone short of the disabled should be paying something.

Disabled people pay for insurance. Both Medicare and supplementary insurance

mlyonsd
06-30-2012, 08:52 AM
Disabled people pay for insurance. Both Medicare and supplementary insuranceAll of them?

stonedstooge
06-30-2012, 08:54 AM
All of them?

That I'm not sure about.

stevieray
06-30-2012, 10:10 AM
I'm pretty sure Roberts isn't a conservative, if he was, he wouldn't be claiming the power to interpret the Law.

...this isn't about R and D, this about Progressives.

go bowe
06-30-2012, 10:49 AM
I was thinking more along the lines of:


http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/3978/schleichcourtjester.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/3/schleichcourtjester.jpg/)

excellent!

how much does it pay, though?

go bowe
06-30-2012, 10:55 AM
I'm pretty sure Roberts isn't a conservative, if he was, he wouldn't be claiming the power to interpret the Law.

...this isn't about R and D, this about Progressives.

so, roberts is a progressive?

and fwiw, conservative justices have been interpreting the law for something like two hundred years...

it's what the supremes do...

go bowe
06-30-2012, 10:57 AM
All of them?

you can opt out, but the only health insurance a disabled person can get is medicare and they deduct the premium from your monthly benefit...

La literatura
06-30-2012, 11:24 AM
I'm pretty sure Roberts isn't a conservative, if he was, he wouldn't be claiming the power to interpret the Law.

...this isn't about R and D, this about Progressives.

That's his job.

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 11:27 AM
so, roberts is a progressive?...

Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck say so; so it MUST be true!!!

and fwiw, conservative justices have been interpreting the law for something like two hundred years...

it's what the supremes do...

No, no, no....Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck say that is NOT true!!!

go bowe
06-30-2012, 11:32 AM
so who the fuck is limerick, hand-job and fuckin buckin?

and why should i care?

are they some sort of super-court?

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 11:34 AM
so who the **** is limerick, hand-job and ****in buckin?

and why should i care?

are they some sort of super-court?

They are the "Conservative" Holy Trinity--and are the primary reason that the country has become so hopelessly polarized and divided: ideology and dogma trump pragmatic consensus and compromise (AKA, "public policy" prior to 1992 or so...)

Iz Zat Chew
06-30-2012, 12:11 PM
That's his job.

His job is to interpret the law, his position is not to legislate. He seems to be legislating from the bench. Probably not what the way his job might be described.

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 12:13 PM
His job is to interpret the law, his position is not to legislate. He seems to be legislating from the bench. Probably not what the way his job might be described.

That is YOUR interpretation, and that of other RWNJs....of what he has done. In the mind of many, he merely clarified the language of the actual law that had been distorted by the public's irrational disdain for "taxes."

La literatura
06-30-2012, 12:13 PM
His job is to interpret the law, his position is not to legislate. He seems to be legislating from the bench. Probably not what the way his job might be described.

He didn't legislate from the bench. He agreed with the Government that the individual mandate could properly be interpreted as a tax, not a regulation of commerce.

Brock
06-30-2012, 12:17 PM
I'm pretty sure Roberts isn't a conservative, if he was, he wouldn't be claiming the power to interpret the Law.
.

:LOL: What do you think judges do? LMAO

Iz Zat Chew
06-30-2012, 12:17 PM
They are the "Conservative" Holy Trinity--and are the primary reason that the country has become so hopelessly polarized and divided: ideology and dogma trump pragmatic consensus and compromise (AKA, "public policy" prior to 1992 or so...)

In your opinion and your opinion has no basis in fact. The trinity, as you call them, are talk show hosts. If you feel they have made that big of an impact you are counting out the common American that sees a pile of shit for what it is, a pile of shit. No sugar coating the democrats can put on it will make it anything but a pile of shit.

If I hear one of your holy trio say something that I have already thought how are they adding to the polarization of the country? There are people that do not care, do not pay attention to the issues and those people get what they deserve. If you watch and are actually interested in what is going on it's easy to see. If not you are most likely a koolaid drinking liberal, you know, one of those that hated Reagan, Bush I and Bush II regardless of their actual job performance. Your rejoice at Clinton, not the worst president but also not the best and you amplify that rejoicing for Obama who is going to be known as the very worst president of all time. He most likely will be known as the president that put the nail in the coffin of the U.S. going bankrupt. What happens when the government runs out of our money?

BucEyedPea
06-30-2012, 12:22 PM
Oh spare me Kotter, you are as partisan as anyone else with complaints about the politicizing of the Supreme Court which is lock-step with what the left has done all week.

The three most liberal/progressive justices vote as a bloc every time. Why aren't they considered crazed partisans?

You're accusing others of what your side does.

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 12:30 PM
In your opinion and your opinion has no basis in fact. The trinity, as you call them, are talk show hosts. If you feel they have made that big of an impact you are counting out the common American that sees a pile of shit for what it is, a pile of shit. No sugar coating the democrats can put on it will make it anything but a pile of shit.

If I hear one of your holy trio say something that I have already thought how are they adding to the polarization of the country? There are people that do not care, do not pay attention to the issues and those people get what they deserve. If you watch and are actually interested in what is going on it's easy to see. If not you are most likely a koolaid drinking liberal, you know, one of those that hated Reagan, Bush I and Bush II regardless of their actual job performance. Your rejoice at Clinton, not the worst president but also not the best and you amplify that rejoicing for Obama who is going to be known as the very worst president of all time. He most likely will be known as the president that put the nail in the coffin of the U.S. going bankrupt. What happens when the government runs out of our money?

:spock:

You must be talking to someone else....

I liked Reagan and H.W. Bush, despised Clinton, and was ambivilent about W.(good on terror; an abomination on the economy)...and am, to this point, dissappointed in Obama.

Of course, it's not surprising you and your assumptions are confused. Again.

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 12:32 PM
The three most liberal/progressive justices vote as a bloc every time. Why aren't they considered crazed partisans?

...

You mean, like the Thomas-Scalia-Alito "bloc"....

You and your ilk are just pissed Robert's has a brain, and USED it. Not something that RWNJ types like to see others do, I know....but still...heh.

cosmo20002
06-30-2012, 12:55 PM
I'm pretty sure Roberts isn't a conservative, if he was, he wouldn't be claiming the power to interpret the Law.

I've read many, many of your posts. This one is, by far, the absolute dumbest one.

Iz Zat Chew
07-01-2012, 03:33 PM
:spock:

You must be talking to someone else....

I liked Reagan and H.W. Bush, despised Clinton, and was ambivilent about W.(good on terror; an abomination on the economy)...and am, to this point, dissappointed in Obama.

Of course, it's not surprising you and your assumptions are confused. Again.

Not quite:

They are the "Conservative" Holy Trinity--and are the primary reason that the country has become so hopelessly polarized and divided: ideology and dogma trump pragmatic consensus and compromise (AKA, "public policy" prior to 1992 or so...)

I don't have you confused with anyone.

Mr. Kotter
07-01-2012, 03:47 PM
Not quite:


I don't have you confused with anyone.

Look, just because you and other "dittoheads" choose to let Limbaugh and other RWNJ talk radio demagogues do your thinking for you, doesn't mean it's for everyone. Man up, and own it. There are worse things in life.

Some of us prefer to observe, analyze, synthesize, and critically reflect on events, policies, and opinions for ourselves. I know that's harder than turning on EIB and affiliated "conservative" bloviators--but it's much more rewarding in the long run, especially once you realize 70% of what those guys pontificate ad nauseum about is utter bullshit....because it's mostly an act, to enrich them personally. And you gotta hand it to them, they are good at it. The free "market" at it's finest; too bad it undermines civil public discourse. Worse, the rest of us (me included) choose to imitate them.

FTR, Moore, Olberman, Maddow and the MSNBC crew are just as bad, or worse; just from the "other side.

J Diddy
07-01-2012, 03:59 PM
Oh spare me Kotter, you are as partisan as anyone else with complaints about the politicizing of the Supreme Court which is lock-step with what the left has done all week.

The three most liberal/progressive justices vote as a bloc every time. Why aren't they considered crazed partisans?

You're accusing others of what your side does.

Perhaps, because they do it too.

Iz Zat Chew
07-01-2012, 09:53 PM
Look, just because you and other "dittoheads" choose to let Limbaugh and other RWNJ talk radio demagogues do your thinking for you, doesn't mean it's for everyone. Man up, and own it. There are worse things in life.

Some of us prefer to observe, analyze, synthesize, and critically reflect on events, policies, and opinions for ourselves. I know that's harder than turning on EIB and affiliated "conservative" bloviators--but it's much more rewarding in the long run, especially once you realize 70% of what those guys pontificate ad nauseum about is utter bullshit....because it's mostly an act, to enrich them personally. And you gotta hand it to them, they are good at it. The free "market" at it's finest; too bad it undermines civil public discourse. Worse, the rest of us (me included) choose to imitate them.

FTR, Moore, Olberman, Maddow and the MSNBC crew are just as bad, or worse; just from the "other side.

You seem to be the one that is mistaken. I don't listen to any of the people you seem to call RWNJ's. I've always read the papers for my information, but you go righ on pointing your finger in the wrong direction.

I tell you kotter, you have wasted a lot of time ripping me for something that I dont' do.

You want to get on an even playing field? We can, but you have to realize that you are just as wrong about me as you say I am about you.

Mr. Kotter
07-01-2012, 10:02 PM
...

You want to get on an even playing field? We can, but you have to realize that you are just as wrong about me as you say I am about you.

Tom...dude, we've tried this. If you aren't a dittohead, then Rush is listening to YOU for his material. Because you spout it verbatim, about 80-90% of the time. If I were you, I'd insist on royalties at this point. Sue his fat ass.

Psyko Tek
07-01-2012, 10:07 PM
Specifically what are you hallucinating, I mean imagining could happen from the POTUS that would be worse than what he would experience from his own side who thinks he deserted them?

all I can figure is he is worried about history, how his legacy will bew viewed
and that is a wild shot
the guy has the job as long as he wants it?
can they be impeached?
no idea
I don't like him
I think he has already fucked us hard with citizens united
and will do worse

Otter
07-01-2012, 10:09 PM
One day this interpretation of the law by convenience of agenda is going to come back and bite us in the ass no matter what side of the isle you're on.

A dangerous precedent is being set. Barry isn't going to be in office forever and one day someone you don't agree with will hold the position. Unless you plan to die within the decade.

Try not to be a hypocrite when you don't like having laws shoved down your throat because of card ticks and backroom negotiations because it will come.

Count on it.

J Diddy
07-01-2012, 10:13 PM
One day this interpretation of the law by convenience of agenda is going to come back and bite us in the ass no matter what side of the isle you're on.

A dangerous precedent is being set. Barry isn't going to be in office forever and one day someone you don't agree with will hold the position. Unless you plan to die within the decade.

Try not to be a hypocrite when you don't like having laws shoved down your throat because it will come. Count on it.

One day? Like they haven't been shoved down our throats equally? You think I like the fact that elections are won by money and the sc opening up the flood gates for corps to donate like mad hell. Take your fucking wins with grace and your losses equally graceful.

BucEyedPea
07-01-2012, 10:17 PM
Perhaps, because they do it too.

Point went over your head.

Otter
07-01-2012, 10:22 PM
One day? Like they haven't been shoved down our throats equally? You think I like the fact that elections are won by money and the sc opening up the flood gates for corps to donate like mad hell. Take your ****ing wins with grace and your losses equally graceful.

I'm no political expert or hell, even an armature enthusiast but I don't recall any administration using power carte blanche on it's own citizens (this is key) like bum **** barry.

Like I said, just be ready to reap the whirlwind of what you're enabling down the road. Don't want to hear any crying when the same means are used to enable the means of something you don't like and it will happen.

barry is a wanna be dictator

Mr. Kotter
07-01-2012, 10:23 PM
I'm no political expert or hell, even an armature enthusiast but I don't recall any administration using power carte blanche on it's own citizens (this is key) like bum **** barry.

Like I said, just be ready to reap the whirlwind of what you're enabling down the road. Don't want to hear any crying when the same means are used to enable the means.

barry is a scumbag, wanna be dictator

:spock:

Did you sleep through 2000-2008??? Seriously???

J Diddy
07-01-2012, 10:23 PM
Point went over your head.

You know, I try not to be mean. I really do, but God damn. You have to be the most ignorant bitch known to this side of the Globe. The fact that someone gave you a college degree is laughable. You laugh about people's ideology but follow your own, which I have to say is somewhat like George Bush on acid, coke, and whiskey at once.

You're a crazy ass but there's good news in the making. Here in the next 5 years I'll be a psychologist or a lawyer. I suspect you'll be in need of a good one of either.

I'll give you the CP discount, absolutely free. So you can bitch about that too.

Otter
07-01-2012, 10:25 PM
:spock:

Did you sleep through 2000-2008??? Seriously???

Remember Kotter....no crying! Stiff upper lip and all!

La literatura
07-01-2012, 10:27 PM
I'm no political expert or hell, even an armature enthusiast but I don't recall any administration using power carte blanche on it's own citizens (this is key) like bum **** barry.

Like I said, just be ready to reap the whirlwind of what you're enabling down the road. Don't want to hear any crying when the same means are used to enable the means of something you don't like and it will happen.

barry is a wanna be dictator

There's always some idiot claiming some president is a wanna be dictator. Today, you're that idiot.

J Diddy
07-01-2012, 10:28 PM
I'm no political expert or hell, even an armature enthusiast but I don't recall any administration using power carte blanche on it's own citizens (this is key) like bum **** barry.

Like I said, just be ready to reap the whirlwind of what you're enabling down the road. Don't want to hear any crying when the same means are used to enable the means of something you don't like and it will happen.

barry is a wanna be dictator

1, obama was elected on that platform and delivered true to his promise. The fact that he didn't do the dixie twist on the dance floor back and forth makes no matter. This thing had been talked about for decades and nothing got done. Something got done, deal with it.

I'm a broke ass college student, single father of one, I work and I do the best I can and every day the future bills go up. You think I like that? I do not, but I know the end will justify the means.

Bottom line, smile and wave. They're all going to fuck you, period. I just think my guys going to fuck me the least.

cosmo20002
07-01-2012, 10:32 PM
I'm no political expert or hell, even an armature enthusiast but I don't recall any administration using power carte blanche on it's own citizens (this is key) like bum **** barry.


The key part is highlighted. I don't expect you or anyone to know all the details of every past president, but the funny thing is that anyone would say this right after the W Bush administration.

Mr. Kotter
07-01-2012, 10:34 PM
The key part is highlighted. I don't expect you or anyone to know all the details of every past president, but the funny thing is that anyone would say this right after the W Bush administration.

See how OBJECTIVE I am....cause I'm with you/beat you to the punch on that. Heh.

Otter
07-01-2012, 10:34 PM
There's always some idiot claiming some president is a wanna be dictator. Today, you're that idiot.

Are you still awake little boy? Maybe you can read a book on martial arts and then kick Anderson Silva's ass in ring next week. The day you actually apply knowledge in real life is the day I'll take you somewhat seriously.

BucEyedPea
07-01-2012, 10:35 PM
You know, I try not to be mean. I really do, but God damn.
But you are mean plenty of times. That's why I give you shit back. You don't even post ideas or refute points you mainly comment on posters and follow them around telling them what's wrong with them.

You have to be the most ignorant bitch known to this side of the Globe.
The fact that someone gave you a college degree is laughable.
That doesn't mean much from a CC grad. Hey, you dish it you're gonna get it back.

You laugh about people's ideology but follow your own, which I have to say is somewhat like George Bush on acid, coke, and whiskey at once.

I never said I didn't follow an ideology. I've admitted I do. So do you. You just can't admit to it.
You're a leftist. Don't know where I laugh at other's ideology. I just don't like certain ones. So I disagree. There's nothing wrong with that.

You're a crazy ass but there's good news in the making. Here in the next 5 years I'll be a psychologist or a lawyer. I suspect you'll be in need of a good one of either.

LMAO This explains everything about you that in the first lines of my posts. It's no wonder patients refuse to pay you guys. All you do is go around telling people what's wrong with them, including outside of practice. They are hated. It's mostly opinion though. You should see if you can get ideology-disorder in the DSM along with the multitude of other bullshit they publish like caffeine-disorder to keep themselves in business etc. They can sure evaluate others but they can't cure anything or anyone. At least they admit it.

I'll give you the CP discount, absolutely free. So you can bitch about that too.

Nope. I would never let an anti-social I am superior in behavior like you go near me. Arguing politics in a political forum seems to be a disorder to you. That's a new one. You should fit in well in a place like Cuba.

cosmo20002
07-01-2012, 10:36 PM
There's always some idiot claiming some president is a wanna be dictator. Today, you're that idiot.

Well, actually---

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."
---George W. Bush

Iz Zat Chew
07-01-2012, 10:36 PM
The key part is highlighted. I don't expect you or anyone to know all the details of every past president, but the funny thing is that anyone would say this right after the W Bush administration.

You should list the details of the Bush administration you had problems with. I doubt that you can substantiate any of your outrageous claims, but you've bee so fucking generic in your shotgun approach that it would be difficult to nail you down to any single point. YOU NEVER post any substantial evidence, you just keep swinging and missing.

Otter
07-01-2012, 10:37 PM
Remember guys, no tears next time around or it makes you a hypocrite. Are you a hypocrite?

Are you?

:deevee:

BucEyedPea
07-01-2012, 10:38 PM
The key part is highlighted. I don't expect you or anyone to know all the details of every past president, but the funny thing is that anyone would say this right after the W Bush administration.

More deflection. No real contribution. Are you and jdiddy the best the left has got?

BucEyedPea
07-01-2012, 10:39 PM
The fact of the matter is we are falling more and more into a fascism and it's hastening. Obama has been doing end runs around congress when he can't get what he wants passed. It's not just him though.

BucEyedPea
07-01-2012, 10:40 PM
Remember guys, no tears next time around or it makes you a hypocrite. Are you a hypocrite?

Are you?

:deevee:

Oh, jdiddy the wannebe psychologist of the board is giving out worthless psychological evaluations for discussing politics he doesn't agree with in a political forum.

La literatura
07-01-2012, 10:42 PM
Are you still awake little boy? Maybe you can read a book on martial arts and then kick Anderson Silva's ass in ring next week. The day you actually apply knowledge in real life is the day I'll take you somewhat seriously.

Great post, man. Great post.

J Diddy
07-01-2012, 10:45 PM
But you are mean plenty of times. That's why I give you shit back. You don't even post ideas or refute points you mainly comment on posters and follow them around telling them what's wrong with them.


That doesn't mean much from a CC grad. Hey, you dish it you're gonna get it back.



I never said I didn't follow an ideology. I've admitted I do. So do you. You just can't admit to it.
You're a leftist. Don't know where I laugh at other's ideology. I just don't like certain ones. So I disagree. There's nothing wrong with that.



LMAO This explains everything about you that in the first lines of my posts. It's no wonder patients refuse to pay you guys. All you do is go around telling people what's wrong with them. They are hated. It's mostly opinion though. You should see if you can get ideology-disorder in the DSM along with the multitude of other bullshit they publish like caffeine-disorder to keep themselves in business etc. They can sure evaluate others but they can't cure anything or anyone. At least they admit it.



Nope. I would never let an anti-social I am superior in behavior like you go near me. Arguing politics in a political forum seems to be a disorder to you. That's a new one. You should fit in well in a place like Cuba.

Lmao, I am currently attending a University with a 3.9 gpa and nothing but broad prospects for grad school, be it in law or psychology. DC is not the place to practice psychology, because, let's face it, you'd be a job plus overtime for months. Either way, smile and wave.

Truth be told, I'm just trying to offend you enough that you won't reply back. Apparently that isn't working.

cosmo20002
07-01-2012, 10:48 PM
Are you and jdiddy the best the left has got?

Yes, but there are some others that are pretty good too.

BucEyedPea
07-01-2012, 10:48 PM
Lmao, I am currently attending a University with a 3.9 gpa and nothing but broad prospects for grad school, be it in law or psychology. DC is not the place to practice psychology, because, let's face it, you'd be a job plus overtime for months. Either way, smile and wave.
But it's in psychology.....I notice that's the subject dumbasses study. And you do practice on an internet political forum. You can't be that good if you go by that and on politics.

Truth be told, I'm just trying to offend you enough that you won't reply back. Apparently that isn't working.

Nope. This is getting to be fun. If you don't like it then don't do it. 'Er weren't you the one talking down to others about decent behavior?

BucEyedPea
07-01-2012, 10:50 PM
Yes, but there are some others that are pretty good too.

Actually, you and jdiddy are the worst of the bunch in terms of discussing ideas, issues and refuting them with anything intelligent.

Otter
07-01-2012, 10:50 PM
:spock:

Did you sleep through 2000-2008??? Seriously???

I missed this...right on cue Kotter!

Who do I get to pick from the past to compare and rationalize all my mistakes? Can I get Hitler, Stalin? Maybe Pol Pot? Pretty sure that would cover me for several life times.

Well **** it! Hitler killed a million Jews so that means it's OK if I shoot the bank teller in a hold up. I mean, what's the difference when you look at what Hitler did?

You guys using any means necessary to rationalize bum fuck barry is disgusting.

cosmo20002
07-01-2012, 10:51 PM
You should list the details of the Bush administration you had problems with. I doubt that you can substantiate any of your outrageous claims, but you've bee so ****ing generic in your shotgun approach that it would be difficult to nail you down to any single point. YOU NEVER post any substantial evidence, you just keep swinging and missing.

You can start with warantless wiretaps and that although there was already a specific law that addressed the process for wiretaps, they decided to ignore it so they would not be subject to any type of court review.

BucEyedPea
07-01-2012, 10:52 PM
You can start with warantless wiretaps and that although there was already a specific law that addressed the process for wiretaps, they decided to ignore it so they would not be subject to any type of court review.

Well now, this is refreshing to see. Good job!

So now tell me, has Obama done away with this type of thing?

J Diddy
07-01-2012, 10:53 PM
But it's in psychology.....I notice that's the subject dumbasses study. And you do practice on an internet political forum. You can't be that good if you go by that and on politics.



Nope. This is getting to be fun. If you don't like it then don't do it. 'Er weren't you the one talking down to others about decent behavior?

One you're like a dog, dogs don't understand what you're saying. I get that, wanna fuck?

I don't know about your assertion, however, it is most likely subjective and without merit.

Furthermore, you just struck me as someone who liked being talked dirty to.

BucEyedPea
07-01-2012, 10:54 PM
One you're like a dog, dogs don't understand what you're saying. I get that, wanna ****?

I don't know about your assertion, however, it is most likely subjective and without merit.

Furthermore, you just struck me as someone who liked being talked dirty to.

Project much? Guess, it's true that psyches are obsessed with sex and see it everywhere. Have a 10% rate of having relations with patients.

J Diddy
07-01-2012, 10:58 PM
Project much?

Well, yes , maybe, I guess so.

:)

BucEyedPea
07-01-2012, 10:58 PM
I edited.

cosmo20002
07-01-2012, 11:00 PM
Well now, this is refreshing to see. Good job!

So now tell me, has Obama done away with this type of thing?

I'm not specifically aware one way or the other. I do know that W / Cheney did a huge executive power grab, and in such situations the next guy, even if he doesn't actively utilize it, certainly doesn't actively give it back.

J Diddy
07-01-2012, 11:00 PM
I edited.

Hey baby, wanna be my 10 percenter?

BucEyedPea
07-01-2012, 11:01 PM
Hey baby, wanna be my 10 percenter?

Nope psyches who do that disgust me.

J Diddy
07-01-2012, 11:06 PM
Nope psyches who do that disgust me.

Fair enough, I'll drop you as a client. Then the games will begin!

BucEyedPea
07-01-2012, 11:07 PM
Fair enough, I'll drop you as a client. Then the games will begin!

Actually, you would be punished by your own profession for doing such a thing.

patteeu
07-02-2012, 07:07 AM
Well, actually---

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."
---George W. Bush

Not to be out-idioted, along comes cosmo.

Direckshun
07-03-2012, 12:55 PM
A study from 2005, pre-Roberts on the SCOTUS.

http://www.umassd.edu/media/umassdartmouth/politicalscience/facultydocs/APSA_2005_paper_Ideology_of_Judge_John_Roberts.pdf

It finds that Roberts is more conservative in criminal and civil liberty cases.

But he was actually more liberal than the Appeals Court average on economic issues.

Wow -- talk about prescient.

Iz Zat Chew
07-03-2012, 01:46 PM
Well, actually---

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."
---George W. Bush

Care to show us all a link that backs that one up?

Didn't think so.

patteeu
07-03-2012, 02:20 PM
Care to show us all a link that backs that one up?

Didn't think so.

He really said it, but there's nothing damning about it and it certainly doesn't express a dictatorial desire.

BucEyedPea
07-03-2012, 02:28 PM
He really said it, but there's nothing damning about it and it certainly doesn't express a dictatorial desire.

Well, I'm gonna have to agree with you on this one.

Iz Zat Chew
07-03-2012, 02:46 PM
He really said it, but there's nothing damning about it and it certainly doesn't express a dictatorial desire.

I've neveer seen it referred to anywhere other than here. Just asking for some kind of proof as he is always asking from me. I'm checking to see if his standards apply to him as well as others.

CoMoChief
07-03-2012, 03:12 PM
You can start with warantless wiretaps and that although there was already a specific law that addressed the process for wiretaps, they decided to ignore it so they would not be subject to any type of court review.

You can give me warantless wiretaps and I'll raise you Obama's NDAA bill.

And that's not to say Bush was any better or worse.....they're both cut from the same globalist cloth.

Funny thing with you ignorant liberals...is that once someone starts bashing your beloved Obama, you immediately follow up w/ "Well Bush did...."

Stupid Obot, when are you going to learn?

BucEyedPea
07-03-2012, 03:14 PM
You can give me warantless wiretaps and I'll raise you Obama's NDAA bill.

And that's not to say Bush was any better or worse.....they're both cut from the same globalist cloth.

Funny thing with you ignorant liberals...is that once someone starts bashing your beloved Obama, you immediately follow up w/ "Well Bush did...."

Stupid Obot, when are you going to learn?

Plus his "Kill List" of Americans.

patteeu
07-03-2012, 04:01 PM
I've neveer seen it referred to anywhere other than here. Just asking for some kind of proof as he is always asking from me. I'm checking to see if his standards apply to him as well as others.

I've vouched for it. You can rest easy now.

It might help if you look for your news from sources other than your inbox.

Iz Zat Chew
07-03-2012, 06:00 PM
I've vouched for it. You can rest easy now.

It might help if you look for your news from sources other than your inbox.

I doubt you were trying to be funny, you were just being the typical liberal that hates anything conservative. You obviously haven't read many of my posts, but then I'm not surprised as you have classed me with others.

You vouching for cosmo would be like hillary vouching for bill's fidelity. No load.

Still waiting for proof.

cosmo20002
07-03-2012, 09:19 PM
I've neveer seen it referred to anywhere other than here. Just asking for some kind of proof as he is always asking from me. I'm checking to see if his standards apply to him as well as others.

There are some things so well known and/or so simple to look up that most people do not feel the need to provide a link to everything. For your outrageous conspiracy nonsense, a link is required.

cosmo20002
07-03-2012, 09:20 PM
He really said it, but there's nothing damning about it and it certainly doesn't express a dictatorial desire.

He actually said that and similar sentiments several times. I'm really not one to make a big deal of such things, but we know what would have happened if Omaba said it.

cosmo20002
07-03-2012, 09:25 PM
You can give me warantless wiretaps and I'll raise you Obama's NDAA bill.

And that's not to say Bush was any better or worse.....they're both cut from the same globalist cloth.

Funny thing with you ignorant liberals...is that once someone starts bashing your beloved Obama, you immediately follow up w/ "Well Bush did...."

Stupid Obot, when are you going to learn?

That's funny, didn't you just do the thing you said ignorant liberals do?

And on NDAA, a couple things--one, W was already doing the stuff that is in there. Two, NDAA is at least an actual law. W was doing the warantless wiretapping outside of the law--in direct violation of it, actually.

Iz Zat Chew
07-03-2012, 10:01 PM
There are some things so well known and/or so simple to look up that most people do not feel the need to provide a link to everything. For your outrageous conspiracy nonsense, a link is required.

In other words you have nothing.

Iz Zat Chew
07-03-2012, 10:01 PM
He actually said that and similar sentiments several times. I'm really not one to make a big deal of such things, but we know what would have happened if Omaba said it.

Deflection, you still have nothing.

cosmo20002
07-03-2012, 10:03 PM
In other words you have nothing.

Copy quote
Go to Google
Paste
Evaluate results

Iz Zat Chew
07-04-2012, 07:20 AM
Copy quote
Go to Google
Paste
Evaluate results

You should read that your self.

You have have nothing.

Direckshun
07-04-2012, 12:01 PM
I too can vouch for the fact George W. Bush really said it.

I was under the impression he was saying it as a half joke, half statement about the difficult workings of government.

Like pat, I don't think it denotes actual dictatorial desire.

Iz Zat Chew
07-04-2012, 12:48 PM
I too can vouch for the fact George W. Bush really said it.

I was under the impression he was saying it as a half joke, half statement about the difficult workings of government.

Like pat, I don't think it denotes actual dictatorial desire.

Still, someone on a board vouching is worthless. Sorry. I've been told that anything I post isn't valid unless it has a link to back it up. I'm just holding those members to the same standard they hold me to.

patteeu
07-04-2012, 01:29 PM
Still, someone on a board vouching is worthless. Sorry. I've been told that anything I post isn't valid unless it has a link to back it up. I'm just holding those members to the same standard they hold me to.

That's because you post controversial, crazy shit from your inbox. By contrast, this is a well known, non-controversial quote from Bush.

La literatura
07-04-2012, 02:13 PM
Care to show us all a link that backs that one up?

Didn't think so.

I've neveer seen it referred to anywhere other than here. Just asking for some kind of proof as he is always asking from me. I'm checking to see if his standards apply to him as well as others.

I doubt you were trying to be funny, you were just being the typical liberal that hates anything conservative. You obviously haven't read many of my posts, but then I'm not surprised as you have classed me with others.

You vouching for cosmo would be like hillary vouching for bill's fidelity. No load.

Still waiting for proof.

In other words you have nothing.

Deflection, you still have nothing.

You should read that your self.

You have have nothing.

Still, someone on a board vouching is worthless. Sorry. I've been told that anything I post isn't valid unless it has a link to back it up. I'm just holding those members to the same standard they hold me to.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/aD3xfT0c99g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Direckshun
07-04-2012, 02:21 PM
I will say that if Obama made this kind of joke, he'd be fucking crucified.

But that's for another thread.

Iz Zat Chew
07-04-2012, 02:22 PM
That's because you post controversial, crazy shit from your inbox. By contrast, this is a well known, non-controversial quote from Bush.

If it's so well known and I'm was a Bush supporter why is it that I never heard it? Not so well known perhaps?

Iz Zat Chew
07-04-2012, 02:23 PM
I will say that if Obama made this kind of joke, he'd be ****ing crucified.

But that's for another thread.

Obama would never say that, even in jest. No Balls.

He would do it for real and by the time you knew it we would no longer be a free country.

La literatura
07-04-2012, 02:27 PM
If it's so well known and I'm was a Bush supporter why is it that I never heard it? Not so well known perhaps?

Did you watch the video?

Direckshun
07-04-2012, 02:29 PM
If it's so well known and I'm was a Bush supporter why is it that I never heard it? Not so well known perhaps?

Maybe you're stupid?

Brainiac
07-04-2012, 02:33 PM
Maybe you're stupid?
LOL, I was thinking the same thing.

Iz Zat Chew
07-04-2012, 03:18 PM
Maybe you're stupid?That would put me in the same place as you. If you want to go that direction, then it's your choice. Your opinion has no impact on my life, one thing of which I'm truly grateful.

Iz Zat Chew
07-04-2012, 03:19 PM
LOL, I was thinking the same thing.
No you weren't, you have to have a real brain to think.

Iz Zat Chew
07-04-2012, 03:19 PM
Did you watch the video?

What video?

mikey23545
07-04-2012, 05:28 PM
I will say that if Obama made this kind of joke, he'd be ****ing crucified.

But that's for another thread.

It's the kind of thing you would joke about when your conscience is clean and it would never enter your mind as a serious thought.

Which is why you would probably never hear Obama joke about it.

Brainiac
07-04-2012, 05:53 PM
No you weren't, you have to have a real brain to think.
When people from both the Left and the Right mock you, that should tell you that you're doing something wrong.

Brock
07-04-2012, 06:24 PM
If it's so well known and I'm was a Bush supporter why is it that I never heard it? Not so well known perhaps?

Because you're a fucking moron.

BucEyedPea
07-04-2012, 06:51 PM
Roberts has fled America.

























for a timely teaching gig.

Iz Zat Chew
07-04-2012, 09:49 PM
When people from both the Left and the Right mock you, that should tell you that you're doing something wrong.

Sure, what ever you say.

Should I be insulted?

I'm not, you are nobody.

patteeu
07-04-2012, 11:03 PM
If it's so well known and I'm was a Bush supporter why is it that I never heard it? Not so well known perhaps?

Because you spend too much time reading stuff from your inbox instead of paying attention to the real news and you apparently don't have an operational crazy detector.

Iz Zat Chew
07-05-2012, 04:45 AM
Because you spend too much time reading stuff from your inbox instead of paying attention to the real news and you apparently don't have an operational crazy detector.

I do have an operational crazy detector, it goes off each time you and a few of the more left leaning liberals go off.

I would be nice if you communicated in a little more understandable manner. I may mangle the language from time to time, but you seem to have gone for the gold on this one.

suzzer99
07-05-2012, 07:40 AM
Mitt insults the supreme court, questions the motivation and constitutionality of its decision:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/05/romney-speaks-about-health-care-vote-by-chief-justice-john-g-roberts-jr/

Mitt Romney seemed to challenge the motivation behind the decisive vote by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. to uphold the Affordable Care Act, saying reports that the justice switched his vote suggested that the ruling was based on a “political consideration” rather than a legal judgment.

“It gives the impression that the decision was made not based upon constitutional foundation, but instead political consideration about the relationship between the branches of government,” Mr. Romney said in an interview with CBS that was broadcast on Thursday morning.


So I'm sure some democratic judge or senator is going to freak out about this and demand a 3-page single-spaced written apology right? Oh wait, the democrats don't throw a temper tantrum every time someone says something they don't like. Well not at the level the republicans do anyway.

Oh the butthurt.

patteeu
07-05-2012, 07:50 AM
Mitt insults the supreme court, questions the motivation and constitutionality of its decision:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/05/romney-speaks-about-health-care-vote-by-chief-justice-john-g-roberts-jr/



So I'm sure some democratic judge or senator is going to freak out about this and demand a 3-page single-spaced written apology right? Oh wait, the democrats don't throw a temper tantrum every time someone says something they don't like. Well not at the level the republicans do anyway.

Oh the butthurt.

It sounds to me like butthurt is a Suzzer99 problem.

Iz Zat Chew
07-05-2012, 07:56 AM
It sounds to me like butthurt is a Suzzer99 problem.

Not near as much as yours if Romney wins in November.

patteeu
07-05-2012, 08:00 AM
Not near as much as yours if Romney wins in November.

Did you read that in a chain email?

Iz Zat Chew
07-05-2012, 08:06 AM
Did you read that in a chain email?

Did YOU read your shit in an email?

Obviously you don't expect anyone to have original thought because you don't have that ability. To agree with an email does not mean that you fully believe the content.

On the other hand if you are a liberal you fully buy the party line and that party line will most likely, at the current rate, lead to the distruction of the U.S. economy within the next 4 years if obama is re-elected.

suzzer99
07-05-2012, 09:57 AM
It sounds to me like butthurt is a Suzzer99 problem.

Yeah I'm butthurt that the dems didn't throw a fit and act like babies over Romney bashing the SCOTUS. Good call.

BucEyedPea
07-05-2012, 10:00 AM
Yeah I'm butthurt that the dems didn't throw a fit and act like babies over Romney bashing the SCOTUS. Good call.

You do know that the left and the Obama regime were in the wings already with a prepared full-out attack on the Robert's court as if they were going to lose, right? Then there's the whining about Citizen's United.

Sorry but mirror mirror applies here.

patteeu
07-05-2012, 10:22 AM
Yeah I'm butthurt that the dems didn't throw a fit and act like babies over Romney bashing the SCOTUS. Good call.

If you're not butthurt, why were you whining about how Obama was treated when he sullied his office by denigrating the SCOTUS?

suzzer99
07-05-2012, 10:24 AM
Why do you not care that Romney just denigrated the SCOTUS in the same way?

Direckshun
07-05-2012, 10:28 AM
Mitt insults the supreme court, questions the motivation and constitutionality of its decision:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/05/romney-speaks-about-health-care-vote-by-chief-justice-john-g-roberts-jr/



So I'm sure some democratic judge or senator is going to freak out about this and demand a 3-page single-spaced written apology right? Oh wait, the democrats don't throw a temper tantrum every time someone says something they don't like. Well not at the level the republicans do anyway.

Oh the butthurt.

Romney criticizing somebody else for arriving at a conclusion for purely political reasons?

Direckshun
07-05-2012, 10:29 AM
If you're not butthurt, why were you whining about how Obama was treated when he sullied his office by denigrating the SCOTUS?

Why do you not care that Romney just denigrated the SCOTUS in the same way?

You guys are both king-sized pussies.

SCOTUS is a branch of government. As such, it is open for criticism by anybody with a vocal chord.

To say that the courts are above reproach or criticism in any forum is being little more than a king-sized pussy.

patteeu
07-05-2012, 10:56 AM
Why do you not care that Romney just denigrated the SCOTUS in the same way?

He didn't. He didn't do it during a State of the Union speech and he didn't do it with a demeaning tone at all. He simply indicated that he agreed with the conservative dissenters and then came out and added that he accepted the majority's decision as the law of the land. It's the classy alternative to Obama's crass attack against the court.

BucEyedPea
07-05-2012, 10:59 AM
Why do you not care that Romney just denigrated the SCOTUS in the same way?

It's okay to denigrate the SCOTUS they're part of the govt and it's free political speech.
But to crassly attack them before they decide something? You have no problem with that?

Direckshun
07-05-2012, 10:59 AM
He didn't. He didn't do it during a State of the Union speech and he didn't do it with a demeaning tone at all. He simply indicated that he agreed with the conservative dissenters and then came out and added that he accepted the majority's decision as the law of the land. It's the classy alternative to Obama's crass attack against the court.

Grow up. Jesus.

patteeu
07-05-2012, 11:02 AM
You guys are both king-sized pussies.

SCOTUS is a branch of government. As such, it is open for criticism by anybody with a vocal chord.

To say that the courts are above reproach or criticism in any forum is being little more than a king-sized pussy.

I don't think you can possibly mean that. I've certainly never said that the courts are above reproach (and I don't think suzzer99 has either). That doesn't mean that all forums are equally acceptable though. Surely you would agree that it would be wrong for the President (or Romney) to attend the announcement of the decision and then heckle the Chief Justice as he reads from his opinion. It's one thing to discuss your disagreements with the court in an interview and an entirely different thing to scold the court as they sit in the audience in front of you during a nationally televised SOTU address.

Direckshun
07-05-2012, 11:06 AM
I don't think you can possibly mean that. I've certainly never said that the courts are above reproach (and I don't think suzzer99 has either). That doesn't mean that all forums are equally acceptable though. Surely you would agree that it would be wrong for the President (or Romney) to attend the announcement of the decision and then heckle the Chief Justice as he reads from his opinion. It's one thing to discuss your disagreements with the court in an interview and an entirely different thing to scold the court as they sit in the audience in front of you during a nationally televised SOTU address.

All forums are equally acceptable.

The President, whoever he happens to be, openly criticizes Congress in their own house.

Happens all the time. Checks and balances. Court of public opinion.

No reason why the same can't apply to the Supreme Court. You'll have to convince me how the commonly rough language used against Congress is any different when you use it on the Court.

I don't give two shits about the President criticizing the Court in any venue.

Tell me why I need to be more in touch with my emotional side. I'm sure you will make an amazingly successful argument.

patteeu
07-05-2012, 11:13 AM
All forums are equally acceptable.

So if the President goes over to John Robert's front lawn and uses a bullhorn to loudly denounce his Citizen's United ruling all through the night, no problem? Look, it's OK to admit that you overstated your position.

Velvet_Jones
07-05-2012, 01:57 PM
Get rid of the middle men (insurance companies) that add nothing of value to care would be a great start. They don't want to deal with the needs of small businesses unless they don't have any sick employees. There isn't any profit in it for them. Billions going to a broker.

Whats hilarious about this is you have no idea what you are talking about. Ive been in the health insurance business for almost 30 years. You opine but know nothing of what you are talking about. You may either work for a 7-11 or the government but what you don't do is work in the insurance industry. Just to clear it up for you, the insurance company is not a middle man. They are the risk bearer. The broker makes a commission of 5-7%. No where near a billion dollars. You need to shut up now so you don't increase the amount of stupid that you already piled on yourself.

Direckshun
07-05-2012, 06:36 PM
So if the President goes over to John Robert's front lawn and uses a bullhorn to loudly denounce his Citizen's United ruling all through the night, no problem?

That's fair. I'd probably have the same problem with Obama doing that outside Boehner's home.

I just fail to see any difference between how the President should treat the courts versus how the President should treat Congress.

Until you remove the bubble wrap from the SCOTUS, you're a giant pussy on the issue.

But again. Maybe I'm just not sensitive enough.

Sometimes I cut myself at night. Just to see if I can still feel something.

patteeu
07-05-2012, 08:23 PM
That's fair. I'd probably have the same problem with Obama doing that outside Boehner's home.

I just fail to see any difference between how the President should treat the courts versus how the President should treat Congress.

Until you remove the bubble wrap from the SCOTUS, you're a giant pussy on the issue.

But again. Maybe I'm just not sensitive enough.

Sometimes I cut myself at night. Just to see if I can still feel something.

I don't have a bubble wrap on the SCOTUS. I have no problem with criticism. I've made it a habit to criticize many of their decisions myself. But the episode in the SOTU speech was low class. Not as low class as using a bullhorn on the Chief Justice's front lawn, but low class nonetheless.

BucEyedPea
07-05-2012, 08:26 PM
I don't have a bubble wrap on the SCOTUS. I have no problem with criticism. I've made it a habit to criticize many of their decisions myself. But the episode in the SOTU speech was low class. Not as low class as using a bullhorn on the Chief Justice's front lawn, but low class nonetheless.
Gonna have to agree with you here too.

patteeu
07-05-2012, 08:28 PM
Gonna have to agree with you here too.

We agree on lots of things. You don't have to fight it.

BucEyedPea
07-05-2012, 08:29 PM
We agree on lots of things. You don't have to fight it.

:LOL:

Direckshun
07-05-2012, 08:30 PM
But the episode in the SOTU speech was low class.

Because?

patteeu
07-05-2012, 10:24 PM
Because?

The same reason you don't invite someone to a dinner party and then try to embarrass them by criticizing them in front of your other guests.

cosmo20002
07-05-2012, 11:11 PM
The same reason you don't invite someone to a dinner party and then try to embarrass them by criticizing them in front of your other guests.

Congress gets called out/criticized all the time by the Pres in SOTUs. Boo hoo. And face it, had W done the same, you all would be saying, "Fuk Yeah!"