Obama Crosses the Line

Well, the President has certainly stepped in it this time.

The Supreme Court firmly established in Marbury v. Madison in 1803 that government behavior that is repugnant to the Constitution is not valid, and it is the duty of the courts to make that determination and to invalidate such behavior. This is called “judicial review:” It is the power of the courts to review the acts of the other branches of the federal government, and to review the laws of the states, and to void them when they exceed the confines of the Constitution. No serious legal scholar has questioned this power in the past 175 years.

The president is entitled to his own opinions, just like everyone else is. He is free to argue and to predict that ObamaCare should and will be upheld. But he cannot seriously suggest, with intellectual honesty, that the Court is without lawful authority to invalidate an act of Congress that the Court determines is repugnant to the Constitution.

Nor can he, with intellectual honesty, issue veiled threats to the Court.

The Court is his equal, as a branch of government. But since 1803, the Court is superior to the president on having the final say as to what the laws and what the Constitution mean; and the president knows that.

Now the Judge says the President “knows” all this, which begs the question, why then did he say what he said?  Is it simply his narcissism showing through?  Did Justice Kagen already get word to him that ObamaCare will be struck down, and he’s just getting even — in a juvenile, school-yard sort of way.  He could have just called the Supreme Court a bunch of poopy heads; it would have been about as effective and classy as what he said.  I suppose this could, as a number of pundits have suggested, be a way of preparing his army of useful idiots to take to the streets in protest if and when the Court announces that it has found the law unconstitutional.  And, of course, there’s always the possibility that he already knows the Court will uphold ObamaCare, and he will simply be able to say, “see, I told you they couldn’t strike it down”.  I’m not betting the farm on that last option, but nothing this crew does surprises me anymore.

The interesting thing to take note of will be opinion polls over the next week or two as they relate to Obama’s approval by Independents.  I can’t imagine a large percentage of Independents admiring this latest move by the President, and without a strong majority of Independents’ votes, he’s toast in November.

163 thoughts on “Obama Crosses the Line

  1. Majordomo Pain April 5, 2012 / 9:53 am

    There is the question of where the line of judicial review meets the line of judicial activism.

    • Retired Spook April 5, 2012 / 10:27 am

      That may well be, Major, but this won’t be one of those times.

      Let’s fast-forward to the end of a fictitious 2nd Obama term. With unemployment at 17%, gas prices at $8.00/gallon, Occupy encampments in every park and court house square, several major American cities in ruins following terrorist attacks; the political pendulum swings violently to the right. Large GOP majorities in the House and Senate pass a law requiring every household to own a military-grade firearm, similar to Switzerland.

      Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training, usually at age 20 in the Rekrutenschule (German for “recruit school”), the initial boot camp, after which Swiss men remain part of the “militia” in reserve capacity until age 30 (age 34 for officers). Each such individual is required to keep his army-issued personal weapon (the 5.56x45mm Sig 550 rifle for enlisted personnel and/or the 9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home.

      Do you see where this can go when the federal government has the power to force individual citizens to purchase something?

      • James April 5, 2012 / 11:11 am

        Spook,

        why do you keep stating something that isn’t true? The federal government isn’t FORCING people to buy something like a gun, or a car, or any other material thing.

        They are simply saying, since everyone at some point in their life will go to the doctor…and since some of those who do go to the doctor can’t afford to pay for it, we all pay for it at that time.

        Furthermore, if you’re going to insure everyone regardless of their health and condition, you must include the healthy people as well so that the insurance companies can still operate profitably.

        The mandate is a form of tax essentially. You’re paying the cost of you NOT having insurance. Individual actions with regards to healthcare have commerce implications nationwide. If you don’t have insurance and get a heart attack which ends up costing 50k….and you can’t pay for it out of your pocket because you’re poor or simply don’t have the money..then I pay for that indirectly with my premiums going up.

        This is exactly what the Heritage Foundation and Senator Grassley, and Romney understood at the time they were for the mandate. That also goes for Newt.

        To admit there has to be a mandate, and then say the federal government can’t deal with it is asinine.

        I believe the law has about a 50% chance of being upheld. But if the mandate is struck down, the rest of the law will stand in my opinion.

      • Retired Spook April 5, 2012 / 11:39 am

        The mandate is a form of tax essentially.

        No, “essentially” it’s not. Both the Supreme Court and Obama’s own budget director disagree with you.

        This is exactly what the Heritage Foundation and Senator Grassley, and Romney understood at the time they were for the mandate.

        No it’s NOT EXACTLY the same. This was discussed at length in the Oral Argument thread. Why do you have so much trouble telling the truth, James?

      • doug April 5, 2012 / 11:46 am

        James, you have a whole lot of have to’s in your argument. Obamacare isn’t necessary. Romneycare isn’t necessary. The socialists just so happened to CHOOSE that particular approach. They could have accomplished more with other approaches.

        If the goal is that everyone has access to affordable healthcare, the STUPIDIST solution there is is to require everyone to demand healthcare.

        Try this approach which would have worked without a mandate:

        1)All government paid insurance (whether medicare of govt. employee insurance) requires the recipient to use that insurance at government funded medical facilities.

        2)Those government funded medical facilities and doctors would be completely immune to civil lawsuits, significantly reducing their costs.

        3) A recipient of government insurance could choose to go out of the government network if they would like to, but at a very steep price, an out-of-network co-pay increase and deductible increase.

        4) Get rid of all laws requiring minimum coverages for insurance companies, allowing them to build packages that once could purchase for their needs – such as a woman could get one that covers birth control if they wanted to, but they don’t have to. People could get a catastrophic insurance, or something else.

        5) Make it illegal for Employers (except for govt. funded insurance) to provide bureaucratic help in relation to employee healthcare. All employees, or their unions must directly purchase their insurance, employers cannot deduct or facilitate insurance purchasing for their employees at all……tell me off the top of your head, how much property tax do you pay each year for fire services and library services?

        6) Increase either govt. or private urgent care facilities that have limited liability and can be staffed with healthcare workers with less education and training than other facilities, yet can be used as a way to lessen the demand on more expensive emergency room care – I know dozens of folks personally who use the emergency room for colds because they don’t have insurance and they have to take it. If they had access to affordable urgent care, it would lessen costs for everyone.

        7) Besides the cost savings there will be a requirement to expand the VA system or govt. medical system, most of that could be accomplished by granting lawsuit immunity and decent salaries, but some won’t. There would be a need for a massive increase in numbers of medicare recipients to meet the goal, but the costs would be far less, how can that be paid for?

        8) Tax on non-necessary healthcare. Why? Simply, the cost of healthcare is too high because the demand is too high and the supply is short. The above goes a long way to fixing the supply and demand, however, a trifle tax on elective medicine would bring in tons of dough that could be used to increase coverage of the lower middle class. It would also lower the demand for non-necessary healthcare which in turn would make more supply available to medically necessary stuff.

      • Count d'Haricots April 5, 2012 / 11:48 am

        To admit there has to be a mandate, and then say the federal government can’t deal with it is asinine.

        The Constitution is enumerated powers of the Federal Government; a Federal mandate to purchase anything is not an enumerated power of the Federal Government. If you don’t like it, change the constitution.

        you must include the healthy people as well so that the insurance companies can still operate profitably

        That is a decision for the market not for the government. Operating at a profit or at a loss is fiduciary not mandatory; profit by fiat is not an enumerated power granted in the Constitution.

        If you don’t have insurance and get a heart attack which ends up costing 50k….and you can’t pay for it out of your pocket because you’re poor or simply don’t have the money.. then I pay for that indirectly with my premiums going up.

        That is assuming facts not in evidence; you have no idea what a person without medical insurance can or cannot afford. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett can pay for any heart surgery from the coins left in their trousers after a night on the town. Since the constitution guaranteed equal protection and implies equal application forcing commerce among those not in need of such commerce is beyond the enumerated powers granted in the Constitution.

        Btw, how are you getting along on the $1,470 per year you make? Since you’re not in the “Top 5%” and they make 97% of all income, which leaves only about $1,470 each for the rest of us per year.

      • watsonredux April 5, 2012 / 12:07 pm

        Doug said, “All government paid insurance (whether medicare of govt. employee insurance) requires the recipient to use that insurance at government funded medical facilities.”

        Well, seeing as how Medicare is government or taxpayer paid, then I assume that means that all individuals on Medicare–that is, virtually all of America’s senior citizens–should be required to use a government funded medical facility. Is that what you mean? Sure sounds like it.

        “Those government funded medical facilities and doctors would be completely immune to civil lawsuits, significantly reducing their costs.”

        This would be good. We wouldn’t want our grandmothers to have the ability to sue incompetent doctors who work at those special government funded medical facilities they’ve been relegated to.

        Seems to me that today most of us our forced to pay for RetiredSpook’s medical care, not to mention most of the other regulars around here. Every two weeks I see a deduction from my paycheck precisely to pay for Spook’s medical care. Funny that he doesn’t complain much about that.

      • James April 5, 2012 / 12:19 pm

        Spook, maybe you like to quote a republican baby congressman from Wisconsin like he is the second coming of Christ.

        The reality is that the Solicitor General was right, its essentially a tax. The reason the budget director said its not a real tax is because its not A REAL TAX. the mandate acts like a tax.

        Seriously, debating with you is like talking to sheetrock…..you simply won’t budge even for reality and facts. You’re set in your ways….

        what’s that saying about teaching an old dog new tricks?

      • Cluster April 5, 2012 / 12:28 pm

        James,

        I think your argument is with Obama. He is the one that has said it is not a tax. Of course if it is, then he lied AGAIN, because that would mean that he is raising taxes on lower income workers. Of which he promised not to do.

        See how that works?

      • Count d'Haricots April 5, 2012 / 12:34 pm

        doug,
        1)All government paid insurance (whether medicare (or) govt. employee insurance) requires the recipient to use that insurance at government funded medical facilities.

        A) Additional expense to the taxpayer which is not necessary or within governmental purview.

        2)Those government funded medical facilities and doctors would be completely immune to civil lawsuits, significantly reducing their costs.

        A) Bad idea on so many levels; do you really want a government run enterprise with absolutely no accountability? Malpractice? Torts? Parking violations? License violations? Are the police and paramedics in your community immune from civil lawsuits?

        3) A recipient of government insurance could choose to go out of the government network if they would like to, but at a very steep price, an out-of-network co-pay increase and deductible increase.
        A) Punitive Accounting? Our system of government forbids that. Centralized diktats allow for

        4) Get rid of all laws requiring minimum coverage for insurance companies, allowing them to build packages that once could purchase for their needs – such as a woman could get one that covers birth control if they wanted to, but they don’t have to. People could get a catastrophic insurance, or something else.
        A) Can’t disagree with this. Go for it.

        5) Make it illegal for Employers (except for govt. funded insurance) to provide bureaucratic help in relation to employee healthcare. All employees, or their unions must directly purchase their insurance, employers cannot deduct or facilitate insurance purchasing for their employees at all……tell me off the top of your head, how much property tax do you pay each year for fire services and library services?
        A) An incentive is setting health insurance as a pretax deduction; your suggestion will make that problematic. Also, the employer paid portion is a benefit to the employee and a tax deductible credit to the employer; your suggestion would cause chaos in the accounting world especially in the bigger companies.

        6) Increase either govt. or private urgent care facilities that have limited liability and can be staffed with healthcare workers with less education and training than other facilities, yet can be used as a way to lessen the demand on more expensive emergency room care – I know dozens of folks personally who use the emergency room for colds because they don’t have insurance and they have to take it. If they had access to affordable urgent care, it would lessen costs for everyone.
        A) C’mon, you’re kidding right? Federally mandate that urgent care facilities hire less competent employees?

        8) Tax on non-necessary healthcare.
        A) What is non-necessary to you may be life saving to me; and who decides what is non-necessary and why? Is it non-necessary to schedule Spook for heart surgery because conservatives have no heart? Or is it non-necessary to schedule me for foot surgery because I don’t drive a stick-shift anymore?

        Death Panel anyone?

      • tiredoflibbs April 5, 2012 / 12:42 pm

        Tommy-boy FAILS again!:”why do you keep stating something that isn’t true? The federal government isn’t FORCING people to buy something like a gun, or a car, or any other material thing.

        They are simply saying, since everyone at some point in their life will go to the doctor…and since some of those who do go to the doctor can’t afford to pay for it, we all pay for it at that time. ”

        Really?

        People at some point in time will go on drive a car, shoot a gun, or some other activity. Using your stupid logic (actually it’s the White House logic that you are mindlessly regurgitating), then the entire nation should provide any product or service that people can’t afford and drives up the cost of it. In some states where car insurance in mandatory, the insurance rates are sky high because not everyone has insurance. Those who wish not to risk not getting paid for an accident that was not their fault have to take out additional insurance. If an individual does not obey the law they are fined and penalized.

        Tell me, under obAMATEUR care if I don’t buy insurance what happens?

        I am subject to fines and other penalties. The government is trying to compel individuals to purchase a product or service that they don’t necessarily want.

        Why stop at health insurance? Why is stopping the government from compelling individuals to buy American products instead of foreign products because American products will suffer lower sales and then the tax payers will have to pay for unemployment?

      • tiredoflibbs April 5, 2012 / 12:48 pm

        Spook, I do believe that last thing obAMATEUR and his fellow Democrats want is an armed and trained civilian population.

        ———————-

        Tommy-boy again fails: “its essentially a tax”

        During the health care debate in Congress the obAMATEUR administration and several Democrats stated over and over the mandate “is not a tax”.

        Of course now, they are trying to convince the Supreme Court that it is a tax and that is within the power of Congress.

        So, when were they lying?

      • Retired Spook April 5, 2012 / 1:36 pm

        Every two weeks I see a deduction from my paycheck precisely to pay for Spook’s medical care. Funny that he doesn’t complain much about that.

        “Funny”, Watson; I’ve had that deduction from my paycheck for 47 years, and, since 1991 I’ve paid both halves of it. Plus an additional $110.00 gets deducted right off the top of my Social Security check every month for Medicare Part B. PLUS, Medicare doesn’t begin to pay for everything. I’m fortunate in that my retired military TriCare insurance (which I earned with 24 years service) picks up what Medicare doesn’t pay, except for the co-pay for prescriptions, but most people on Medicare who are not retired military and who don’t have a private sector retirement benefit that includes healthcare, pay co-pays plus deductibles of thousands of dollars a year. Nice try, though.

      • Retired Spook April 5, 2012 / 2:03 pm

        The reason the budget director said its not a real tax is because its not A REAL TAX. the mandate acts like a tax.

        Too funny, James. That’s definitely the argument the Administration would LIKE to use.

      • Retired Spook April 5, 2012 / 2:06 pm

        Is it non-necessary to schedule Spook for heart surgery because conservatives have no heart?

        ROTFLOL! I’ve been accused of that.

      • Majordomo Pain April 5, 2012 / 2:44 pm

        Retired,

        Do you see that the very best case scenario for the right is the apocalyptic picture you paint? We seen the end of a 2nd Obama term with unemployment at 6.4%, petrol prices averaging $4.50 per gallon, no significant “terrorist” attacks in US cities and the Occupy Movement and the TEA Party both forgotten as many political notions have been when they wore out their usefulness. Gun ownership is a right in America as well as Switzerland. We just wish their was more gun responsibility.

      • Retired Spook April 5, 2012 / 2:52 pm

        We seen the end of a 2nd Obama term with unemployment at 6.4%, petrol prices averaging $4.50 per gallon, no significant “terrorist” attacks in US cities and the Occupy Movement and the TEA Party both forgotten as many political notions have been when they wore out their usefulness.

        I actually DON’T SEE a second Obama term, Major. I was just posing a hypothetical scenario wherein mandated ownership of firearms could/would be seen as “for the greater good”.

      • Amazona April 5, 2012 / 4:07 pm

        Actually, the conservatives I know have the hearts of starry-eyed idealistic ten-year-olds.

        I keep mine in a jar on my desk.

      • Jeremiah April 5, 2012 / 9:31 pm

        Could I get an M60, Spook? And a couple thousand extra shells to play around with? Pretty please?

      • Amazona April 6, 2012 / 11:43 am

        “James” you sure do treat ….. a republican DEMOCRAT baby congressman from Wisconsin ILLINOIS like he is the second coming of Christ.

        A black Christ, at that, hounded and persecuted by white Europeans and symbolically crucified, an appropriate image for this Good Friday.

      • dbschmidt April 6, 2012 / 3:59 pm

        James,

        From your “logic” the government should “mandate” that everyone who is born (avoids abortion) should be required to pay for their funeral of choice prior to anything else because after being born the only thing that is sure is death will come one day. They will all enter that market with or without insurance at this point in time.

  2. Cluster April 5, 2012 / 10:11 am

    Major,

    Judicial activism is where judges make law from the bench, not simply review the constitutionality of a piece of legislation. So try and stay focused.

    One other completely dishonest thing that Obama said the other day (of course it’s hard to keep up anymore with all his lies), is that the Affordable Care Act was a “bi partisan” bill passed by elected officials. This bill WAS NOT bi partisan. Not a single republican voted for this bill.. This is purely a partisan piece of legislation that was ultimately passed via back room deals and exemptions. Another little known fact about the mandate is that the “poor” are exempt from the mandate, so once again, tax payers will be on the hook for their care, with the added benefit of being “fined” if we don’t have our own insurance.

    This is the worst piece of legislation I can ever remember.

    • Retired Spook April 5, 2012 / 10:36 am

      Cluster,

      From this and comments in the previous thread, it’s clear that Major has a limited understanding of our Constitution.

      • GMB April 5, 2012 / 11:43 am

        “he’s toast in November.”

        Burnt wet toast is more like it. Except for the rabid leftys like James et al , the enthusiasm for the putter in chief is just not there. The more this election season drags on the more it reminds of 1980.

        Get ready for more and more bogus polls saying how king putt is leading this or that group, massive personal attacks on whoever the GOP nominee is, and every other downright dirty trick the donks can think of.

        Cant wait for november. I am looking forward to at least one state recording more votes than the roll actually shows.

  3. watsonredux April 5, 2012 / 12:00 pm

    Major, you obviously don’t get it. It’s not judicial activism if you agree with the court’s ruling. The other subtle point that seems to elude you is that Republican presidents complaining about judicial activism is good; Democratic presidents complaining about the same thing is bad, very bad.

    I notice that Spook didn’t provide a quote of what President Obama said, nor does the article he cited. That article quotes a single word, “unelected,” with no context. The context is kind of important, because what President Obama said is that “And I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step.” He was referring to the fact that conservatives such as Spook and Cluster have been complaining for years about judicial activism.

    Then presidential candidate John McCain said in 2008:

    McCain accused so-called activist judges of showing “little regard for the authority of the president, the Congress and the states. They display even less interest in the will of the people.”

    “The only remedy available to any of us is to find, nominate and confirm better judges,” McCain said.

    McCain laid out several examples of what he called judicial activism, citing a Missouri death penalty case, an eminent domain case in Connecticut, and a case which challenged the words “Under God” in the pledge of allegiance.

    See, Spook? How dare judges display so little regard for the authority of the president and the Congress!

    President Bush’s 2004 State of the Union speech:

    Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under federal law as the union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states.

    Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people’s voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.

    He also complained about “activist” judges in his 2005 and 2006 SOTU speeches, and in 2006 included this nugget: “The Supreme Court now has two superb new members — new members on its bench: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito. I thank the Senate for confirming both of them. I will continue to nominate men and women who understand that judges must be servants of the law and not legislate from the bench.”

    See, Spoke? Judges “must be servants of the law and not legislate from the bench.”

    Honestly, how many times did we hear from George Bush about “activist judges” “imposing their arbitrary will” on the people? Too many to count. It seems to me that President Obama–in off the cuff remarks, not a carefully crafted SOTU speech–was merely engaging in the same kind of rhetoric we’ve been hearing from the right for years. It should have been very familiar to you.

    • Count d'Haricots April 5, 2012 / 12:05 pm

      Judicial activism is where judges make law from the benchWATTY, not simply review the constitutionality of a piece of legislation. So try and stay focused.

      • watsonredux April 5, 2012 / 12:10 pm

        We get it Count. When judges strike down a law you don’t like, it’s judicial review. When they strike down a law that you do like, it’s activism. The hypocrisy is plain to see. You don’t need to help us out in that regard.

      • Cluster April 5, 2012 / 12:20 pm

        Watson,

        If the SC decides in your favor, will that be judicial activism as well? If not, why not?

      • James April 5, 2012 / 12:22 pm

        Watson,

        completely true. Count is the typical conservative hypocrite who can’t admit the truth even if it hit him in his nose.

        the GOP has for years railed against liberal judges and activism and blah blah blah…but now, when its something they agree with….its the “constitutionality”….

        one wonders what party the attorney generals of the 26 states are from? and what party the governors are from?

      • James April 5, 2012 / 12:23 pm

        Cluster,

        that’s the whole point! either way you could argue that its activism. But its harder to argue activism when the law is upheld rather than struck down.

      • neocon1 April 5, 2012 / 12:33 pm

        Dumb talking to Dumber……

        James April 5, 2012 at 12:22 pm #

        Watson,

        completely true. Count is the typical conservative hypocrite who can’t admit the truth even if it hit him in his nose.

        the GOP has for years railed against liberal judges and activism and blah blah blah

        alinsky 101

      • watsonredux April 5, 2012 / 12:33 pm

        Cluster asks, “If the SC decides in your favor, will that be judicial activism as well? If not, why not?”

        In my favor? I’m not the one throwing around the term. Cluster. Spook brought it up in his post, as though he’d never heard a president or congressman EVER complain about rulings by judges. It’s just more partisan claptrap, which is obvious if you use the Google thing to refresh your memory.

      • tiredoflibbs April 5, 2012 / 12:53 pm

        No watty, again you don’t get it. I see reading comprehension has failed you once again.

        “Judicial activism is where judges make law from the bench.”

        to which you said: “When they strike down a law that you do like, it’s activism.”

        Look at the first comment…..Striking down a law is now “making law”?

        Well of course, you are just regurgitating mindless leftist twaddle for the dumbed down masses.

      • Amazona April 5, 2012 / 12:57 pm

        count, you have to remember that “James” and the wattle can argue this with such absolutism and passion because they don’t know what the Constitution says, don’t know the purpose of the Supreme Court, and base their “opinions” on projections of what the Left does and what they would do, and why.

        Oh, and don’t give a flip about the Constitution anyway.

        They do not see “judicial activism” in a Supreme Court ruling that is obviously based on ideology rather than the actual wording of the Constitution, in a decision that claimed a Constitutional “right” to abortion due to a claimed “emanation” of a “penumbra” of a speculated but unwritten expansion of Constitutional rights. But that’s because they LIKE abortion, it is a plank of their platform, and they WANTED the Court to rule this way.

        So what if a whole new “right”—the “right to PRIVACY”—had to be invented? Not in the Constitution? To quote “James”, “who cares”? So what if this newly minted “right” then somehow exuded a penumbra of related meaning, creating a situation in which a vague”emanation” from this invented “penumbra” could be determined, to set up yet another “right”?

        What the Court is hopefully going to do in this case is what it is supposed to do, which is hold the law up to the Constitution and see if it fits within the Constitutional restrictions on federal power. There was not a single word from the justices who expressed concerns about going beyond the stated Constitutionally enumerated duties of the federal government which could possibly be seen as an effort to contradict or go against the Constitution.

        The only justice who tried to argue for Constitutional legality of forcing people to enter into contracts was the justice whose blatant conflict of interest, as a former Solicitor General who had been an ardent advocate of the plan she is now supposed to be evaluating for its Constitutional basis, should have had her removed from the panel. Her bias was evident in her questioning.

        The boys are arguing for the alleged moral correctness of the mandate, and completely ignoring the legality of it.

      • Count d'Haricots April 5, 2012 / 1:15 pm

        Amazona,
        Correct; they see the role of the Court to affirm or deny the inherent fairness of laws, not the legality as defined by the Constitution.

        Way above their limited brain-power, sadly they vote.

      • Retired Spook April 5, 2012 / 1:46 pm

        We get it Count. When judges strike down a law you don’t like, it’s judicial review. When they strike down a law that you do like, it’s activism.

        Try looking at it from a different angle, Watson. Which of the two following scenarios would you consider to be judicial activism:

        (a) The Supreme Court upholds a law by finding something in the Constitution that’s not there.

        (b) The Supreme Court strikes down a law because of not being able to find anything in the Constitution that supports it.

      • Amazona April 6, 2012 / 11:51 am

        Wow, here’s a newsworthy event—“James” is actually right about something!! “… its (sic) harder to argue activism when the law is upheld rather than struck down.”

        Yet no radical Lefty ever howled at the moon when various state laws have been “struck down” by various “unelected” judges.

        Now, and only now, when the law is a cherished icon of their political allegiance, does the specter of being “struck down” approach the level of the newly redefined “activism” they suddenly find such a major concern.

        Hmmmmm—–they did do a lot of howling when certain other things were “upheld”—-like the ability of corporations to make political contributions. But gee, isn’t it … harder to argue activism when the law is upheld rather than struck down… ?

      • Amazona April 6, 2012 / 11:48 pm

        “James:—it is “attorneys general”.

        You’re welcome.

    • Cluster April 5, 2012 / 12:22 pm

      Watson,

      I believe those are lower court rulings, not SC rulings. The SC is a completely different entity than state or federal courts.

      • neocon1 April 5, 2012 / 12:29 pm

        I see media matters has all the flying monkeys out on this one….

  4. Cluster April 5, 2012 / 12:26 pm

    This is hilarious – James and watty have their panties in a bunch that the SC may decide that the Affordable Care Act, which was passed on an extreme partisan basis by making back room deals, exempts much of the population for dubious reasons, compels average Americans to engage in commerce, and has 26 states suing to relieve themselves of it, might be unconstitutional.

    Oh the inhumanity!!

    • neocon1 April 5, 2012 / 12:31 pm

      cluster

      at midnight on Christmas eve……….oh yeah that was the “people” speaking right?

    • watsonredux April 5, 2012 / 12:36 pm

      No, cluster. I just find it amusing how transparently hypocritical you are. But carry on! Nothing I say will change how you view the world. Anyways, I have a bunch of fun stuff to do today, so I’ll see you around.

      • watsonredux April 5, 2012 / 12:38 pm

        Spook said, “Let’s fast-forward to the end of a fictitious 2nd Obama term. With unemployment at 17%, gas prices at $8.00/gallon, Occupy encampments in every park and court house square, several major American cities in ruins following terrorist attacks; the political pendulum swings violently to the right. Large GOP majorities in the House and Senate pass a law requiring every household to own a military-grade firearm, similar to Switzerland.”

        A delightful bit of fiction, there, Spook. If President Obama gets re-elected, can we revisit this in 2016 and see how you did? In fact, maybe we can get similar predictions from all of the regulars here.

      • Cluster April 5, 2012 / 12:41 pm

        Watson,

        Obviously you can’t refute my post, so you just lob an attack. I have never complained about the SC, but have taken issue with lower courts and some of their rulings, which is where judicial activism exists, not at the SC level. But don’t let that fact get in the way of your drama queen sensitivities.

      • Retired Spook April 5, 2012 / 1:52 pm

        A delightful bit of fiction, there, Spook. If President Obama gets re-elected, can we revisit this in 2016 and see how you did?

        You bet. You’ve been coming here long enough to know that I’m not ashamed to admit when I’m wrong.

    • Count d'Haricots April 5, 2012 / 12:43 pm

      Cluster,
      You were correct, they don’t understand the Constitution or Marbury. We discussed “threshold” before and the lower courts don’t use the same standard as the SC. The complete ignorance of this was evident when Obama referred to Lochner, (you’d think a constitutional “Professor” would know the difference between Federal and State statute) and repeated with glee by the dynamic duo of ignoramuses on this thread.

      Neo,
      Even if every one of the “people” stood and cheered Obamacare, even if we all cast a vote and Congress wrote exactly what we dictated to them, the Constitutional standard must be applied by the Court; if their reasoning comports to the Constitution the “will of the people” is moot. If, on the other hand, they use “international law” or a “global test” the Court is out of their depth and activist.

      Simpletons like watty and “james” see no distinction between brilliant and stupid.

  5. bardolf April 5, 2012 / 12:47 pm

    Milton Friedman believed that if society wanted to help those who couldn’t afford health care and the like the government could provide a negative tax. That is, below a certain level of income the government would give poor people money. He didn’t think the negative tax should be focused on health care though. If a poor family decided on a mix of say catastrophic health care plus better food vs. comprehensive health care and poorer quality food that would be their decision.

    This idea seems impossible because of the bipartisanship ideal against giving tax monies to the poor without strings attached. This is strange from the liberal point of view because it basically equates poverty with irresponsibility and from a conservative point of view because it assumes a demonstrable failure should be continued because the current poor are somehow different than in previous eras.

    Obamacare is a way to use more governmental involvement to undo the disastrous health care system brought upon by the previous governments. It doesn’t help the George Bush added trillion dollar liabilities in the form of Medicare D or that few in the GOP is trying to undo that popular program. In fact the exact problem with Obamacare is that once in place people will think they are entitled to it.

    • Count d'Haricots April 5, 2012 / 12:58 pm

      ‘dolf,

      Hold on there cowboy, Didn’t you just say conservatives assume “the current poor are somehow different than in previous eras.” and follow it with “ In fact the exact problem with Obamacare is that once in place people will think they are entitled to it.” ? Which is it? Are conservatives irrationally fearful of a factious Welfare Queen, or are the dependent class, two or more generations on actually expecting cradle to grave dependency?

      Yes, Uncle miltie did support the idea of safety net taxation, did you read further when he pointed out the long term benefits of such an arrangement?

      He also supported the idea of cap and trade, but never envisioned it could be used for something like carbon dioxide which is a necessary part of our atmosphere and not detrimental in any way shape or form.

      Careful when quoting the God of the Economic Universe.

      • bardolf April 5, 2012 / 2:07 pm

        Count

        No inconsistency. I think the people are the same. If there was socialized medicine 200 years ago or 500 years ago or 50 years ago the majority of US people would feel entitled to it continuing. Not just Obama voters. Again, the conservative elderly feel entitled to Medicare D.

        Conservatives on B4V defend agriculture subsidies for 100 different reasons about fairness and all, but the truth is they have developed an entitlement mentality. Strange, conservative aren’t irrationally fearful of a set of businesses becoming dependent on directed military spending such as Boeing. They aren’t worried that foreign and domestic oil companies have become dependent on the US military to provide protection for the oil lanes which is a subsidy that bio-fuels would not need.

        Some conservatives believe that inherently the modern poor are more or less content with their “plantation” while in previous generations they aspired to greater things. I do see that when the government provides people with things they would have had to earn in previous times, they don’t work to earn those things. That is not the same as the social Darwinism that many conservatives implicitly advocate.

      • Retired Spook April 5, 2012 / 2:14 pm

        Conservatives on B4V defend agriculture subsidies for 100 different reasons about fairness and all,

        Gotta call BS on you on that one, Dolf, unless you can cite some examples.

      • bardolf April 5, 2012 / 2:21 pm

        Spook

        Cluster has argued that ag subsidies are legit because the government gets involved in pricing. B4V Matt endorsed Newt who is a big supporter of ag subsidies. To a lesser extent Amazona has explained why ranchers using public lands for grazing at little to no costs is good for the environment.

      • Retired Spook April 5, 2012 / 2:38 pm

        Cluster has argued that ag subsidies are legit because the government gets involved in pricing. B4V Matt endorsed Newt who is a big supporter of ag subsidies. To a lesser extent Amazona has explained why ranchers using public lands for grazing at little to no costs is good for the environment.

        OK, Dolf; that’s 3 — well, actually 2-1/2, and that’s assuming someone who endorses someone who is in favor of ag subsidies is also in favor of ag subsidies. So the other 97-1/2 was just hyperbole? And I’ll leave it to Cluster to say whether or not your accusation of him is valid, as I don’t remember him ever mentioning it. All in all, a pretty weak response, Dolf.

      • bardolf April 5, 2012 / 3:53 pm

        Spook

        I didn’t say 100 conservatives even post on B4V. I said those that do give 100 different reasons for their support of subsidies.

        What percent of conservative posters on B4V do you think are against all ag subsidies? I know very few who have come out completely against.

        I do recall Mark arguing with conservatives that the government shouldn’t be involved in the business of leasing lands. It should sell the lands to the highest bidder and let the market take over. He didn’t get a lot of support. I don’t recall your take on the issue.

        BTW, Newt isn’t the only candidate in favor of farm subsidies. Mitt considers them a national security issue last I checked.

      • Retired Spook April 5, 2012 / 4:04 pm

        I didn’t say 100 conservatives even post on B4V. I said those that do give 100 different reasons for their support of subsidies.

        I know what you meant, and you only gave 2-1/2 reasons from 3 different people. I won’t hold you to 100 reasons; how about a dozen or so? Or you can just admit to exaggerating.

      • Amazona April 5, 2012 / 4:17 pm

        dolf, don’t lie about what I say. I have never supported ag subsidies, and the only way you can pretend I have is to use the old Lefty trick of simply inventing a definition that supports whatever position you are circling around today.

        I have given a detailed explanation of why grazing improves the land, which you evidently now choose to forget, though you engaged in spirited and detailed debate on the subject when it was addressed.

        And a mutually beneficial action, such as charging ranchers a modest fee for grazing rights which contribute to the ongoing health of the land in question is hardly the same as giving a subsidy.

        Be silly, be vacuous, be pompous, be coyly oppositional, be rude and insulting, but please do not be a liar.

      • Amazona April 5, 2012 / 8:02 pm

        Actually, I explained the benefit to public lands in great detail, citing studies that showed the beneficial impact of grazing, and the effects of what was intended to “save” the land by eliminating grazing. The Unintended Consequences of neglect, no matter how benign, were dramatic, just as the Unintended Consequences of neglecting beetle kill forests until millions upon millions of acres of timber on public land set aside specifically to provide an ongoing source of lumber for the nation were completely destroyed, resulting in powder kegs of dead dry forests ready to explode at a spark.

        It’s easy to find if you have any interest in facts. Or did your own advanced range management courses give you conflicting data? If so, please share. You never brought it up when I proved you wrong the last time you tried to make this silly claim.

      • Amazona April 5, 2012 / 8:17 pm

        dolf bleats “Conservatives on B4V defend agriculture subsidies for 100 different reasons…

        I mean, really, he like literally makes millions of silly comments like this.

      • Amazona April 6, 2012 / 10:49 am

        dolf, or as I have started to think of him, ‘doof’, has, as usual, mounted a whiny complaint about a pet peeve, without the slightest interest in providing a reasonable alternative.

        Take his ongoing sniping at government leasing of grazing land to farmers and ranchers for what he sometimes complains are too-low fees and sometimes falsely asserts are for no fees at all—- ..ranchers using public lands for grazing at little to no costs..

        Fine. He has some weird antagonism toward agriculture, as shown by his harping on farm subsidies and this grazing obsession. So—what happens if farmers and ranchers are not given grazing leases at current prices?

        1. Raise the grazing fees and price small ranchers out of the business of providing meat to the public. These people operate on a very small profit margin. I am not sitting in some adobe tower on a small southwestern campus speculating on things far beyond my experience—-I am speaking as one who just sold 4000 acres of Wyoming grassland, which had been leased for grazing to small cattle operations. However, the mega-ranches, such as those held by tycoons such as Ted Turner and John Malone, who buy their land for cash from other business ventures and have extensive financial means and no bank payments, can afford a hike in grazing fees.

        (I think Malone is a new neighbor of yours—he recently wrote a check for something like $63M for 300,000 acres in your neck of the sagebrush.)

        So the raise in grazing fees which you seem to be advocating through your complaints about their current levels (or your lies about their nonexistence) would result in federal and state lands being restricted to the wealthy, and in putting small operations out of business.

        Nice.

        And no, the cost would not necessarily be passed on to the consumer. Check out livestock auctions and tell me how this could be done.

        2. The land is not grazed by livestock, and degrades.

        As usual, doof’s role in political discourse is analogous to a guy sitting on the sidelines of a bicycle race, who isn’t riding, who isn’t providing support for those who are, who isn’t there to cheer the riders on, but who seems to think he is a participant if he can run out and shove a stick through the spokes of a passing bike every now and then.

      • Amazona April 6, 2012 / 11:09 am

        doof asks Spook what he thinks of Mark’s comment a long time ago that he did not think the government should be in the business of leasing land, and the land should be sold to the public.

        I am not Spook, but I do have an opinion.

        The purpose of the National Forest system is not to have land to lease to others. If that was the purpose, I would agree with Mark.

        (BTW, the purpose is also not to protect wilderness areas or to provide recreational areas.)

        The Organic Administration Act of 1897 states that no National Forest may be established except to improve and protect the forest within its boundaries, for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States.

        In 1950, the Granger-Thye Act authorized the Forest Service to issue grazing permits and use grazing receipts for range improvements, and in 1960 the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act established the policy and purpose of the National Forests to provide for multiple-use and sustained yield of products and services

        So National Forests are lands set aside for specific purposes—to protect watersheds and provide an ongoing source of timber for the citizens of the United States—and can be used for recreation and grazing (..”multiple-use”…) as well as … sustained yield of products and services..

        The Secretary of Agriculture is responsible for establishing regulations regarding the “use and occupancy” of the National Forests, but cannot override the original stated intent for their establishment.

        Bureau of Land Management land is under a different regulatory system.

      • Amazona April 6, 2012 / 11:22 am

        doof has yet another whine—-surprise, surprise—-and doesn’t have an alternative for it, either—-surprise, surprise.

        Yes, folks, he is back on the “….businesses becoming dependent on directed military spending such as Boeing….” kick again.

        Funny, isn’t it, how he starts at the wrong end of things?

        Evidently, in Doofonomics, a business should just decide to make things that are not bought by any entity other than a government, make a bunch of these multi-billion dollar things without regard to the specific needs of those governments, pile them up in warehouses and hope some governments will come along and say “Well, it’s not what we really want or need, but it’s all that’s available, so we’ll take four”.

        This would evidently please doof far more than the practice of a business recognizing that the government is going to need specific items built and operating in a manner that allows the buyer to provide specifications for what it is willing to buy, so the products can be made to order.

        doof’s complaint may be centered on his conviction that Boeing has no customers other than governments—let’s just ignore the private industries (airlines) who buy Boeing products, as they do not fit the narrative of ….a set of businesses becoming dependent on directed military spending… which is evidently what chaps doof’s donkey. (Though it is often hard to tell what the hell he means, unless he is indulging in insults based on bizarre fantasies, in which case his pathology is clear.)

        Gee, maybe if Boeing, et al, were to branch out into also making patio furniture and faux stone countertops, expanding their client base, he would rest easier.

      • Count d'Haricots April 6, 2012 / 12:12 pm

        Oh honey, if your feet hurt take your shoes off.

      • Amazona April 6, 2012 / 6:11 pm

        Count…..???????????????

      • Count d'Haricots April 6, 2012 / 7:30 pm

        Sorry, you just seemed to be a little cranky; maybe it’s time to switch to de-caff. /s

      • Amazona April 6, 2012 / 11:53 pm

        yeah, lies and determined stupidity do make me cranky, but not even a foot massage and a mani-pedi will take care of it.

        Though if you’re offering………….

    • Cluster April 5, 2012 / 1:02 pm

      This idea seems impossible because of the bipartisanship ideal against giving tax monies to the poor without strings attached. – barstool

      What? Since when have strings been attached. Illiegal immigrants can walk right into any hospital, receive excellent treatment, and pay nothing – no strings attached.

      Why do liberals make shit up?

      Obamacare is a way to use more governmental involvement to undo the disastrous health care system brought upon by the previous governments. – barstool

      NO, it’s not. It is simply adding another layer of bureaucracy to an already, governmentally burdened industry. And wouldn’t “previous governments” equate to government involvement??

      It’s that making shit up thing.

      • Count d'Haricots April 5, 2012 / 1:12 pm

        Cluster,
        Weren’t we just talking about false comparisons? either/or?

        “disastrous health care system brought upon by the previous governments/Medicare Part D”

        A) no correlation
        B) “health care systems” are not health insurance systems.
        C) Obamacare does nothing to address any health care issues “from” the Bush Administration

      • bardolf April 5, 2012 / 2:18 pm

        Um no. Hospitals are only required to provide critical health care. Also, that is not giving money to the poor. That is society saying it values life, every life and no matter what, if you are in critical health need this society will pay for your care.

        Since illegals pay sales taxes and you are paying less for their output (at restaurants e.g.) versus legals then they are inherently being taxed without benefits.

        Are you for taking away the tax credits for health care costs? Should your employer sponsored health care benefit avoid taxes?
        Do you think those drive up the costs of health care just as much as the illegals walking into get their free money?

      • neocon1 April 5, 2012 / 3:59 pm

        baldork

        I Double Spooks and raise you three BS’s

        Since illegals pay sales taxes and you are paying less for their output (at restaurants e.g.) versus legals then they are inherently being taxed without benefits.

        ROTFLMAO………TWO HUNDRED **BILLION** of OPM spent a YEAR on ILLEGALS and we save $3.00 at a restaurant and they pay $1.00 sales tax on cigarettes??????

        WOW what a DEAL!!!!!

      • neocon1 April 5, 2012 / 4:05 pm

        the POtuS is as dumb as a box of rocks……

        Of course, even a Con Law professor focusing on the Bill of Rights should know that the principle of judicial review has been alive and well since 1803,

        so I still feel like my educational credentials have been tarnished a bit by the president’s “unprecedented, extraordinary” remarks…

        http://nation.foxnews.com/thom-lambert/2012/04/05/former-obama-law-student-speaks-out

      • neocon1 April 5, 2012 / 4:10 pm

        meanwhile back at the raunch……….

        Jesse Jackson calls on blacks to wear hoodies to polling places…

        George Zimmerman calls on white-hispanics to wear 9MM’s to polling places.

      • bardolf April 5, 2012 / 5:28 pm

        ROTFLMAO………TWO HUNDRED **BILLION** of OPM spent a YEAR on ILLEGALS and we save $3.00 at a restaurant and they pay $1.00 sales tax on cigarettes???? – Neoconehead

        They pay sales tax on everything they earn. The money you save is in cheaper fruit prices, cheaper housing prices, cheaper meat packing … I’m not advocating for illegal aliens. That would be Milton Friedman’s job. You know, the God of the Economic Universe.

        What is the neoconehead take on uncle Miltie?

      • Retired Spook April 5, 2012 / 5:50 pm

        They pay sales tax on everything they earn.

        No, they pay sales tax on what they SPEND — and not even everything they spend. In Indiana, at least, food and medicine are exempt from sales tax. In all but 5 or 6 states, gasoline is also exempt from sales tax. Please don’t quit your day job, Dolf.

      • Amazona April 5, 2012 / 7:51 pm

        Mexico Suffers As U.S. Economy Struggles
        Feb. 9, 2010 | By Jason Beaubien | National Public Radio

        The lagging U.S. economy continues to take its toll on Mexican migrant workers, who are sending less money home – 16 percent less in 2009. The decrease in remittances is affecting the economies of many Mexican states, especially rural areas. In Hidalgo, abandoned houses and half-finished projects reflect the downturn.

        In 2009, Mexico experienced the largest decrease in money sent home by migrants ever recorded by Mexico’s central bank. Remittances from migrants working primarily in the United States dropped by nearly 16 percent.

        Mexico is heavily dependent on these cash transfers, which total billions of dollars and represent the country’s second-largest source of income after oil exports. The decline hit rural areas particularly hard.

        In some villages in the central Mexican state of Hidalgo, almost half the residents live and work in the United States.

        A brother once had to wait in line while a group of Mexicans sent more than $30,000 in cash to Mexico, and when he got to the clerk at the customer service desk she told him she goes through much more than that every Friday—and that is at just one grocery store that offers money transfers, in one small Colorado city.

        Tax free in the U.S. if paid in cash, and most of the money is sent out of the country and out of our economy. An entire large country’s second largest source of income. Just think about that.

      • bardolf April 6, 2012 / 2:59 pm

        Spook

        you really like to nitpick to avoid the main point, the Count would say something about a fly and shit. The illegals don’t save in banks so the money the earn is almost immediately put back into the economy. No sales tax on gasoline, but there are other taxes.

        Amazona

        So what if Mexicans send dollars to Mexico. Federal reserve notes which are abroad only cost the US 2 cents to print. Every dollar sent abroad, which doesn’t return is nearly free labor from the American consumer point of view.

        If all the US money abroad came back into the US it would be a disaster for inflation. Again, the consumers are choosing to pay illegals for their services which is pretty much the goal of a free market system.

      • Retired Spook April 6, 2012 / 3:12 pm

        you really like to nitpick to avoid the main point,

        No, I merely pointed out that your statement (like 100’s you make – heh) was not true. The barter trade and underground economy also ensure that the sales tax that illegals do pay is substantially less than people who are here legally. And, as Amazona points out, illegals send an obscene amount of money back home, so they don’t even SPEND everything they earn, much less pay sales tax on it. You’d better stop digging before you have to brush up on your Mandarin.

        BTW, what WAS the “main point”?

      • Amazona April 6, 2012 / 6:08 pm

        dolf, are you really arguing that money paid by American employers which is sent out of the country is better for the economy than the same amount of money paid to American workers, taxed, and spent in this country?

        That if the money had remained in this country it would contribute to inflation?

        Well, if that’s the case, why fret about jobs going overseas? Evidently every dollar, yen or peso not spent in the US is a boon to our economy.

        Who knew?

      • Count d'Haricots April 6, 2012 / 7:38 pm

        Now, if we could just pay them in Unemployment Insurance money the Economy would be UNSTOPPABLE! Nancy Pelosi, Proud Graduate of theNeuvo Meheyko School of Doofonomics.

        (Really, ‘dolf, this is a new low for you. It’s hard to even joke about that statement, sorta like tossing water balloons at the kids on the little bus.)

  6. J. R. Babcock April 5, 2012 / 4:10 pm

    Even Obama’s Harvard law professor and mentor, Laurence Tribe admits Obama misspoke. That’s gotta sting.

    • neocon1 April 5, 2012 / 4:12 pm

      misspoke = bald faced lie….no sting, just the usual divisive tripe from the agitator in cheese.

      • neocon1 April 5, 2012 / 4:14 pm

        Bwaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha OOOH the irony….LOL

        MARION BARRY: ‘We’ve got to do something about these Asians coming in’…

        yeah marion, THEY WORK….

      • neocon1 April 5, 2012 / 4:37 pm

        Really? ya gotta ask ???? REALLY???

        Why Did Obama Invite Al Sharpton to Easter “Prayer” Breakfast But Not Southern Baptist Leaders?

        “It appears that the Obama administration is more interested in the views of race-baiting, black liberation theology spokesmen…”

      • Amazona April 5, 2012 / 4:56 pm

        Racial profiling?

      • neocon1 April 5, 2012 / 5:08 pm

        hoodies with bunny ears are thr rage I hear….

    • Amazona April 5, 2012 / 4:58 pm

      Mitch, what is it about Bush’s speech that you find objectionable?

      • mitchethekid April 5, 2012 / 6:09 pm

        Nothing really. Except he was saying the same things that the President said before the rightwing zealots had a little freak-out.
        He specifically called out “judicial activism”; a tired cliche that really is a cry baby’s response when judges decide against what someone wants. When they don’t, they are the embodiment of a sober and thoughtful interpretation of the law. Sort of like elections. When “the other” wins, they cheated. When they lose, it’s the will of the people.
        When are you all going to quit deluding yourselves about the odds of Romney wining in November. The more folks get to know him the less they like him. Freak all you want. It’s a temper tantrum.

      • Amazona April 5, 2012 / 7:55 pm

        It was a simple, short, civilized question. Odd that you should react so emotionally, using words like “freak” and “temper tantrum”.

    • Retired Spook April 5, 2012 / 5:22 pm

      That speech was right on the money, Mitch. Thanks for reminding us what a decent man Bush is. I especially liked this paragraph:

      In his confirmation hearings before the Senate, one judge I nominated to the bench used the analogy of a baseball umpire. He said, “Umpires don’t make the rules, they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules.” But when people see the umpire rooting for one team, public confidence in our courts is eroded, the sense of unfairness is heightened and our political debates are poisoned. So we will insist on legislatures that legislate, on courts that adjudicate, and on judges who call the game fairly.

      Instead we now have Justices like Kagen who try to help the Solicitor General say what he was having difficulty saying.

      • mitchethekid April 5, 2012 / 6:34 pm

        He may be a decent man in the sense he loves his children and doesn’t kick dogs but he sucked at being a president. Which probably accounts for why his name hasn’t been mentioned once during the primary season. There is a reason no one wants to associate with his “performance”. And the silence from this group of amature circus clowns is deafening.
        I will not engage in a pointless debate with you about his legacy for a variety of reasons. One of which is that you are a prejudiced partisan reactionary who holds an irrational contempt for Obama in particular and anything even approaching moderation or centrism in general. No offense intended. I think you are “decent” as well..

      • Amazona April 5, 2012 / 7:42 pm

        Gee, don’t you think Bush’s name hasn’t been mentioned during the primary season because BUSH IS NOT RUNNING ?

        He’s been referenced by the Blame Bush for Everything Left, including the head of the Associated Press, who managed to drag in the “inherited economic disaster” theme in what was supposed to be an introduction for Obama, by someone supposed to represent objective journalistic ethics.

        Quick question, here, mitchie—-link us to your outrage at the 9th Circuit Court’s 3-man panel of unelected people overturning not the vote of a few hundred Congresscritters but the people of California when they arbitrarily declared Prop 8 unconstitutional.

        Or at least link us to the outraged objections of Obama.

        BTW, the contempt is for Obama’s PERFORMANCE as President, including his recent meltdowns into utter lying in his speeches.

      • Retired Spook April 5, 2012 / 8:06 pm

        I will not engage in a pointless debate with you about his legacy for a variety of reasons. One of which is that you are a prejudiced partisan reactionary who holds an irrational contempt for Obama in particular and anything even approaching moderation or centrism in general.

        Can I take it then, Mitch, that you won’t be gracing us with your presence in the future? Don’t let the door hit you in the keester on the way out.

  7. Jeremiah April 5, 2012 / 7:56 pm

    Obama, threatening the Supreme Court? Well, gee, looks like he’s not quite got that “constitutional law professor degree” that he professes to have. As he should know that the Supreme Court is to ensure that Congress does their job, and operates within the confines of the Constitution. Quite an oversight I must say, on the part of the Mr. “constitutional law professor.”

    • mitchethekid April 5, 2012 / 9:05 pm

      Obama pointed out that it isn’t within the perview of the judiciary to 2nd guess laws that congress has passed. It is their function to insure that they are within the confines of the constitution. That is the exact same thing that Bush said in the speech I linked to. The foundation of our judicial system is impartiality and both Bush and Obama drew attention to it.
      As far as Bush not running Ama, what a cop out. Explain then why the ghost of Reagan is brought up so much.
      Don’t bother. I know why. And talk about emotion. I’m surprised you haven’t had blood vessel explode yet. Especially at your age. You just could be a stroke magnet.
      As far as prop 8, it is discriminatory. That’s why it was overturned and argued by no less than Ted Olson and David Boies. Take your outrage to their doorstep. Your use of the word “arbitrary” is quite telling of the stealth that you express emotion even though you portray yourself as some grande dame of deep thought. Your as blindly biased as you accuse others of being and are a text book example of projection.
      The long and the short of all these arguments that we have had here for years is that the kind of thinking that you all engage in is academic, unpopular and in the macro promotes anarchy. It is a mindset that objectifies and tribalizes. It takes at face value to the most outrageous, wild-eyed, easily disproved contentions as absolute fact. (See Neo.) The thing that I find most repellent isn’t so much your Federalism or your ideas about how best to run the economy or even your respect for the constitution. It is the infusion of social issues and the simple-minded religiosity. (See Jeremiah) It is the denial of science and the smug condescending attitude you have to anyone who disagrees with you. It is the hostile defensiveness that is displayed and the unquestioning insistence that your viewpoints are the only ones that matter and anyone who challenges you: instead of actually debating, a tactic is employed which is basically the throwing of feces. Very effective if you’re an ape.
      The Republican Party has been taken over by know- nothing right wing ideological zealots and yet they are about to nominate a vapid one dimensional automaton whose history of governing is that of a moderate. How does that math work? I do, however, respect Romney for one thing. The very core of his being is his religion and yet he never mentions it. That I respect. Maybe he was a fan of JFK.

      • Jeremiah April 5, 2012 / 10:02 pm

        Very effective if you’re an ape.

        You may have came from an ape, but I sure didn’t.

        And throwing feces? Obama he is pretty good at that. He has defecated all over our Constitution.

        Everything I have worked for, everything my family has worked for, everything I stand for, the country, countrymen, everything … it’s in the White House!

        Obama says the Supreme Court needs to be a little more “flexible,” well he needs to be a little more flexible, cause we’re gonna vote him out in November, though I don’t know how much better the replacement will be, at least the immediate danger will be out of power.

        And as to “insisting that my views are the only viewpoints; and not engaging in debate” you really have no leg to stand on….how much is the ACLU willing to debate when they insist that a high school valedictorian must not mention God, or say a prayer in honor to God and Jesus Christ for their success? Something that we have practiced since 1600s pray to Almighty God every morning as soon as class started. And these were the very first schools that were built, and this nation was founded by the blood of the brave Christian men and women who travelled many miles in a little boat called the Mayflower all the way from England, they braved storm and bitter cold…but God brought them safely through.

        What about the school that wants to change Lee Greenwoods song that says ‘God bless the USA’ to “We love the USA”? Huh? What are you gonna do next? Take it off the currency, that’s been there since we started the presses up in the 1700s?

        I’ll say one thing, you better thank God for His merciful providence, cause His mercy isn’t going to last forever.

        Well, time to watch Mudcats! 🙂

        You have a good day, Mitch.

      • J. R. Babcock April 5, 2012 / 11:24 pm

        Mitch, you write more words and say less than just about anyone I’ve run across in the blogosphere. If this were a audio forum, you’d be one of those boring individuals who just loves to hear the sound of his own voice.

        I stumbled across this blog last summer, just surfing around — maybe a link from another site, I’m not sure. What attracted me to stay were the civil discussions the conservatives here have on a variety of issues, in spite of people like you. Just once it would be nice to have one of you lefties communicate on an intellectual level, and explain why you think you’re right and we conservatives are wrong instead of just calling us names. I’m coming to the conclusion, though, that that’s just too much to ask.

      • Amazona April 5, 2012 / 11:45 pm

        mitche sure used a lot of snotty words to say nothing but how snotty he can be, didn’t he? As usual, his post consists of nothing but bigotry and hate, without a real idea in there anywhere.

        Oh, he kind of tried there, for a while, but got too wound up in his little hate-fest to stick with it for very long.

        For example, he says “Obama pointed out that it isn’t within the perview (sic) of the judiciary to 2nd guess laws that congress has passed. It is their function to insure that they are within the confines of the constitution. ”

        Note that he reserves to himself the privilege of determining, with absolute certainty, the difference between “2nd guessing laws” and “insuring that they are within the confines of the constitution”. I’m sure THAT would be an unbiased evaluation, wouldn’t it? Of course, any effort to determine the constitutionality of any law requires reviewing it, which could snidely be called, by the snide, “second-guessing it”.

        He goes on to pontificate: “. The foundation of our judicial system is impartiality and both Bush and Obama drew attention to it.”

        Hmmmm. One of these men “drew attention to it” after appointing a woman who, as his appointee to the position of Solicitor General was tasked with defending and promoting the Affordable Care Act (which she did with great zeal) to the very Court he knew would be asked to rule on the Constitutionality of the same Act she had been advocating. An odd definition of “impartiality”.

        In other words, Bush drew attention to the need for impartiality and Obama flouted it.

        I love the lie about “..the denial of science..” It is a favorite of the Leftist Lemmings, who regurgitate it with glee in spite of the fact that only bogus science is refuted, and with great specificity. Their uncritical embrace of deeply flawed pseudo-science because it advances their political agenda is recast as intellectual superiority, while demanding adherence to established scientific principles is now, in the twisted lexicon of the rabidly radical Left, actually not a defense of science but a DENIAL of science.

        It appears that the shrill shrieking voices in mitchie’s head are now attributed to me, but I assure him, the emotion is all on the part of the Left, as they frantically try to remember what their talking heads told them they think. I am bemused, and this is the tone I sense from Spook and the Count and Cluster and db as well—-we seem to share a bafflement at why you people are so ferociously hostile and strident in defense of representatives of a system you don’t even understand, directed at representatives of a system you understand even less. So much noise, so little content.

      • Amazona April 5, 2012 / 11:53 pm

        J.R., if you mix vitriol and pathological hostility with the endless meandering blather of Slo-Joe’s latest exposition on high gas prices, you have mitch pretty well summed up.

        You said “Just once it would be nice to have one of you lefties communicate on an intellectual level, and explain why you think you’re right and we conservatives are wrong instead of just calling us names. I’m coming to the conclusion, though, that that’s just too much to ask.” And you are right. We get volumes of hostile name-calling and various themes that boil down to “Look how nasty I can be” but so far not once, ever, in the more than six years I have been asking the question, has any Lefty ever explained his political core, much less defended it.

      • Amazona April 5, 2012 / 11:57 pm

        The point is not that Prop 8 was, or was not, “discriminatory”. It was still a legally passed law, democratically voted in by the people, and it was overturned by a panel of only 3 unelected judges.

        It was OK with you because you agreed with the decision

  8. Amazona April 5, 2012 / 8:14 pm

    Want an example of what a radical Lefty does when challenged on an overt lie, and/or asked an inconvenient question?

    Amazona April 5, 2012 at 9:59 am

    Major Pain, do try to keep your language precise. The word “murder” has a precise meaning, and it is in no way related to what happened to Trayvon Martin. This is the lowest form of demagoguery, and is quite shameful.

    As is your editorializing that the beaten 78-year-old man is “very much alive”. What does that mean? Water-skiing, or on life support?

    There are times when your propagandic posts are rather sly, but here you are barging in swinging a lie and an unfounded claim (“VERY MUCH alive”) and you show your true lack of respect for truth and fact, in favor of being able to parrot vicious lies.

    And for what? What is your involvement in this case? What is it about it that has you so frantic to lay blame for a heinous crime on someone without any evidence to back it up?

    There can be only one reason, and that is race. It could be that you are black and simply hate whites, or it could be that you are a political tool who understands that if you can create enough divisiveness and distrust among different demographics there is a political advantage for your chosen political model.

    Why don’t you fill us in on your motives for hurling such a vile and unfounded accusation, and for trying so hard to minimize a black-on-white attack by blithely stating that the victim is “VERY MUCH” alive?

    Crickets….

    But the major pain was back later, just ducking onto a different thread, as if s/he had not been called out on a lie and asked a legitimate and relevant question.

  9. Retired Spook April 6, 2012 / 10:30 am

    Well, color me absolutely SHOCKED! Economists predicted job growth in March would be around 210,000 and that the unemployment rate would remain at 8.3%. Job growth came in, instead, at 120,000, a discrepancy of only 43%, and of course, unemployment shot up to…………no, wait — it dropped to 8.2%. How can that be? Simple; just don’t count a bunch more people who have given up.

    • bardolf April 6, 2012 / 2:49 pm

      How would Spook take into account people who have voluntarily left the workforce?

      Would it be okay if the government gave unemployed people money to go get a master’s degree in basket weaving and kept them from being counted in that way? How about an government funded housing bubble which kept unemployment artificially low?

      • Retired Spook April 6, 2012 / 3:26 pm

        How would Spook take into account people who have voluntarily left the workforce?

        There are only a handful of instances I can think of where someone might “voluntarily” leave the workforce. Retirement would be one, but someone who is retired should no longer be considered part of the workforce. A woman deciding to become a stay-at-home mom would be another, and someone going back to school to further their education would be another. Beyond that, I would think the vast majority of the rest who leave the workforce do so involuntarily.

        Would it be okay if the government gave unemployed people money to go get a master’s degree in basket weaving and kept them from being counted in that way?

        I guess if they would enroll in YOUR basket weaving course, that would be OK.

        How about an government funded housing bubble which kept unemployment artificially low?

        Not a good, long-term approach.

      • bardolf April 6, 2012 / 4:11 pm

        Spook

        I don’t want to put words into your mouth. My understanding of the workforce is those working plus those who are looking for work. Being unemployed isn’t voluntary most of the time. But isn’t it a choice to consider yourself no longer even looking for work?

        Are you saying that a person who is frustrated and gives up looking for work isn’t making a choice?

        I asked about the going back to school thing, because on some websites there is Obama’s face and a promise to help you go back to school. That seems a costly and sneaky way to hide unemployment.

        As for the housing bubble, I believe that was the previous governments’ way of creating employment. I’ll blame Barney Frank for the misleadingly low unemployment numbers under Bush.

      • dbschmidt April 6, 2012 / 4:21 pm

        I am not Spook but I did voluntarily leave the work force for seven months now in order to have and recover from two hip surgeries. It was by my choice and at my expense but in answer to your question “How would Spook take into account people who have voluntarily left the workforce? why not look at the U6 number instead of the U3.

        Amazing is that under every other administration it takes 250,000 new private sector jobs per month to move the unemployment rate 0.1% in the positive direction, yet somehow, half of that number, which will be revised downward, can do the same today ~ just in time for an election. Must be due to efficiency.

      • bardolf April 6, 2012 / 4:39 pm

        @dbschmidt

        The standard metric as reported by the news is U3. I agree that U6 is a better picture but I don’t remember that being typically quoted at anytime.

        If one thinks to all able bodied people as potential contributors to the employment rate/ unemployment rate one should factor in lots of things. I mention one in particular, because I associate it with racist practices found mostly in the democratic party. Besides a tech bubble, the decrease in unemployment under Clinton was due mainly to the the increase in prisoners which came about by tougher anti-drug laws. This had the effect of putting unemployed people (largely minorities) in prison and taking them off the books.

        For whatever reason (I am guessing prison costs) under Obama the prison population (not just the rate) has decreased for the first time in 40 years. That would naturally increase the unemployment rate.

        http://www.correctionalnews.com/articles/2012/02/22/us-sees-first-decrease-in-prison-population-in-nearly-40-years

      • Amazona April 6, 2012 / 6:41 pm

        The prison population has gone from 504/100,00 all the way down to 502/100,000. Sounds like some mathematician has decided that this addition of 2 people per 100,000 has jacked up the unemployment rate, and of course no one released from prison can get a job but they are all looking so they all have to be factored into the unemployed.

      • Count d'Haricots April 6, 2012 / 6:54 pm

        Blame Cell Phones, Spook.

        BLS only calls Land Lines and fewer people use land lines as their primary telephonic communications device.

        Someday ~ we hope ` the BLS will bring themselves into 20th Century technology.

      • Amazona April 8, 2012 / 9:50 am

        Someday ~ we hope ` the BLS will bring themselves into 20th Century technology.

        …and then move on a few years into 21st Century use of that technology?

  10. bardolf April 6, 2012 / 3:39 pm

    ” This would evidently please doof far more than the practice of a business recognizing that the government is going to need specific items built and operating in a manner that allows the buyer to provide specifications for what it is willing to buy, so the products can be made to order.” – Amy

    I will add this to one of the 100 justifications conservatives give for when it is okay to take government handouts. Because.in this case, defense manufacturers don’t actually have deep contacts within the government to actually steer monies toward projects that even someone like McCain was against.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littoral_combat_ship

    In Amy’s world business’ predict the need for billion dollar equipment purchases with the aid of a patriotic magic ball which really is about serving the public first and foremost. Well it isn’t really a magic ball since they didn’t see in advance things like 9/11.

    Now ag subsidies certainly keep prices down for those free school lunches, so maybe they are useful for national security reasons too. The stimulus money used on roads was just predicting that traffic will increase. The bailout of the car companies was really about providing government with fleets of vehicles in the future. Large governmental purchases of Dell computers isn’t a gift. There is a real need for government employees to post to B4V that Dell is filling.

    • neocon1 April 6, 2012 / 4:11 pm

      spook

      Would it be okay if the government gave unemployed people money to go get a master’s degree in basket weaving and kept them from being counted in that way?

      you are asking a guy that “teaches” basket weaving and pole sitting…LOL

      • neocon1 April 6, 2012 / 4:15 pm

        unemployment? WHAT unemployment??

        DEBT HITS $15,617,723,000,000.00

        Obama’s “Budget”: ‘Interest Payments Will Exceed Defense Budget’ in 2019…

      • neocon1 April 6, 2012 / 4:17 pm

        Job growth stalls…

        Number of people not in labor force rises to record 88M…

        REPORT: ‘Real unemployment’ over 10%…

        do I smell burned toast?

      • dbschmidt April 6, 2012 / 4:23 pm

        14.5 % to be exact.

      • bardolf April 6, 2012 / 4:24 pm

        Neoconehead

        I asked the question, not Spook. I didn’t want to offend any women’s studies, criminal justice, sociology, history majors so I used basket weaving.

        Now you have forced me to offend those groups. Thanks a lot.

        Neoconehead has earned a crack at the question. If a person is asked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics if they are actively seeking work and they respond NO, why is then not their choice?

        Again, being unemployed isn’t a choice. But, not looking for work seems to be a choice.

      • J. R. Babcock April 6, 2012 / 4:34 pm

        I saw a guy outside the entrance to the mall last week with a big, hand-written cardboard sign that said, “WILL WORK FOR FOOD”. Does that count as looking for work?

      • bardolf April 6, 2012 / 4:48 pm

        JR

        I think the BLS definition of looking for work is probably precise. I believe it actually means you are looking for a well defined job. So the guy at the mall wouldn’t be classified as looking for work.

        Even counting such a guy as looking for work would be a teeny change in the unemployment picture. I don’t associate any moral quality to a person who is discouraged and chooses to stop seeking employment for a period. It is a choice nevertheless. I will add that I might make that choice if faced with being chronically unemployed.

      • neocon1 April 6, 2012 / 5:05 pm

        baldork

        I believe the truth of the matter lies somewhere in between both our sides.
        However there are people who’s unemployment has run out and they simply dropped off the radar screen and are no longer counted yet are still searching.
        OR they have gone on welfare and food stamps, OR they took a $7.65 job as a cashier at circle K ( I know one who HAD a $175K job prior) So I guess he counts as “employed” eh?

        (sorry count you are not included) but you people in academia are the most head in the sand people I have ever seen. You have NO sense of the real world employment, you work with clueless kids and leftist radicals, useless unions, and phony baloney tenure and would not qualify to stack boxes at Wal Mart.

        Time for the Bees and Beer….seeee ya tomorrow…

      • bardolf April 6, 2012 / 5:33 pm

        Neoconhead

        The unemployment rate is not the rate of people collecting unemployment checks. I agreed with db that u6 is a better judge. The guy working at circle K is counted as employed so that is not part of the choice.

        Your dividing of some jobs as real and others as phoney is a lib trick. The students I work with are predominantly future engineers, many of who are in ROTC. I don’t see why you classify them as clueless. As for tenure, it is nothing more than an agreed upon contract by which job security is exchanged for lower wages. At public universities, democratically elected officials appoint regents who could decide that future hires will not include tenure. FIT doesn’t grant tenure, take a look at the quality of their programs versus UF.

        The old saw about those that can do .. is sour grapes. The process to land a tenure track job in the sciences and math involves a competition which is immune to protectionism, requires testable skills over a long time frame and can’t be passed down to family members jbased on their ability to work hard. Look around the public universities in Florida in the engineering departments and ask if your kids or grandkids will ever be able to compete for those jobs with their public school education.

        Enjoy the Bees. Lent ends in 2 short days.

      • Count d'Haricots April 6, 2012 / 7:13 pm

        *sigh* want me to explain it again?

        The BLS simply asks the question, “how many in your household” Then drills down to “Of the one(s) not currently employed, are they a) actively seeking employment, b) Waiting for employment as in an offer has been made but a start date has not arrived, or c) not actively seeking employment?” (actually a multiple choice question with 5 choices not three.)

        The BLS only occasionally asks the guy (or gal) that has “given up” more likely is asking whomsoever answers the phone.

        If they call my older brother and ask about his three adult aged kids, the answer isn’t “Yes sir, they are actively seeking gainful employment in any position that might come available.” His answer would be, “Little bastards don’t get off the sofa long enough to get a job, unless driving me to drink is considered a job.”

        And, no the “job” they might not be looking for isn’t defined by the caller or the person unlucky enough to answer the phone. Additionally, a “left the workforce” is also the box of choice for those individuals that want to respond, “I’ve put applications on every desk from her to Topeka and no one has called back” When was the last time you filled out an application? “About a month ago.” *Note to counter, he stopped looking for work, do not count.

        To the PhD in the Quickey-Mart, the BLS tries to determine if the job is full employment or partial employment.

        As to “sour grapes” I can, I have, I don’t anymore, and God Willing, I’ll never have to be a teacher ever again.

        When I was a teacher, my daughter told her grade school friends that her daddy wasn’t working, and looking for a job. She was too embarrassed to tell them what I did for a living.

        Can’t say I blame her.

      • Count d'Haricots April 6, 2012 / 7:18 pm

        Oh, I forgot … love that crap about tenure, does that story ever work? I would think even your students at Percy Beezer’s Desert School of Etiquette and Abacus Repair would even be too smart to fall for that story.

        Exchange job security for lower wages???? Hysterical! You should take your act on the road, seriously!

    • Amazona April 6, 2012 / 6:24 pm

      And, on Planet Doof, being paid to produce a product is now taking a “handout”.

      Oh, and don’t forget, a statement about the practicality of filling a specific order instead of manufacturing billions of dollars of equipment in hopes the manufacturer has guessed right about the needs of the market has somehow morphed into “…one of the 100 justifications conservatives give for when it is okay to take government handouts..”

      So paying for a product is a handout and waiting to manufacture the product until the need and specs are established is just “…one of the 100 justifications conservatives give for when it is okay to take government handouts…”

      Again, good to know.

      Ooops—almost forgot: Anyone figured out what THIS is supposed to mean? In Amy’s world business’ predict the need for billion dollar equipment purchases with the aid of a patriotic magic ball which really is about serving the public first and foremost. Well it isn’t really a magic ball since they didn’t see in advance things like 9/11.

      It seems to mean that after passing through the Doof Filter, a message was interpreted to mean—hell, I still can’t figure it out, but it seems to have something to do with premonitions based on patriotism and Bin Laden being sneaky and a big meanie.

      And businesses are not in business to make money but to “serve the public first and foremost”.

      Anyone???????

      • Count d'Haricots April 6, 2012 / 7:24 pm

        My Uncle Mordecai is a perfect example of a graduate from the “dolf’s School of Economics.

        He worked for Forty years for the City of Elephant Butte NM polishing the cannons in front of the public library.

        He finally saved up enough money to buy himself a cannon and go into business himself.

      • Retired Spook April 6, 2012 / 7:44 pm

        Anyone???????

        You’re far more skilled at interpreting his gibberish than I am. As I told Dolf yesterday: best not to quit his day job.

      • dbschmidt April 6, 2012 / 9:44 pm

        Not really sure Ama, but this is one of the reasons I am attempting many different projects during my down time.

        “…predict the need for billion dollar equipment purchases with the aid of a patriotic magic ball which really is about serving the public first and foremost.”

        Since the current administration has appointed folks like Kagan who cannot find reason to recuse herself even though she was a major broker for getting ObamaCare shoved through, or somehow we did not have the foresight (lost my x-ray vision glasses) to connect the dots between siloed agencies because of another appointed administration official. Seems to me failure upwards is a hallmark in this administration.

        Therefore, I started thinking like our CiC (Concept in Chief) with the “spyder” project figuring with the compound eyes of spiders we could discover so many more documents so much faster. Everything was going well until flight school. They glide well but do not seem to be able to fly. Side lined for now.

        After perusing my bookshelf, I launched my “Lord of the Flies” project where I teach thousands of flies (very cost effective) to go hang out on walls of my enemies (trained against anyone not on the far left in this case), take in secret meetings (hence, fly on the wall) and return to report. This project is going fine but I am having a little difficulty with the “fly-to-English” translator.

        Not to worry though—I have plans on the drawing board for a wind-powered thinga-ma-jig ~ just waiting on the next government grant. After that, maybe I could produce a “patriotic magic ball”; however, I feel it would be doomed to failure until we have a patriot in the big chair.

      • Amazona April 6, 2012 / 11:09 pm

        If it’s a “magic” ball I suppose it would always bounce in the direction of “patriotism”?

        Or is it the “Magic 8-Ball” where you shake it and it gives you an answer?

        But no, because the “magic ball” is “really …. about serving the public first and foremost”. Wonder how that works.

        Sorry—there is just no way to make it make sense.

      • Amazona April 6, 2012 / 11:11 pm

        db, why doncha jist git yursef a magic ball?

        ‘lessin you don’t give a flip about serving the public first and foremost, or want it to predict terrorist attacks.

      • Amazona April 6, 2012 / 11:45 pm

        db, if you go back and read what I wrote you will see that it has no relationship whatsoever to what doof wrote.

        Nothing new here.

        You’re new here so you might not know he once posted that if you change the words in a book it will mean something different.

  11. watsonredux April 7, 2012 / 10:37 am

    Oh good. This thread is still fairly active. Let’s take a look at what some of the Republican presidential candidates have to say about the Supreme Court and the judges.

    Here’s what the B4V endorsed candidate for president of the United States, Newt Gingrich, had to say in October 2011:

    “I “would instruct the national security officials in a Gingrich administration to ignore the recent decisions of the Supreme Court on national security matters, and I would interpose the presidency in saying, as the commander in chief, we will not enforce this.”

    Yeah, just ignore the Supreme Court decisions you don’t like. After all, Newt is the smartest man on the planet, certainly smarter than those dumb judges.

    Newt in November 2009:

    “It is constitutionally permissible for the legislature and the president to say to a court, you are intolerable, and you no longer exist. And we need that debate because I am tired of secular fanatics trying to redesign America in their image.”

    Yep. Newt is so smart, as president he should be entitled to abolish any part of the judicial system he pleases. Oh, and let’s not forget that he’s all for sending the Capital police or US Marshals to round up judges and force them to explain themselves before Congress before getting impeached.

    Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann in April 2011:

    “At the federal level with what are called article three courts, article three of the United States Constitution, we can limit the subject matter that justices can rule on. We have it within our authority to decide what judges can rule on and what they can’t. Any time the people speak, they say with one voice that marriage is one man, one woman. Why would we expect any different?”

    Rick Perry, in his Book Fed Up!, Chapter 6 of which is titled “Nine Unelected Judges Tell Us How to Live” (hint: I don’t think he likes the Supreme Court):

    “[A]llow Congress to override the Supreme Court with a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, which risks increased politicization of judicial decisions, but also has the benefit of letting the people stop the Court from unilaterally deciding policy.”

    “‘[W]e should take steps to restrict the unlimited power of the courts to rule over us with no accountability. There are a number of ideas about how to do this . . . . One such reform would be to institute term limits on what are now lifetime appointments for federal judges, particularly those on the Supreme Court or the circuit courts, which have so much power. One proposal, for example, would have judges roll off every two years based on seniority.”

    He’s right. Those pesky framers of the constitution didn’t know what they were talking about. Lifetime appointments… sheesh. Before Newt, the framers were the smartest people to ever live, but even they made mistakes. Just ask Rick Perry.

    • neocon1 April 7, 2012 / 12:11 pm

      waspstooge

      yeah like you we should listen to the marxist POS usurper and commie dnc….Riiiight pee wee.

    • Amazona April 7, 2012 / 10:02 pm

      Do you think the wattle did his own research or did he just find something put together by someone else? I’ve voting for Door # 2.

      Gee, thanks for all the quotes from people who are not the President. I think you forgot the morning shift clerk at the QuickyMart.

      BTW, there is plenty of room for abstract discussion on the role of the Court. It’s changed a lot over the centuries and not everyone believes it has changed in strict accordance with its original intended purpose.

      There is a big difference between citizens discussing their ideas for the proper role of the Court and a sitting President lying about Court precedents.

      • tiredoflibbs April 7, 2012 / 11:23 pm

        No Watty just copied this from either the huffingtonpost, think progress or talkingpointsmemo.

        Once again, he shows what a mindless drone he is. He can’t even properly define “activist judges”. He just regurgitates the dumbed down talking points.

      • Retired Spook April 8, 2012 / 8:40 am

        I actually got a chuckle out of Watson’s attempt at a gotcha a couple days ago (earlier in this thread):

        Every two weeks I see a deduction from my paycheck precisely to pay for Spook’s medical care. Funny that he doesn’t complain much about that.

        I’m a pretty healthy guy, and don’t require much medical care. Aside from some minor outpatient surgeries over the years, I haven’t been in a hospital overnight since 1969 (burst appendix). I’ve had one bad cold in the last 10 years, and haven’t had the flu since 1989 (which, incidentally, was the last year I had a flu shot). So, the deduction from Watson’s paycheck must be going for medical care for someone else. I wonder where the deductions from my paycheck from 1965 to 2012 went.

      • dbschmidt April 8, 2012 / 9:47 am

        One final point is, IIRC, this is the first time a President mentioned a case prior to resolution. Other Presidents, like Bush, complained about the decision after the opinions were handed down but none that I can remember just a week after the oral arguments were made while no one knows (or should know) except the nine jurists what the vote was or even if a vote has been taken.

        Then again, another unprecedented action could have occurred because Kagan is an “ends justifies the means” type of person.

      • Amazona April 8, 2012 / 10:24 am

        You are so right about Kagan being an “end justifies the means” person. She has proved this by refusing to recuse herself from ruling on a case after she acted as a passionate advocate for the law in question, and by her continued efforts to advocate it from the bench of the SCOTUS, quite uncaring that she was telegraphing her blatant bias.

        Once she advertised her lack of professional and personal ethics by lying in her Senate hearing, insisting on remaining on the panel making the ruling on the law, and openly defending the law in her so-called arguments during the Court’s hearing, there is no reason to think she would suddenly develop integrity and honor the Court’s demand that their discussions remain private.

        She was put on the Court for a reason and she’s quite obviously intent on not letting her side down.

      • Amazona April 8, 2012 / 10:29 am

        The wattle whines: Every two weeks I see a deduction from my paycheck precisely to pay for Spook’s medical care.

        Precisely. PRECISELY TO PAY FOR SPOOK’S MEDICAL CARE

        I’ll bet it’s like, LITERALLY hundreds of thousands of dollars!!!

        I wonder how I can direct my own deductions so they pay PRECISELY for another individual’s medical care.

        But Spook, I do think you ought to thank the wattle for keeping you in his thoughts and making the effort to make sure that his deductions go PRECISELY to you .

        Since you’re not using it, I wonder if it’s going into a “lockbox” for when you need it.

  12. Amazona April 8, 2012 / 10:17 am

    I got a chuckle out of the wattle’s fervid recitation of complaints by Republicans about STATE AND FEDERAL court rulings they cited as examples of judicial activism, as if these were complaints about the Supreme Court.

    (Of course, we have to factor in the probability that he doesn’t know the difference.)

    In his shrill rant on April 5, 2012 at 12:00 pm, the wattle expounds on “Then presidential candidate John McCain’s” comment on “… a Missouri death penalty case, an eminent domain case in Connecticut, and a case which challenged the words “Under God” in the pledge of allegiance. ”

    Missouri. Connecticut. Somewhere else. NOT THE SUPREME COURT

    And then he got his panties in a wad over President Bush’s 2004 State of the Union speech: ” Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under federal law as the union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states.

    Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people’s voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage. ”

    But the Supreme Court had not ruled on DOMA, and still hasn’t—the first time it went to a federal court was last Wednesday.

    Evidently when the talking heads tell him what to think, he just goes along with it.

    For example, he doesn’t understand that the comment by President Bush, ……If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people,” refers not to finding a Constitutional impediment to a law but simply preferring that it not be there and therefore striking it down.

    Of course, if you have no understanding of the Constitution, and no respect for it, and are ruled by a mishmash of hysteria and moral relativity, where “right” is whatever you want it to be, objective fact is irrelevant. As he proves in post after post.

    • watsonredux April 8, 2012 / 1:47 pm

      Wow, Amy, such a fertile vocabulary you have. “Fervid recitation”… “mishshash of hysteria”… “shrill rant”… Does it even matter where I found the quotes from? Are you disputing that your candidates said them, or merely complaining that I brought them up?

      The point, of course, is that President Bush and pretty much every Republican candidate for president this year have said much worse things about the Supreme Court and judges in general than President Obama has. I didn’t include any quotes from Mitt Romney because, well, they don’t really matter, since he’ll soon completely contradict himself.

      • watsonredux April 8, 2012 / 1:52 pm

        Spook wrote, “I’m a pretty healthy guy, and don’t require much medical care. Aside from some minor outpatient surgeries over the years, I haven’t been in a hospital overnight since 1969 (burst appendix). I’ve had one bad cold in the last 10 years, and haven’t had the flu since 1989 (which, incidentally, was the last year I had a flu shot). So, the deduction from Watson’s paycheck must be going for medical care for someone else. I wonder where the deductions from my paycheck from 1965 to 2012 went.”

        Good point, Spook. Other the past several months, we’ve heard a lot about cutting or reducing Medicare, especially from conservatives like you. It’s good to know that you don’t really need it. One of the popular ideas floated by the right is raising the Medicare eligibility age to, say, 67, in order to reduce expenditures. But you’re the living proof that this idea is complete backward. Everyone knows that the majority your health care costs are incurred in the last years–usually the last few month–of Medicare coverage, not the first two years. So it’s not the first two years of Medicare that we should cut out–it’s the last two years. I mean, you yourself have not cost the taxpayers much–so far.

        The tricky part, of course, is figuring out when your last two years begin, so we known when to cut you off. Kind of hard to predict, but I have some ideas that I’m sure you will embrace in the name of cost savings. First of all, as soon as someone such as yourself reaches your life expectancy age, you get cut off from Medicare and must fend for yourself in the private insurance market. I figure, if you’ve reached your life expectancy age, then the odds are heavily tilted toward you having two or less years to live, and those are the years we need to eliminate from Medicare in order to achieve the most savings.

        It’s also important to eliminate people from Medicare just as soon as they are diagnosed with a serious illness. Let’s say you are diagnosed with cancer, Spook. We now know that you will require a lot of expensive treatment. And also, your chances of surviving two more years just got substantially reduced. Obviously, this is the time to drop you from Medicare.

        With this approach, you can continue to be smug in the fact that you are currently healthy and not costing the taxpayers anything at all, and we the taxpayers will realize the maximum amount of cost savings for Medicare by cutting you off when you do get sick. And saving money, of course, is the paramount concern because God forbid we as a society would want to spend the money it takes to care for you, our elderly. That’s just another way of descending into socialism and mooching off of other people’s money. I know you wouldn’t want that.

      • Retired Spook April 8, 2012 / 2:10 pm

        With this approach, you can continue to be smug in the fact that you are currently healthy and not costing the taxpayers anything at all, and we the taxpayers will realize the maximum amount of cost savings for Medicare by cutting you off when you do get sick.

        I like your idea, Watson, and I certainly don’t want to be a burden on society. Besides, I’ve planned ahead for my old age, so, if you were to cut me off tomorrow, it wouldn’t be a big deal. I worry about you, though, when you get to be my age.

      • watsonredux April 8, 2012 / 2:31 pm

        I appreciate your concern for my welfare, Spook, but it is misplaced. Capitalism has been good.

        I’m glad you put yourself on record that eliminating Medicare for old, sick people is the right way to go. Just as soon as they get sick, cut ’em off. Maybe at your next Tea Party rally you should bring a sign to that effect. Puts you in good company with your conservative brethren, which is the paramount concern, of course.

        Since you have planned ahead so well, does this mean that you will handle all of your end of life healthcare expenses yourself so that you will not be a burden on society?

        And I’m sure dbschmidt will happily endorse this plan as well, since he has no doubt planned ahead, too. If if he hasn’t, then I’m confident that he will agree that that’s just too bad for ole’ db. Don’t count on the rest of us to help.

      • Retired Spook April 8, 2012 / 4:46 pm

        I’m glad you put yourself on record that eliminating Medicare for old, sick people is the right way to go. Just as soon as they get sick, cut ‘em off.

        Ya know, Watson; that is such a great idea that I think Obama should run on that. I’m sure that would endear him to the over 50 crowd. I mean, after all, his head of Medicare loves the UK health system, and that’s pretty much what it does.

      • dbschmidt April 8, 2012 / 6:54 pm

        Watson,

        Planned ahead ~ you know “plan for the worst and hope for the best” kind of attitude. The way this government is going, if we do not turn it around soon, I doubt even I will see Medicare, Social Security, or any of the great promises made on the backs others let alone folks like you. I will get to watch the riots though.

        Since the “Great Society” onward–the promises of our government leaders, like those of public unions, are coming due with nothing in the bank. I will watch them collapse, or be radically altered, within my lifetime while I have already bartered my care with my general physician who wants out of the system as well. She, and a great deal of her associates, will not be there when you show up with your socialists worker’s card.

      • Amazona April 8, 2012 / 7:18 pm

        So the wattle’s complaint is that I use too many complicated words? Sometimes the trolls whine that I use too many words. It all boils down to the same thing—-complaining that I don’t dumb down my comments to make them more accessible to the Leftist and Pseudo-leftist lemmings who pollute this blog.

        Who cares where you found the quotes? Most are about state and federal courts, while Barry was making a preemptive strike at the Supreme Court. Evidently you still don’t grasp the difference.

        Who cares that you dug them up? If they are irrelevant, they are irrelevant. If you think they are relevant, then you are simply wrong. No news there.

        The point is, of course, that you have no clue as to the difference, profound as it is, between overturning a law because you don’t like it and overturning a law because if is in contradiction to the overriding law of the land.

      • Amazona April 8, 2012 / 7:25 pm

        I see that the wattle is so desperate he has had to resort to the last refuge of the intellectually impaired PL squabbler—-inventing a ridiculous scenario and explaining it in painful detail, so we can all see how ridiculous it is, but pretending that it is part of a conservative mindset and not a product of the feverswamp of his own twisted mind.

        And he is no more successful at this feeble feint than he is at anything else he tries. He tries, oh how he tries, to parrot the talking points that so easily won him over and made him so eager to rush to this blog to repeat them, to show us a thing or two about how screwed up we all are. But when he gets here, and gets his donkey handed to him on a platter as his empty talking points are refuted, rebutted, and yes even sometimes rebuked, he has to go off on his own—and that is when we see the silliness emerge, as he starts to invent his own arguments.

        Silly silly silly—but venomous as well.

      • watsonredux April 8, 2012 / 8:40 pm

        Spook said, “Ya know, Watson; that is such a great idea that I think Obama should run on that.”

        I think the Tea Party has the covered, Spook. At least the ones that actually realize that Medicare is government run health care.

  13. watsonredux April 8, 2012 / 8:41 pm

    db said, “Planned ahead ~ you know “plan for the worst and hope for the best” kind of attitude. The way this government is going, if we do not turn it around soon, I doubt even I will see Medicare, Social Security, or any of the great promises made on the backs others let alone folks like you. I will get to watch the riots though.”

    So tell us, db, how you are planning for the worst. Maybe we can all learn something.

  14. watsonredux April 8, 2012 / 8:42 pm

    Amazona said, “I see that the wattle is so desperate he has had to resort to the last refuge of the intellectually impaired PL squabbler—-inventing a ridiculous scenario and explaining it in painful detail, so we can all see how ridiculous it is, but pretending that it is part of a conservative mindset and not a product of the feverswamp of his own twisted mind.”

    And Amy resorts to name-calling. So mature of you.

    • watsonredux April 8, 2012 / 8:51 pm

      Oh, and Amy, dear, why is my scenario so “ridiculous”? Spook thinks it’s a good idea. So do I. I suspect you’re on Medicare or about to be, so I think the same should apply to you.

      Make sure you eat well and exercise because if you become seriously ill, we’ll have to cut you off, you know. In fact, make sure you keep your weight in check. Obesity should be another reason to eliminate someone’s Medicare. We do need to save money to ensure that these programs are there for db so that he doesn’t have to put up with watching riots on TV.

      • Amazona April 8, 2012 / 9:54 pm

        And this, boys and girls, is why we need a sarcasm font. Do not claim you think Spook was serious.

        You know nothing about my age, though you do seem to think that being on the planet for less time, and thereby having less time to learn something, is supposed to make you better. I am probably in far better shape than you, and lead a far healthier lifestyle.

        (BTW, there is no such thing as “healthy” food. Learning the language is another perk of being smarter, better educated and oh, yes, around a little longer to be able to pick up things like that.)

        And if you don’t want to be called on posting bizarre examples of a bizarre fantasy life and pseudo-intellectual drivel, don’t post them. Your call. But don’t blame the messenger when the insanity of your musings attracts a comment or two.

        But fine–we’ll do it your way. “I see that the wattle poster is so desperate he has had to resort to the last refuge of the (REDACTED) squabbler—-inventing a ridiculous scenario and explaining it in painful detail, so we can all see how ridiculous it is, but pretending that it is part of a conservative mindset and not a product of the feverswamp of his own (REDACTED) mind.”

        There. Fixed.

      • Retired Spook April 9, 2012 / 8:26 am

        And this, boys and girls, is why we need a sarcasm font. Do not claim you think Spook was serious.

        I didn’t really think that Watson was serious either, so I guess that makes us even. What’s ironic is that what he advocates, tongue-in-cheek or not, is the direction Progressives would like to take our healthcare system. It’s just that if they openly ran on it, they’d never be handed the reins of power again. After all, it’s not just Republicans who use Medicare. It is, however, just Democrats who are openly resisting fixing it so it remains viable for future generations.

        It is curious, though, how Liberals equate getting paid to sit on your ass and having your food and rent subsidized regardless of age and physical condition, and having a medical assistance program for the elderly that they’ve paid into for all or most of their working lives and continue to pay premiums on after retirement. How about everyone who is currently paying into medicare just stop, and we’ll see how far it gets.

  15. Amazona April 8, 2012 / 10:01 pm

    Any idea how the (poster) got so wound up about Medicare,anyway? We were talking about the Supreme Court and all of a sudden he is spinning in circles about Medicare. It must be easier for him to snipe at people older than he and carry on with strange and ridiculous scenarios than it is to argue the facts of judicial activism vs judicial review. As his feeble efforts to do so were so thoroughly shot down, and he still had all that mindless vitriol bubbling up in his hostile psyche, I guess he had to find some other topic he could fuss and fret over.

    As we all seem to be independent enough to have made our own plans for our own futures, it seems that he is arguing for limitations that would only impact people like him.

    • Retired Spook April 8, 2012 / 10:21 pm

      Any idea how the (poster) got so wound up about Medicare,anyway?

      I don’t know for a fact, but I’m guessing Watson has seen photos of someone at a Tea Party Rally a couple years ago holding up a sign that said, “Keep your hands off my Medicare”, and he thinks that, by extension, all Conservatives are hypocrites. All it really is is a sign of a mind that can’t process complex thoughts, and that is most certainly our Watson.

      • Amazona April 9, 2012 / 10:39 am

        I think you’re right, Spook. And I have noticed that some posters seem to become hung up on one pet peeve or another (ag subsidies !!) and when they run out of things to say they snap back to the default position of what they really really want to complain about.

        the wattle couldn’t argue about the Supreme Court because once he ran through all the crap he had been fed by his talking heads, and found out it was really about state and federal courts, and once he tried to conflate abstract discussions on the proper role of the Court with a clumsy effort by a sitting president to influence the Court on an ongoing case and got corrected on that, the only way to stay in the game was to rewrite the rules so he could carry on about Medicare.

        I’ll bet he’s been working on his silly scenarios for quite some time, just itching to have a chance to trot them out to impress everyone and knock the stuffing out of conservative dialogue. So sad that in the light of day they proved to be pathetic, ridiculous and more to the point the product of a very limited intellect.

      • Amazona April 9, 2012 / 10:44 am

        What’s ironic is that what he advocates, tongue-in-cheek or not, is the direction Progressives would like to take our healthcare system.

        After all the sneering about “Death Panels” being the product of hysteria and fear-mongering on the Right, we recently saw an example of what the Left would implement if allowed to do so, in the comments on the Cheney heart transplant.

        The Left would have sentenced him to death on two grounds—–his age and, more ominously, his political philosophy.

      • dbschmidt April 9, 2012 / 10:23 pm

        Ama,

        “…the general idea of personal responsibility was there. is where you lost Watson. Apparently, he doesn’t understand or fails to comply with the very thought that family is important. Even though my family is spread across the country, and at times across the world, family has always been more important than a job or opportunity.

        My sister left her job and moved to look after mother just as my brother made sure I was covered after the surgeries.Just as in the founding, it is individual, family, local groups before one even thinks of government in any form. Government has never been the solution but rather a cause in the downfall of America.

      • Amazona April 10, 2012 / 11:15 am

        However, db, the family, like religion, is competition for the authority of the State, and is therefore always targeted when the Left is trying to establish a foothold.

        So we see children told to run to school officials to file charges against parents for discipline they don’t like and choose to lable “abusive”. We see young girls told they should not go to their parents when pregnant, but to hide this from their families and turn to the people who will really understand and ‘help’ them, the schools and their abortionist allies.

        We see sneering at couples with large families, and praise for limiting family size, even if done by killing unborn children. We see societal approval for having no children, or one or maybe two children, in a variety of ways, including excusing abortion done because the woman didn’t want to miss a job opportunity, or not wanting to cancel a family trip to Disneyland. We see societal pressure and political pressure to diminish the importance of children, starting with declaring them disposable if they have not attained some arbitary (and increasing) age and going on to a society which encourages limitations on the number of children it has.

        We are not going to see anything that acknowledges or focuses on the importance of the family unit from this administration or its underlying ideology. What we are going to see is incessant efforts to undermine family unity and dismiss the role of the family, stressing that things like support in emergencies is really the responsiblity of the State.

        But family, religion and community are the very foundation of any strong nation, and combined with the structure of our rule of law in the Constitution created a society that provided more pesonal liberty and economic prosperity than any society in the history of mankind.

        And the political system that has fought against and tried to eliminate the forces of family, religion and community in favor of allegiance only to the State have resulted in tyranny, misery, hunger, economic disaster, and the deaths of tens of millions.

  16. Amazona April 9, 2012 / 2:05 pm

    If the wattle really wanted to discuss SS and Medicare, in a thread on the Supreme Court and by extension on the limitations (if any) on federal scope and power, he could have led us into a discussion on the Constitutional legality of these programs and how best to retain safety nets for people without going beyond Constitutional boundaries.

    Actually, we did touch on this, by suggesting that they would be better programs if administered on state and local levels. They would be Constitutional, and they would be more effective and efficient, leaving out the layers of federal bureaucracy and meeting the needs of specific communities, under local control.

    There WAS a time, a very long time, in which people knew from the date of their first paycheck that they would have to start planning for their old age, and setting aside some kind of provision for this. True, families were bigger then, and there was more of a societal support system, but the general idea of personal responsibility was there.

    Then, when so many people lost their retirement money in the ’29 stock market crash, this crisis was used to further a Leftist agenda of expanding government by having it provide support, and the Social Security system was implemented as a supposedly temporary measure to help compensate for the loss of savings.

    Like other “temporary” programs, this has become entrenched in the country’s bureaucracy and mentality. We now have generations which have grown up under the impression that it is the government’s RESPONSIBILITY to take care of them, and under the impression that their Social Security is going to provide all their living expenses for their older years.

    There is no way to wean dependent generations off this entitlement, and there is probably no way to get government completely out of the business of forcing people to do what they should be doing for themselves–that is, planning for their futures.

    A reasonable solution would be to first shift this enforced savings program onto the states, if at all possible, and then to gradually shift the management of these funds from the public to the private sector, at least giving people a choice in how their money will be invested. Accompanying this should be a constant message that this program is designed solely as an addition to necessary private management of money for future retirement needs.

    • watsonredux April 9, 2012 / 3:50 pm

      Dearest Amy wrote, “Any idea how the (poster) got so wound up about Medicare,anyway? We were talking about the Supreme Court and all of a sudden he is spinning in circles about Medicare.”

      I was merely responding to Doug’s suggestions that, among other things, “All government paid insurance (whether medicare of govt. employee insurance) requires the recipient to use that insurance at government funded medical facilities.”

      And you guys were happy to play along.

      You also said, “You know nothing about my age, though you do seem to think that being on the planet for less time, and thereby having less time to learn something, is supposed to make you better.”

      And you know nothing of mine, either. How dare you presume that I’ve been on this planet for less time than you! The nerve.

      And Amy said, “I’ll bet he’s been working on his silly scenarios for quite some time, just itching to have a chance to trot them out to impress everyone and knock the stuffing out of conservative dialogue.”

      Yes, it takes me weeks to come up with this stuff. If only I had the incredible prosaic skills of someone such as yourself. You truly are a beacon of light in the blogosphere world.

      • Amazona April 9, 2012 / 7:53 pm

        If the wattle really wanted to discuss SS and Medicare, in a thread on the Supreme Court and by extension on the limitations (if any) on federal scope and power, he could have led us into a discussion on the Constitutional legality of these programs and how best to retain safety nets for people without going beyond Constitutional boundaries.

      • Amazona April 10, 2012 / 11:21 am

        The wattle finally shows appreciation for my contributions to this blog, praising me lavishly with this: “You truly are a beacon of light in the blogosphere world.”

        I thank you, kind sir. I do have to admit that I have shined light on (and through) many cherished Leftist illusions, and provided a light that sent many Leftists scurrying like cockroaches for cover rather than address my illuminating points, but I did not expect to be so appreciated by one of the opposition.

        I’ll keep this accolade in my archives, though with a private note on the use of the word “prosaic”.

Comments are closed.