Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 6:36 PM ET, 02/ 4/2011

Happy Hour Roundup

By Greg Sargent

* Obama says he's "encouraged" by the restraint shown today in Egypt, but urges Mubarak to continue on a path towards change "that is orderly but that is meaningful and serious."

* And the administration is privately pushing opposition groups to engage in the dialogue about the transition of power.

* The White House wins a (small) victory in the health care wars, getting a lawsuit against the law tossed in Mississippi (though the plaintiffs will still have another bite at the apple).

* Duke University law professor Walter Dellinger argues that the commerce clause justifies the individual mandate because "the unpredictability of when or if a citizen will need health care makes the insurance market different than markets for other products."

The extension of this, as noted below, is that this use of the commerce clause would not be precedent for applying it in similar fashion in the case of other products.

* Mitch McConnell says it's total repeal or bust. No deals. Got that?

* Which prompts Jon Chait to observe that for many conservatives, the anti-Obamacare mania has crossed over into the irrational:

"Its very existence is an enduring emotional wound."

Yup.

* The DNC announces that for the first time ever, the 2012 Democratic National Convention will not be funded by any corporate cash, with an eye towards Obama's longtime stated goal of "increasing the influence of grassroots and individual donors."

* Republicans rip Senator Tom Harkin for issuing a "call to arms" to lobbyists to fight GOP budget cuts.

* Boiling the argument down: An array of groups call on John Boehner to nix Pete King's hearings on the radicalization of Muslims, because...

Singling out a group of Americans for government scrutiny based on their faith is divisive and wrong.

* Massimo Calabresi on why it's going to be interesting to hear what Sarah Palin says about Egypt tonight. Seriously!

* Looks like Senator Richard Lugar, whose moderation and level-headedness have turned him into a Tea Party lightning rod, will be officially facing a primary challenger in 2012.

* Stephen Stromberg on why Republican threats over the debt limit are "either empty or deranged."

* House Republicans dropped the "forcible rape" language, but abortion rights groups don't think the new language is all that much better.

* Rachel Maddow is very scary! Michael Steele reveals that his media handlers, perhaps understandably, prohibited him from going anywhere near the bigfoot lefty TV show hosts.

* As Atrios notes, the fact that the ridiculous James O'Keefe-style Planned Parenthood smear is bogus is completely beside the point, because multiple news outlets covered the story, anyway.

* And here's one for the sucker-born-every-minute watch: Newt's PAC, which is called "American Solutions for Winning the Future," hauled in $14 million in contributions in the last year.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | February 4, 2011; 6:36 PM ET
Categories:  Happy Hour Roundup, Health reform, House GOPers, Senate Republicans, Tea Party, debt ceiling  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The flawed conservative case against the mandate
Next: Open Thread

Comments


I really don't think Greg Sargent likes to listen....


That is the FLAW IN HIS BRAIN.

Anyway, the Conservative argument is this:

There are State powers and Federal powers - the definition of this line is in the CONSTITUTION.

That is WHY we have a CONSTITUTION.

I seriously do not know why it is so difficult for people to understand this.

The Conservatives believe that health care is a power of the STATES. It is clearly on that side of the line.

WHERE do doctors get their licenses? The States.

Case closed.

_______________

NOW - let me give you a lesson. If the Federal government decides to "occupy" a certain area of powers, then by definition, the States are not ALLOWED to make laws in that area.

So, logically, if the Courts give the Federal government power in the area of health care, logically the power to give out doctors licenses goes to .... the Federal government.

THAT has never been done in the past 200 years. Health care has been the domain of the States for over 200 years.

ARE you to say that all the doctors' licenses for the last 200 years are INVALID? That ALL the health care laws of ALL the states have been passed in ERROR - and the Federal government should have been making health care legislation for the past 200 years???

That MUST be your position.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 4, 2011 6:38 PM | Report abuse

The "nuance" that the liberals do not seem to understand.

IS that perhaps an "individual mandate" can be passed by the States.

The Conservatives are clear: The Federal government should not be passing such an individual mandate.


I really do not think it is a good idea for one side to characterize the position of the other side - and then attempt to twist and point out "nuances" from there. That only lends itself to flawed thinking - and flawed logic. Par for the course from Greg Sargant.


So, clearly Greg has been playing his games again. GAMES which serve no purpose. IN all the health care discussion from Greg today NOTHING was constructive - it was all a pile of GARBAGE.


Greg can do better.


The Washington Post can do FAR BETTER than Greg Sargent.


Greg Sargent should clean up his act.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 4, 2011 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Reality Check:

The Republican Party Is Going To Bat, to allow Freeloaders who can afford to pay for Insurance, to not do so. What next; Will the Republicans go to bat to allow deadbeat dads to not pay child support?

If most healthy people opt out of purchasing insurance, the health care Insurance Industry, and most likely the Medical Providers system will collapse.

The Insurance Industry is based solely on having a large number of low risk, healthy people in their pools, to allow them to skim large profit margins, large salaries/bonuses, and operating expenses off the top of their premiums receivables. It is really a Ponzi scheme. Pay us when you are healthy, and we will drop you, if you look like you are going to start asking for a payout.

So who are the Republicans going to bat for, with their efforts to repeal the individual mandate? Isn't it mostly a bunch of free loaders, risk takers, or dead beats?

It has to be, or else the Insurance Companies would have already gone out of business.

So why are The Republicans going to bat for that minority of people, who just do not want to contribute their fair share?

They are still going to seek to medical care, as needed, but they just are not prepared to contribute to covering the over all costs of the system.

Should we also let them show up at restaurants, when ever they run out of food, and be allowed to eat for free?

I am not talking about people who are so poor they can not afford the premiums. The reform bill already addressed that issue. I am talking about people who can afford the premiums but do not want to pay anything for coverage, but still will seek medical care, when ever the get injured or become seriously sick.

It still strikes me, that all The Republicans are doing, is going to bat for that class of freeloaders.

Posted by: Liam-still | February 4, 2011 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Liam, that's exactly why the mandate was once a conservative idea.

Romney justified it for his Massachusetts plan on precisely those grounds!

Posted by: Greg Sargent | February 4, 2011 6:58 PM | Report abuse

It is clear that the liberals do NOT understand the Constitution.

You take a guy like Greg Sargent - he is talking about things in the newspaper which he has NO IDEA WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT.


Even worse, Greg seems to be searching for Professors, or any dude off the street, who will support his position with a quote - ZERO REGARD FOR THE TRUTH OR WHETHER HIS OWN POSITION IS VALID.


This is propaganda. This is spreading untruths, half-truths and INACCURATE information in the newspaper of a major American Daily.


This is what the SS did for the NAZIS


YES I AM GOING THERE. Finally, the garbage and inaccurate propaganda from Greg Sargent has been too much.


There is little difference between this blog and the Propaganda Ministry of the Nazis. The attitude is the same, Greg is going to tell us, enlighten us.


Greg is the Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda for the LIBERAL AGENDA.


Greg Sargent = Joseph Goebbels.


Greg's Plum-line blog has been out-of-control for far too long.


Case closed.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 4, 2011 7:02 PM | Report abuse

"* The DNC announces that for the first time ever, the 2012 Democratic National Convention will not be funded by any corporate cash, with an eye towards Obama's longtime stated goal of "increasing the influence of grassroots and individual donors.""

Interesting trying to square this with the Post's recent article on Obama's fundraising kickoff for 2012.

"The White House reelection bid will test the enthusiasm of small donors, who might prove discouraged by the centrist bent and the policy compromises of Obama's administration. Big-dollar donors expect to be in greater demand.

"The president's shift to the center has renewed my . . . interest, enthusiasm and support for him," said Myers, who added he wasn't alone among his peers. He plans to play a large role in presidential fundraising this cycle. "My guess is that he is going to do better with people writing large checks."

Myers, who has been invited to the Hartley fundraiser and is a top donor to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), said that the $1 billion target for total money raised is both floating around fundraising circles and not out of bounds.

"It sounds incredibly aggressive," he said. "But I think it's very doable."

If Obama hopes to hit such a mark, he'll need his top team on board. According to the prominent Obama donor, the president's core group of financial backers including Orin Kramer, an investor at Boston Provident; Mark Gallogly a co-founder of Centerbridge Partners; Jamie Rubin, an investor at BC Partners; and Robert Wolf, president of UBS Investment Bank, remains intact. "


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/27/AR2011012707002.html

Posted by: jnc4p | February 4, 2011 7:10 PM | Report abuse

There is little difference between this blog and the Propaganda Ministry of the Nazis. The attitude is the same, Greg is going to tell us, enlighten us.


Greg is the Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda for the LIBERAL AGENDA.


Greg Sargent = Joseph Goebbels.


Greg's Plum-line blog has been out-of-control for far too long.


Case closed.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 4, 2011 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Dictator job pays quite well...

"Mubarak family fortune could reach $70bn, say experts
Egyptian president has cash in British and Swiss banks plus UK and US property"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/04/hosni-mubarak-family-fortune

Now, that's just *his* family. Surrounding him, like any autocratic ruler, are spheres of others nearly as priviledged and spheres below them, etc.

To put this another way, if the impoverished people of the country strung this beggar and his coherts up, that would be a response one could understand. We were hardly surprised by by wht happened to Ceausescu. It won't happen here but one could understand.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 4, 2011 7:17 PM | Report abuse

There is little difference between this blog and the Propaganda Ministry of the Nazis. The attitude is the same, Greg is going to tell us, enlighten us.


Greg is the Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda for the LIBERAL AGENDA.


Greg Sargent = Joseph Goebbels.


Greg's Plum-line blog has been out-of-control for far too long.


Case closed.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 4, 2011 7:17 PM | Report abuse

@sockpuppetcentral:This is propaganda. This is spreading untruths, half-truths and INACCURATE information in the newspaper of a major American Daily.

Gee like Fox news and Foxnation, the modern day equivalent of yellow journalism? Of course you have never written a word that was not 100% true...cognitive dissonance erupting must stop posting....

Posted by: srw3 | February 4, 2011 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Yesterday, I linked Bill O'Reilly defending his earlier proof of the existence of God (tide goes in, tide goes out, you can't explain that) through pointing out that the moon is there and "Why does the earth have it and not mars?"

Stephen Colbert backs him up. All the way to the 13th century. Do watch...

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/stephen-colbert-defends-pappa-bear-oreilly

Posted by: bernielatham | February 4, 2011 7:22 PM | Report abuse

The flawed conservative case against the mandate
Posted at 6:36 PM ET, 02/ 4/2011
Happy Hour Roundup
By Greg Sargent

The Flawed "...flawed conservative case against the mandate" posting by the esteamed post hoster.

"Looks like Senator Richard Lugar, whose moderation and level-headedness have turned him into a Tea Party lightning rod..."

Whatever do you mean, you meany, we all thought *arah *alin was the so called *ea *arty lightening rod?

"Rachel Maddow is very scary! Michael Steele reveals that his media handlers, perhaps understandably..."

What a fountain of knowledge, she looks like she scares herself more than anybody else, maybe we should have fired the handlers instead of the Steele...

What else you got?

BTW, whatever is a GOP'er, is it anything like a DemoCrater?

Posted by: SpendNomore | February 4, 2011 7:22 PM | Report abuse

"What else is happening?"

Anyone worried that the Administration was going to get tough on gun control can relax:

"White House delays gun reporting requirement along Mexican border"

"White House budget officials dealt federal firearms investigators a setback Friday when officials rejected an emergency rule meant to help catch gunrunners to Mexico.

The decision delays for at least two months a proposed requirement that gun dealers along the Mexican border report anyone who buys two or more assault weapons in five days. White House officials said the delay will give the public more time - until Feb. 14 - to comment on the proposal.

Meg Reilly, spokeswoman for the Office of Management and Budget, said the delay follows President Obama's directive to curb excessive regulation and "is consistent with the president's call for more transparency and opportunities for public participation in his recent executive order."

The delay marks the second time that the rule, which is strongly opposed by the gun industry and the National Rifle Association, has been put on hold. The idea was shelved by then-White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel last year and was not reconsidered until after the midterm congressional elections."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/04/AR2011020405569.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Guess they ran the polling numbers and decided this was still a bad issue for them to take a stand on politically.

Posted by: jnc4p | February 4, 2011 7:23 PM | Report abuse

srw3

Your opinion of FoxNews has nothing to do with the quality of Greg's work.

Greg can do better.

The Washington Post can do far better than Greg Sargent. What is going on there?

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 4, 2011 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Liam, that's exactly why the mandate was once a conservative idea.

Romney justified it for his Massachusetts plan on precisely those grounds!

Posted by: Greg Sargent

__________________________


AHHHH the "nuance" reveals itself. The mandate of Romney was to be UNDER STATES POWERS, not the Federal government.

That is an important "nuance" - far too complex for liberals like Greg Sargent.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 4, 2011 7:27 PM | Report abuse

The ministers of the Obama media continue to act as if the November Revolution never happened. Obamacrats were crushed for standing foursquare for Obamacare and all the other Obamanations driven through Congress by Barack and the Pelosites.

It's an amazing and unabashed campaign of outrageous propaganda aimed directly at the gullible, no-brainers of the undiciplined, squishy, back-sliding "moderate" section of America's political underbelly.

This mis-information blitz is all they have. Another shellacking is on the way in less than two years. Will it be in time to avoid catastrophic bankruptcy and national stagnation??

I sure hope so!

There's always hope.

Posted by: battleground51 | February 4, 2011 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Smart take on Murdoch's iPad/newspaper endeavor...

"Why do I say that the Daily spurns the Web and the Net? I mean, beyond the obvious reason that there is no Web site that offers its contents in a convenient form each day. It’s not just that. The Daily also contains no links. (Some today see this as a plus; I do not.) There are no RSS feeds. No email addresses to contact the writers and editors. No email alerts or mailing list. Comments on the articles, yes, but not reachable through the Web. No, archives, back issue index, or search! (They’re on Twitter, however. They have a blog, too, and it’s not bad.)
In other words, most of the apparatus of two-way communication that every serious digital publishing venture of the past 15 years has taken as a given is missing from the Daily. They’re serious about this iPad-only thing! But they don’t seem to realize that they’re repeating the mistakes of the very recent past."

http://www.wordyard.com/2011/02/03/murdochs-daily-post-web-innovation-or-cd-rom-flashback/

Posted by: bernielatham | February 4, 2011 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Battleground


You are 100% correct that the liberals continue to ignore the fact that America had an election - the elected in Representative in Washington DC were given their MANDATE BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE - the November Revolution.


It almost as if the liberals want to cancel the results of the election, hey cancel the next election too - THAT is how the liberals are talking.


Ezra Klein - the Constitutional Expert he is - has been saying that now Reconciliation means that the House of Representatives does NOT get a vote on the changes the Senate makes on the laws.

So, according to Ezra, the House passes a bill, the Senate THROUGH RECONCILIATION passes whatever Amendments it wants - and then the bill goes DIRECTLY to the President WITHOUT the House approving the additional amendments.

That is what EZRA KLEIN WROTE ON THE WASHINGTON POST WEBSITE !!!

This is complete insanity on the part of those pushing the liberal agenda like drug dealers onto the American People.


___________________________

There is little difference between this blog and the Propaganda Ministry of the Nazis. The attitude is the same, Greg is going to tell us, enlighten us.


Greg is the Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda for the LIBERAL AGENDA.


Greg Sargent = Joseph Goebbels.


Greg's Plum-line blog has been out-of-control for far too long.


Case closed.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 4, 2011 7:33 PM | Report abuse

I find it scary that so many people this ill-informed are in positions of political power...

"A fun nugget buried in this story about Rep. Ann Buerkle's (R-NY) first town hall meeting as an elected member of Congress. Constituents repeatedly asked a puzzled Buerkle about her health benefits. She couldn't figure out why. But her staff sure could.

Buerkle, who voted to repeal the health care reform act, was twice asked about the health insurance she receives as a government employee. At first she said she couldn't understand why people were so interested in her health insurance, and that taxpayers didn't pay anything for it. She later corrected herself after being handed a note from a staffer. Like most employees, she pays for a portion of her insurance and her employer, the government, pays the rest, she said."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/freshman-goper-didnt-know-government-paid-for-her-health-benefit.php?ref=fpa

Posted by: bernielatham | February 4, 2011 7:34 PM | Report abuse

I find it scary that so many people this ill-informed are in positions of political power...


_________________


How about Greg Sargent and Ezra Klein???

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 4, 2011 7:39 PM | Report abuse

There is little difference between this blog and the Propaganda Ministry of the Nazis. The attitude is the same, Greg is going to tell us, enlighten us.


Greg is the Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda for the LIBERAL AGENDA.


Greg Sargent = Joseph Goebbels.


Greg's Plum-line blog has been out-of-control for far too long.


Case closed.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 4, 2011 7:54 PM | Report abuse

@sockpuppetcentral:

If you don't like Greg and his posts you are more than welcome stop posting here and to go back to redstate or whatever outpost of farrightwingnutistan floats your boat. Why troll here? I guess lots of people have the widget that screens your posts out, so mostly you talk to yourself. Apparently, Greg's blog is popular enough for management to keep it around. If it was a money loser or just unpopular, I have no doubts that Kaplan publishing would pull the plug...

I just don't understand why you come here everyday, spout invective and falsehoods, and whine like a spoiled child about your host....

"Your opinion of FoxNews has nothing to do with the quality of Greg's work."

Well it does, because Greg's reporting and analysis is head and shoulders over any number of Fox "journalists" and blovators. Why don't you go there and complain about their shoddy or nonexistent journalistic standards, their advocacy of right wing causes woven into their "reporting", their stable of presidential hopefuls getting paid to shill for themselves, etc. I think Greg's work here on 1/1000 of the fox news budget puts Doocy, Hannity, Palin, Newtie, etc to shame.

Posted by: srw3 | February 4, 2011 7:54 PM | Report abuse

"'There’s a lot of concern about irresponsible rhetoric against government efforts to serve people, and it’s ironic that so much noise is coming from those who want to create more massive deficits and debt through tax breaks to the most affluent in this country and repealing the health care law on behalf of insurance companies,' [Harkin press secretary Bergen Kenny] said in an email."

You got that right.

Posted by: mmyotis | February 4, 2011 7:59 PM | Report abuse

@sockpuppetcentral: America had an election - the elected in Representative in Washington DC were given their MANDATE BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

aside from grammar that would make a 3rd grader cringe....

Well that happened in 2008 and I didn't see repubs responding to the mandate given by the american people then....Somehow suffering historic losses only strengthened their resolve to do everything possible to undermine the president, dems, and their policies. And it worked to some extent. I don't see why dems shouldn't use the same tactics on repubs now that repubs control the house...Of course dems are too lily livered to play political hardball so it won't happen, just like the totally wimpy senate rules reform. Where was the bravado that the repubs showed when they threatened the nuclear option on the filibuster when they only had a 1 seat majority?

Posted by: srw3 | February 4, 2011 8:07 PM | Report abuse

"Massimo Calabresi on why it's going to be interesting to hear what Sarah Palin says about Egypt tonight. Seriously!"

I think he gets it right. The necessary first component is attack Obama. Yet there's a problem in how to do that re Egypt as the conservatives are all over the place on this one (mainly because they are all over the place on actual democracy). I expect she'll try (her writers/handlers, that is) to cover both options - Obama is too dull to see the threat from Muslim extremists (or he's too close to them - wink) and so his actions will thwart the freedom urges of the Egyptian people, just like he's thwarting the freedom urges of Americans.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 4, 2011 8:10 PM | Report abuse

" Greg's reporting "

Can't imagine what you are talking about. Assembling links, distributing DNC talking points, calling up "experts" to endorse your talking points? Twisting whatever Republicans say? Typing that "so and so skewered so and so's lame argument" every half hour?


That's what you call reporting?

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 4, 2011 8:12 PM | Report abuse

"Elliott Abrams holds the remarkable position—second only to Henry Kissinger perhaps—of playing a role in the undermining of democracy in three separate regions: Central America, North America and the Middle East. The fact that he thinks himself qualified to lecture the president on this very topic deserves to put him in the Chutzpah Hall of Fame, as soon as it is founded and built."

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/02/ta020311.html

Posted by: bernielatham | February 4, 2011 8:23 PM | Report abuse

"The Arab world is on fire," al-Jazeera reported last week, while throughout the region, western allies "are quickly losing their influence". The shock wave was set in motion by the dramatic uprising in Tunisia that drove out a western-backed dictator, with reverberations especially in Egypt, where demonstrators overwhelmed a dictator's brutal police.

Observers compared it to the toppling of Russian domains in 1989, but there are important differences. Crucially, no Mikhail Gorbachev exists among the great powers that support the Arab dictators. Rather, Washington and its allies keep to the well-established principle that democracy is acceptable only insofar as it conforms to strategic and economic objectives: fine in enemy territory (up to a point), but not in our backyard, please, unless properly tamed..."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/feb/04/radical-islam-united-states-independence

Posted by: bernielatham | February 4, 2011 8:25 PM | Report abuse

Bernie,

How much of the Federal Government do you think the Administration is actually able to control? What I mean is, do you think, for example, that the DoD is under complete Executive Branch (i.e. Elected civilian) control? The NSA? CIA? My own opinion is that those departments completely under civilian control, in case you were curious.

Do you think the President wants to use Predator Drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan? What about Holder's "investigation" into Assange/Wikileaks? My own opinion on that is he's just paying lip service. But you seem less cynical about the Administrations actions and motives. If true, why is that?

Thanks in advance. :-)

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | February 4, 2011 8:26 PM | Report abuse

"Its very existence is an enduring emotional wound."

It's more of a physical wound, from when they jammed it down our throats.

It's amazing just how authoritarian the Democrats are about this. They jam ACA through with very temporary majorities, over the clearly expressed opposition of the public, and when they are electorally punished the same year they continue to treat ACA not only as inviolate and sacred but as a crowning achievement. Just amazing.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 4, 2011 8:27 PM | Report abuse

@Troll - If you are asking me whether I perceive the structure of US governance so deeply corrupted by money, capitalist dynamics and the consequences of a half century of militarism (with the profits attendant upon that) such that even Jesus would be pressed to do act in a significantly beneficial and non-destructive manner, the answer is yes.

Does that work for you?

Posted by: bernielatham | February 4, 2011 8:34 PM | Report abuse

"Andy Coulson knew about phone hacking, ex-colleague told MPs
Former News of the World executive said ex-editor probably told others to use illegal technique"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/feb/04/andy-coulson-phone-hacking

That's a Murdoch paper, of course. And after his stint there, Coulson was appointed as Cameron's director of communications.

So, how deep are Murdoch's grubby fingers inserted into Brit governance? As Tony Blair told Ted Turner, "I can't do anything about Rupert. If it weren't for him, I wouldn't be Prime Minister."

Posted by: bernielatham | February 4, 2011 8:38 PM | Report abuse

"They jam ACA through with very temporary majorities, over the clearly expressed opposition of the public, and when they are electorally punished the same year they continue to treat ACA not only as inviolate and sacred but as a crowning achievement. Just amazing."

Not so amazing really. If you take out all the hysterical rhetoric what you have left is the democractic process working as it is intended according the constitution of the United States.

What's the matter? You don't like our constitution?

Posted by: mmyotis | February 4, 2011 8:42 PM | Report abuse

Q.B.

You love to point out all your constitutional law classes etc..and the rest of your legal background. I'm cool with that. I would expect you to know more about the law than me and so I do not debate you in that area...unlike your old nemesis Tena..who like you claimed to be an attorney.
My eyes glaze over when people start spouting chapter and verse of legal precedents that may go back decades...quite honestly it truly bores the living beejesus out of me. But different strokes for different folks and thank heavens some folks like you and Mark actually enjoy diving in to such details.
We need attorneys and so that is a good thing.

My major was Journalism...a large portion of my professional life has been in journalism. And so if you're going to play the credential game I'm saying right back at you.

As a person who majored in journalism and worked for almost two decades professionally as a journalist, may I respectfully say you are truly ignorant(not in a pejorative name calling way, but a literal decription of a lack of knowledge) when it comes to journalism

I'd stifle the journalism posts if I were you, just as I hold back on legal posts.
I understand you ripping Greg or the many legal scholars for their opinions..it's what your education and professional experience have prepared you to do...not so much for on journalism however.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 4, 2011 8:43 PM | Report abuse

"@Troll - If you are asking me whether I perceive the structure of US governance so deeply corrupted by money, capitalist dynamics and the consequences of a half century of militarism (with the profits attendant upon that) such that even Jesus would be pressed to do act in a significantly beneficial and non-destructive manner, the answer is yes.

Does that work for you?"

It's not a question of whether your opinion works for me, I'm sure what I think of your opinion is completely irrelevant to you (as it should be). I'm curious as to why you seem rather uncritical of the Administration, versus the previous one, in regards to, for example, war policy? In fact, you've gone so far as to criticize wbgonne upon occasion because he's been (according to my faulty perception) too critical.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | February 4, 2011 8:45 PM | Report abuse

ruk,

"You love to point out all your constitutional law classes etc..and the rest of your legal background."

No, I've only responded to the (hilarious) lefties who have on occasion said I don't know anything about law, wouldn't understand someone with the education of Obama, eetc.

"As a person who majored in journalism and worked for almost two decades professionally as a journalist, may I respectfully say you are truly ignorant(not in a pejorative name calling way, but a literal decription of a lack of knowledge) when it comes to journalism"

Sure, you may respectfully say anything you want. But it would probably be more persuasive if you showed how I was wrong to question characterization of what Greg does as "reporting."

It obviously isn't that. A form of journlism? Sure. But it isn't reporting.

Just out of curiosity, are there any of the items in this happy hour roundup that in your professional opinion are "reporting"?

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 4, 2011 8:52 PM | Report abuse

There is little difference between this blog and the Propaganda Ministry of the Nazis. The attitude is the same, Greg is going to tell us, enlighten us.


Greg is the Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda for the LIBERAL AGENDA.


Greg Sargent = Joseph Goebbels.


Greg's Plum-line blog has been out-of-control for far too long.


Case closed.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 4, 2011 8:52 PM | Report abuse

srw3

I want Greg to improve. I want EQUALITY.

I would like to see some even-handedness and balance from Greg Sargent.


Greg has been printing garbage, and he knows perfectly well it is garbage.

I realize that you don't understand.


I'm sure that such desire are far beyond your ability to understand. Our American Political System should not be weighed down with such garbage. I demand HIGHER STANDARDS, from both sides - and HIGHER STANDARDS FROM THE PRESS.


The liberals are dragging this nation down.


The liberals are dragging down the Economy - WE ARE GETTING OUR COUNTRY BACK.


Im sure that is too difficult for you to understand.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 4, 2011 8:56 PM | Report abuse

Btw, as I've also said many times, I don't have any problem at all with nonlawyers talking or arguing law. All that really annoys me is when people make sweeping legal assertions without having a clue what they are talking about.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 4, 2011 9:00 PM | Report abuse

You are 100% correct that the liberals continue to ignore the fact that America had an election - the elected in Representative in Washington DC were given their MANDATE BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE - the November Revolution.


_________________________


OK sorry folks - not sure what happened here


The correct sentences:


You are 100% correct that the liberals continue to ignore the fact that America had an election. The Ameican People elected THEIR Representatives and sent them to Washington DC with their MANDATE BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE - the November Revolution.


The American People MADE CLEAR to Obama and the liberals that they did NOT want the liberal agenda and they did NOT want Obama's health care bill.

The liberals are still "clinging" to the idea that their TWISTED RECONCILIATION ILLEGITIMATE VOTES should stand - and the VOTE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE in November should be disregarded.


It is that clear and simple - what is MORE VALID ???


WHAT IS MORE VALID ??? The twisted and illegitimate votes which Obama got by the judges in Minnesota, and by changing the law in Massachusetts - and BY USING A TWISTED AND ILLEGITMATE RECONCILIATION PROCEDURE which was never intended for major social legislation.

AND certainly not intended to push through CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL bills affecting areas OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.


So - are those sentences better for you all ?


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 4, 2011 9:03 PM | Report abuse

Greg Sargent has reduced his blog to shoveling a pile of liberal garbage everyday.


And the liberals on here have the nerve to complain about the quality of the comments section.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 4, 2011 9:06 PM | Report abuse

I have a couple of things tonight. Yves Smith is on the trail of Pete Peterson's latest gambit to convince everyone that Social Security is the greatest threat in the whole wide world. Since his little fake town halls and surveys last year didn't work out too well, and the deficit commission seems to have been a bust, he's going after high school kids now. I remember when we were used as guinea pigs in 8th grade in a speed reading program, a much better use of time.

""From Remapping Debate (hat tip Dean Baker):

No one has done more than the billionaire private-equity investor Peter G. Peterson to stir America’s anxiety over deficits, debt, and what Peterson (among others) considers out-of-control entitlement-program spending. Those same concerns now lie at the heart of a “fiscal responsibility” curriculum being developed for America’s high schools. The curriculum bears the stamp of Columbia University’s prestigious Teachers College, but reflects the focus suggested by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, which provided $2.4 million in funding for the project.

Teachers College gave Remapping Debate access to a set of 24 lessons set to be test-taught in four states this spring prior to a wider roll-out in 2011-12. Heavily weighted toward the themes and arguments of Peterson and other deficit hawks, the trial lessons could be seen as part of an effort by one of the country’s wealthiest men, now 82, to spread his gospel to coming generations…

Yves here. Tactically, this is very clever. Education schools are academic backwaters, which means they have no brand to tarnish by association with a venture like this And it’s patently clear what is at work here. Teachers College initially approached the Peterson Foundation to get some modest funding to develop a program about personal finance. The Foundation came back to pitch a completely different concept with ultimately 48 time as much money to the college involved. Guess whose idea prevailed?""

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/pete-peterson-using-college-courses-as-trojan-horse-for-anti-social-security-medicare-propaganda.html

Posted by: lmsinca | February 4, 2011 9:10 PM | Report abuse

"Not so amazing really. If you take out all the hysterical rhetoric what you have left is the democractic process working as it is intended according the constitution of the United States."

If you overlook that the legislation itself is unconstitutional, that the very temporary majority broke the rules to pass it, and that the Constitution was designed to prevent sweeping changes and enlargements of government by temporary majorities and passions. Other than that, you make a lot of sense.

You have a strange defition of hysterical.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 4, 2011 9:14 PM | Report abuse

Greg has the journalistic function of editor of the blog. It's now the internet age and alas there is not a lot of "original" reporting anywhere. It's almost all "aggregate" reporting or gathering information from wherever you can...as in the cheapest possible manner.

Newspapers are dying and have slashed their # of reporters and budgets for investigative journalism (the most expensive and time consuming)...TV Networks ditto.

However Greg has doubled as reporter on some stories over the past year. As in picking up the phone and chasing down a story...I believe the "aqua buddha" lady was one of Greg's "personal" stories or scoops. And that is what your question about reporting implied...where are Greg's scoops?

Some of them have been picked up by other sources, including broadcast and cable TV as well as other blogs. Sometimes his reporting gets linked to a conservative website and of course we get swamped with the idiots who normally frequent those sites.

When you say...

"calling up "experts" to endorse your talking points? Twisting whatever Republicans say? Typing that "so and so skewered so and so's lame argument" every half hour?"

That's just a hyperbolic partisan rant and actually beneath you Q.B. Because you disagree with Greg's experts you place them in "quotes"? Are you actually the arbiter as to what earns classification as an "expert"? So people who have been identified as legal scholars by our society's normal metrics, are not experts?
They're not experts because....the great Q.B. disagrees with them? Really Q.B. that post simply reveals that your hubris is bubbling over big time this evening.

@Greg

Q.B. has started an interesting conversation which you may or may not wish to engage. I'm not asking for proprietary secrets..but I am curious as to how much of your daily time is spent "editing" this blog and how much time you have remaining to do what Q.B. refers to as reporting?

It's so different from the days I was in journalism but I wonder if you also still strive for "scoops". Is that something that motivates you? If so do you consider the danger that exists in trying to beat people during a 24/7 news cycle? Such as rushing to print, screen, or blog before facts are truly nailed down.

Just curious Greg but I understand if you choose not to answer.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 4, 2011 9:20 PM | Report abuse

Here's my other one, jeeze the site's slow tonight. I guess Gallup does it's own unemployment polling, not seasonally adjusted, 30 day rolling averages. Take a peak at the graph, it looks like a flatline. 9.9% unemployed, 19.2% under-employed.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125639/Gallup-Daily-Workforce.aspx

Posted by: lmsinca | February 4, 2011 9:21 PM | Report abuse

qb

I have a question for you. You treat the law as a black and white construct. If that's true, why do so many judges and lawyers disagree on what the letter of the law actually means and why do the decisions seem to fall along ideological lines? Are only conservative judges and lawyers correct?

Posted by: lmsinca | February 4, 2011 9:28 PM | Report abuse

It isn't surprising that a blog with it's source pumping directly from a fully inserted pipeline into the the illiberal crat-scrim stream flowing out of the ABMSNBDNCNNPBSR Public-Private, Government-Media Complex @ the moveon.ogre cave, fed by those still trying to win a war against the Founders, the Patriots, and the Statesmen (Persons) who have delivered a Democratic Republic to US that we must fight to preserve, no matter what storms, brinks, man-made disasters, and threats against Liberty, these horrible people have led US into.

Posted by: SpendNomore | February 4, 2011 9:29 PM | Report abuse

@Q.B.

"All that really annoys me is when people make sweeping legal assertions without having a clue what they are talking about."

I get that and respect your point. I'm sure you pay much closer attention to Mark's posts than mine, or even someone from the right like Clawrence when it comes to posts on specific legal questions...as in the Constitutionality of the mandate. Hell I'm not an attorney, consequently I'm certainly am smart enough to pay more attention to you and Mark on the issue.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 4, 2011 9:30 PM | Report abuse

Aqua buddha was a scoop? Reporting?

"That's just a hyperbolic partisan rant and actually beneath you Q.B. Because you disagree with Greg's experts you place them in "quotes"?"

I guess my problem with Greg's increasingly frequent "expert interviews" isn't so much whether they are in some way "experts" but that there normally isn't anything special about them or what they have to say. They just say things Greg wants to hear. Conveniently that is always the result. How does that happen, I wonder? And calling a historian or a law professor to ask the kinds of questions Greg does isn't exactly like calling an expert in some field of molecular science.

Being a lawyer who deals with expert witnesses probably makes me a little cynical about this type of "journalism," because it's so obvious that Greg could call up any number of "experts" who would say the opposite. Whatever it is, it isn't anything I'd call reporting.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 4, 2011 9:37 PM | Report abuse

srw3

You say you do not understand why people who hold opposing views come to blogs.

Well, they want an opportunity to read opposing viewpoints - that is a general good in a democracy.


I would like to see some viewpoints that I can agree with. So far, nothing. The liberals have posted in with such a poor quality, none have convinced me of anything.


Perhaps if Greg Sargent would take a reasonable, rational even-handed approach, I could actually agree with him on some things.

However, with all the garbage Greg Sargent has been pushing on this blog, that has not happened.


Some of the Constitutional stuff printed in the Washington Post has been outrageous this year.


______________________


Let me tell you this: I believe in the Constitution - which created a government of powers divided between the Federal government and the State governments.


YOU have a problem with that? Seriously man. YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT ???


OK, if you are with me that far - you must agree there is a dividing line between Federal powers and State powers. Where is that line???


The liberals have denied the EXISTENCE OF THAT LINE. They don't think it exists.


This position of the liberals is completely illogical - our government has a Federal government and State governments.


The attitude of the liberals amounts to nothing less than disrespect for the Constitution.

The disrepect the liberals have shown this years elections "THE NOVEMBER REVOLUTION" has been nothing short of offensive to democracy itself.

It is the liberals who are making fools of themselves - everyone else is just watching.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 4, 2011 9:38 PM | Report abuse

@spendnomore

Wow what an amazing post. We are simply blinded by your dazzling intellect.

I would ask if you have even acquired a G.E.D...but that post would embarrass most well educated 5th Graders.

Dude you are on the wrong blog...head back to redstate or some other place where your moronic pointless screeds are appreciated.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 4, 2011 9:38 PM | Report abuse


Greg Sargent has reduced his blog to shoveling a pile of liberal garbage everyday.


And the liberals on here have the nerve to complain about the quality of the comments section.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 4, 2011 9:43 PM | Report abuse

"I get that and respect your point. I'm sure you pay much closer attention to Mark's posts than mine, ..."

Nonsense! I pay the greatest care and attention to your posts!

Seriously, I appreciate Mark's posts a lot. He takes the time to very careful and precise (which I'm not always here -- very much the opposite of my working life).

But I honestly don't take less seriously comments of nonlawyers on legal subjects. I really think that as professionals we should respect people's intelligence and desire to understand the arcana of our fields. And just the internet makes it possible for anyone to learn a lot more than was possible 20 years ago.

That's probably shocking coming from a right-wing extremist defender of robber barons and plutocrats. But true.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 4, 2011 9:46 PM | Report abuse

Republicans vow to completely repeal ACA, nothing less, and haven't yet twigged that they don't have the votes.

The House voted repeal with all the aplomb of a pebble tossed into a pond, the ripples widening and vanishing. Ker-plunk.

The Senate did its version, lacked the votes even for that pebble toss, end of story.

Even if enough Democrats could be persuaded to join in, and they can't, the President would veto the repeal. The ripples vanish.

Which leaves the troglodytes, now hallucinating tyranny and takeover, no recourse but the Supreme Court, which won't take it on until the popular provisions have had a year and a half or more to gain support for the bill.

And there will be no shortage of kids before the cameras in wheelchairs dying of leukemia because immediately post-SCOTUS repeal their medical coverage was terminated so wealthy executives and shareholders could have more, more, more.

Oh, can't wait to hear what original insights Palin brings to tgevdiscussion about Egypt. When does Ronald McDonald weigh in?

Posted by: caothien9 | February 4, 2011 9:47 PM | Report abuse

rukidding - your comment at 9:38


This comment is offensive and uncivil.

First, you come in with an ad hominem attack on someone else - clearly against the rules.


Then you follow up that insult with a stated desire to drive someone away - SILENCE the opposition NIXON-STYLE


Why dont you just leave? Why should this person leave? Your contributions to this blog are hostile, cruel and mean.


In fact, a few weeks ago you stated that you hated what the blog was doing you. You felt yourself becoming hostile.

You said you were a good person. But when you were on the blog, you said you couldn't be a good person anymore.


You were basically saying the DARK SIDE was taking over you.


Well, you stated clearly that the only solution was to leave the blog - however you stayed, and you became INSANE - the DARK SIDE took over.


I heard you even kicked a puppy.


You really have to get control of yourself.


And please, stop throwing kittens in the lake, OK?

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 4, 2011 9:49 PM | Report abuse

Tick....tock....tick....tock

The countdown to Greg Sargent banning Rainforest.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | February 4, 2011 9:51 PM | Report abuse

The maneuveriing continues:

"Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch, an opponent of the recently enacted health care overhaul, says Justice Elena Kagan should not take part in the widely expected Supreme Court consideration of the new law."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110205/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_health_care_overhaul

Posted by: mmyotis | February 4, 2011 9:54 PM | Report abuse

Count me as unimpressed by debate through credentials.

Right wing crap seasoned with "I'm a lawyer so my opinions are more meaningful than yours" is still just right wing crap.

If interpretation of the law, including modern application of the centuries-old Constitution was so cut and dried, we wouldn't have a tiered court system.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 4, 2011 9:54 PM | Report abuse

Tick....tock....tick....tock

The countdown to Greg Sargent banning Rainforest.

==

As if it takes anything more than a couple of clicks.

Imagine how many potential contributors are being driven away by RFR's firehose spray of unintelligible sewage? Yeah most regulars TH him away, but what newcomer would bother to register when half the posts come from a mental case?

Posted by: caothien9 | February 4, 2011 10:00 PM | Report abuse

@7,

...of course, when the thread is slow only then would a genius deign to stoop to the level of morons and screed posters, but you got one thing wrong, the neo-reformation has come to your town, you can run, but you can't hide...now this is what offends US to the core, while we are about it, why do you people always play the same worn out fiddle when the devil starts calling the tune?

Why is one individual's being offended at the serial mischaracterization, and revisionist rewriting of history, any less important than several (maybe hundreds of) thousand(s) of screaming, rampaging, protesting citizens(?) of a third-rate, underdeveloped, disrespecting of all Western Civilization, *ell *ole in the middle of North Africa?

By what rod do you measure the appropriate level of rage, a potential receptor of your blogcestous blizzard of misinformational malarkey, should be unleashed toward you?

Posted by: RichNomore | February 4, 2011 10:00 PM | Report abuse

Q.B.

From your last post it sounds like you are upset that conservatives are not given equal time here...but I know you don't really wish to go into "equal time" issues. :-)

But its a fair point...this is a progressive blog...the difference between this blog and say Faux News...is Greg hasn't launched the ultimate lie..."Fair and balanced." He doesn't deny he is a liberal..or as he jokes "librul".
Still I counted several stories this evening that presented Conservatives without snark...McConnell...and also included the R position about Dem Harkin's perceived transgressions. I'm not sure how much more you want Q.B?

Meanwhile only a genuine moron would describe Faux as 'fair and balanced." Fox does not brag about being most accurate...first with the facts...they had a great line with "we report you decide"...that was still within the pale...but when people start telling you they're "fair and balanced"...chances are excellent it's because they're anything but fair and balanced. And seriously Q.B...don't make me puke tonight by suggesting Faux is fair and balanced. And save the false equivalency whining about MSNBC...or the "lamestream" media.

Republicans are increasingly too cowardly to deal with HONEST journalism. They cower behind name calling.."lamestream media" "they're all out to get me"..and so you have the specter of Obama going on virtually every network..including O'Reilly's show, a long sitdown with Fox's W.H. reporter...meanwhile the "Mama Grizzley" is such a whimpering little coward she has yet to do THE FREAKING FIRST NEWS CONFERENCE! Not as a candidate for V.P. of the U.S.!!!!!!! And not as a grifter/Fox news personality taking advantage of the millions of suckers. PT Barnum would be proud of Sister Sarah.

Why does this disturb me so much? It's not really about Sister Sarah's cowardice...that's just aggravating..it's about the trend for all R's to cowardly duck the press. It's about government in secrecy. The "4th Estate" is the only real access most citizens have to their elected leaders.

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/scott-throws-up-walls-to-press/1149206

Scott spent $73 million of his own money to win the office with an anti-Tallahassee campaign. He refused to meet with editorial boards, but allowed reporters on his campaign bus. We don't know him very well, and he doesn't know us.

His staff has been critical of us for asking questions on topics that are not a part of his daily "message," and he wants those attending news conferences to remain in their seats and abandon the traditional attempt to pursue a followup question. They underscored the order with blue velvet ropes between the podium and the press at one availability.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 4, 2011 10:03 PM | Report abuse

RNM, please don't post whle tripping. Go out and look at the colors.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 4, 2011 10:04 PM | Report abuse

Heh heh heh imagine Palin trying to answer real questions from a non-sycophantic interviewer. The next 48 hours would be a riot as the keyboard kommandos tried to interpret her babble as wisdom and excoriate her interviewers for "trick questions."

Especially if it had been live and she had a meltdown.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 4, 2011 10:14 PM | Report abuse

@Cao....tripping? LMAO Now I'm jealous..and here I thought he was simply a psychopath...you mean he's enjoying Friday night more than me?

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 4, 2011 10:15 PM | Report abuse

ru,

No, I'm not upset that Greg doesn't give equal time to conservatives. I simply said that what he does, including soliciting friendly "expert opinions," isn't reporting.

Your mania over Fox is deep. I wouldn't dream of engaging in false equivalencies. MSNBC isn't nearly as fair and balanced as Fox. It's also a fact that the three networks have been dominated by liberals for decades.

Sarah Palin isn't in office. If you don't like her, don't listen to her.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 4, 2011 10:20 PM | Report abuse

Hey, this is just like Little Egypt. Send a (US Congressionally funded) cultural exchange seminar organizer in there to train a cadre of handlers to organize the sons of, anti-authoritarian, desert jackals, now out there every day (the very same ilk we saw dancing in the streets when the towers went down), and we just bought ourselves a 21st Century Bolhsevik Revolution Wright on the TV with OUR money, by means of Bill (days of rage) Ayers and Burn-a-Flag Dorn (lately of Code Pink Palestinian re-armament flotilla fame), who have succeded not only in creating a George Soros moment in international markets, but also a MEmorializer-in-Chief moment of opportunity to drive a imagined wedge into the Neo Reformation Wave of disillusionment that has threatened his epic dynasty of mayhem. Would anyone doubt all these people would take full advantage of such a convenient crisis?

Now y'all are turning on each other, just like the Pro-Mubaruk, Anti-Pro Mubaruk, Pro Democracy, Anti-Pro Democracy, Cairo Dancing with the Stars lap dance with the Devil.

Posted by: RichNomore | February 4, 2011 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Betting pool time.

Will the teabaggers pull the GOP even further to the unelectable far right, or will the rubber band snap and create a permanent schism? Lose lose either way. The GOP can only win by stealth, hiding its real positions behind dog whistle, while the baggers want to state them aloud, believing that but for "political correctness" everyone between SF and NYC is as bigoted and worshipful of wealth as they are.

Since Paul and Bachmann absolutely will not stealth nor shut up nor compromise, my money is on schism. Maybe even a complete split.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 4, 2011 10:29 PM | Report abuse

It's also a fact that the three networks have been dominated by liberals for decades.

==

No, it's not a fact at all, it's a sodding lie.

For eight years the "liberal" press acted as a stenographer for the Bush White House, cowering at the ginning up of the Iraq invasion, leaving one lie after another unchallenged.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 4, 2011 10:36 PM | Report abuse

[@ 10:20 PM on February 4, 2011 quarterback1 Posted: "ru, No, I'm not upset..."]
= = = = = = =
...and isn't that what it's all about with these people? Find a raw nerve and stay on it 'til something cracks or explodes? Just like the Cuckoo Nest mentality, of course there is a distinct diversity, and overwhelmingly palpable inequality in equivalency to the Anti-FOX vendetta. All paths lead back to those who appear and speak freely there, no matter where the chips fall, whereas those who suck from the river of Crat-Scrim flowing from the ABMSNBDNCNNPBSR Public-Private, Government-Media Complex @ the moveon.ogre cave, fed by those still trying to win a war against the Founders, the Patriots, and the Statesmen (Persons) who have delivered a Democratic Republic to US that we must fight to preserve, no matter what storms, brinks, man-made disasters, and threats against Liberty, these horrible people have led US into, they all think with the same upside down chip off of a defective eastern empire motherboard.

Posted by: RichNomore | February 4, 2011 10:39 PM | Report abuse

lms,

Saw your question. Too tired and heading to bed. Will try to answer over weekend.

Or you can just accept, Yes, conservatives are always right." ; )

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 4, 2011 10:46 PM | Report abuse

qb

I'd rather have a little more detail so I'll wait.

Posted by: lmsinca | February 4, 2011 10:51 PM | Report abuse

[@ 10:29 PM on February 4, 2011 caothien9 Posted: "Betting pool time..."]
= = = = = = = =
My old man used to say, be careful what you wish for, and never bet with money you didn't earn, but when you do, check the weather, your team may not be able to tread water.

There definitely are some serious storm clouds on the horizon, and they are directly over the Wright Wing of the decimated Party of Jackson, Van Buren, and Polk, nearly devoured by the Progressive-Zilla that has FED it to the Monster from Soros.Code-Punk, now slithering as fast as it can back under the rocks, and into the caves from whence it came (may even have slithered all the way to Egypt).

Posted by: RichNomore | February 4, 2011 10:52 PM | Report abuse

[@ 10:29 PM on February 4, 2011 caothien9 Posted: "Betting pool time..."]
= = = = = = = =
My old man used to say, be careful what you wish for, and never bet with money you didn't earn, but when you do, check the weather, your team may not be able to tread water.

There definitely are some serious storm clouds on the horizon, and they are directly over the Wright Wing of the decimated Party of Jackson, Van Buren, and Polk, nearly devoured by the Progressive-Zilla that has FED it to the Monster from Soros.Code-Punk, now slithering as fast as it can back under the rocks, and into the caves from whence it came (may even have slithered all the way to Egypt).

Posted by: RichNomore | February 4, 2011 10:53 PM | Report abuse

Wow looks like we have a Palin speechwriter posting here.

Seriously, can anyone parse what RichNomore is trying to say? It's even less coherent than one of tao's curly-braces posts.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 4, 2011 10:55 PM | Report abuse

Nighty Night Time, children...

Posted by: RichNomore | February 4, 2011 10:58 PM | Report abuse

mmyotis writes:

"They jam ACA through with very temporary majorities, over the clearly expressed opposition of the public, and when they are electorally punished the same year they continue to treat ACA not only as inviolate and sacred but as a crowning achievement. Just amazing."

_______________


This statement is 100% true.


The attitude of the liberals is OFFENSIVE to the American People.


The liberals have lost respect for democracy itself. Perhaps they should all move to a country which is a dictatorship - because it is clear that is the kind of government they want.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 4, 2011 11:00 PM | Report abuse


There is little difference between this blog and the Propaganda Ministry of the Nazis. The attitude is the same, Greg is going to tell us, enlighten us.


Greg is the Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda for the LIBERAL AGENDA.


Greg Sargent = Joseph Goebbels.


Greg's Plum-line blog has been out-of-control for far too long.


Case closed.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 4, 2011 11:02 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: SpendNomore | February 4, 2011 11:04 PM | Report abuse


There is little difference between this blog and the Propaganda Ministry of the Nazis. The attitude is the same, Greg is going to tell us, enlighten us.


Greg is the Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda for the LIBERAL AGENDA.


Greg Sargent = Joseph Goebbels.


Greg's Plum-line blog has been out-of-control for far too long.


Case closed.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 4, 2011 11:05 PM | Report abuse

@Q.B.

"MSNBC isn't nearly as fair and balanced as Fox."

I'm afraid that's it my friend. That is such a mind numbingly ignorant statement that I can't really address you any more.
You are not just in the minority in your opinion...in terms of actual journalists and people with any freaking semblance of an intellect that hasn't been so severely warped by partisanship as you. But then you're in the minority in defending the intellect of the Wasilla twitterer...so I'm not surprised. You are such an extreme ideologue you've sacrificed any appearance of critical thinking.

Your partisanship has truly led you into the land of mental midgets. I'm serious here and not snarky...you are not worth the waste of time...that is such a patently moronic statement that I've simply lost all respect for you. Intelligence is one thing...but sacrificing it on the altar of partisan lunacy is simply pathetic. Good luck...put me on troll blocker if you have it..otherwise simply scroll by as I shall you...that is simply...ahhh why waste another breath. Good luck.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 4, 2011 11:07 PM | Report abuse

Is it just me...or is it not literally frightening that such a wack job is loose in society. Of course we can always hope he is posting from secure mental institution..and alas this is not snark...

Greg...Hire Kevin...Hire Cao...anybody that can give us not a troll blocker but an idiot blocker....puuuhhhleeezzee Greg.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 4, 2011 11:11 PM | Report abuse

BTW I didn't mention names in the last post because he antisocial wackjob simply has to many to list. Sockpuppets...hardly...the average sock is far brighter than the moron behind the posts.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 4, 2011 11:14 PM | Report abuse

12BarBluesAgain


WHY haven't you been banned?

You brought Cao to this blog, on purpose - knowing full well what he would do here.


YOUR CRIME is worse than Cao. YOU have decided to take personal advantage of Cao's mental instability - and use it against people on this blog.


YOU are mistreating a clearly mentally deranged person who has moved to Southeast Asia for reasons of questionable legally.

It is unbelievable that the WASHINGTON POST AND GREG SARGENT have not contacted the Vietnamese government and told them that they may have a potential child molester in their country.


AT the very least, the Vietnamese Embassy should be contacted - and ALL the little boys within a certain distance of this person should be protected.


FOR ALL WE KNOW, CAO IS A SEX OFFENDER, WHO IS REQUIRED TO REGISTER WHERE HE LIVES.

Is this why Cao moved out of the country, to avoid the SEX REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS?

12BarBluesAgain - you are guilty of taking advantage of this person and using him to your own personal advantage.


HOW DO YOU LIVE WITH YOURSELF ???


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 4, 2011 11:15 PM | Report abuse

Is it just me...or is it not literally frightening that such a wack job is loose in society. Of course we can always hope he is posting from secure mental institution..and alas this is not snark...

Greg...Hire Kevin...Hire Cao...anybody that can give us not a troll blocker but an idiot blocker....puuuhhhleeezzee Greg.

==

Dunno why you even bother, all these trolls are dishonest to the core.

Ton claim Palin is a politically credible person is so far beyond the pale that "partisan" doesn't even begin to explain it. It's hallucinatory.

Yeah, conservatives are always right. Welcomed as liberators, trickle down, free market healthcare. Right. Bloody psychos the lot of them.

Thanks for the recommendation but Kevin is the browser guy, I do middle-tier and my HTTP server experience is like a decade out of date. I did a lot of ISAPI but I never did dot Net because I hate structured exception handling. I could do the database side of it but it'd take me serious rampup time before I could do the filters.

While we await a server side ignore feature, why not just ban RFR, and keep banningbas he reregisters again and again? Better yet, have Legal write his ISP and get him offline completely.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 4, 2011 11:26 PM | Report abuse

Rukidding

could you please give us a "status update" on that thing you were talking about a few weeks ago.

You said you were a good person, but being on the blog, you couldn't handle it anymore.


You said the DARK SIDE was beginning to take you over.


STATUS UPDATE ?


Yea, how are you doing with that?

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 4, 2011 11:28 PM | Report abuse

Is it just me...or is it not literally frightening that such a wack job is loose in society. Of course we can always hope he is posting from secure mental institution..and alas this is not snark...

==

Well given the hours he keeps and the amount of time he spends posting there is no doubt that he's unemployed, and little doubt that he's on some kind of disability. Nut-check, based on evidence.

Thank heavens for TH, pity he's allowed to drive newcomers away.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 4, 2011 11:36 PM | Report abuse

Cao

YOU have been banned by Cillizza 50-70 times.


So, why the attitude from you???


Do you want me to take it upon myself to get the Vietnamese government after you?

The Washington Post isn't doing it


Greg Sargent has reason to believe he might have a child molestor on his hands - what has he done???? He has advocated more of the gay agenda to be taught to little children.


Cillizza banned you many, many times.


The WASHINGTON POST should do something about you.

LET ME ASK YOU THIS : ARE YOU REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER IN ANY STATE OF THE UNITED STATES ????


OK, let me rephrase - PLEASE LIST ALL THE STATES IN WHICH YOU ARE REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 4, 2011 11:38 PM | Report abuse

Cao

YOU have been banned by Cillizza 50-70 times.


So, why the attitude from you???


Do you want me to take it upon myself to get the Vietnamese government after you?

The Washington Post isn't doing it


Greg Sargent has reason to believe he might have a child molestor on his hands - what has he done???? He has advocated more of the gay agenda to be taught to little children.


Cillizza banned you many, many times.


The WASHINGTON POST should do something about you.

LET ME ASK YOU THIS : ARE YOU REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER IN ANY STATE OF THE UNITED STATES ????


OK, let me rephrase - PLEASE LIST ALL THE STATES IN WHICH YOU ARE REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 4, 2011 11:38 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, but filters are best applied client-side (e.g. Kevin's Troll Hunter). That way, everyone can block who they don't want to see on an individual basis, and no one needs to play "central scrutinizer" to keep things from getting needlessly disruptive.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | February 4, 2011 11:41 PM | Report abuse

From the very beginning, President Obama has placed a high priority on increasing the influence of grassroots and individual donors, and this convention will go further in that direction than any convention ever. This convention and the new way it is being financed will allow more people from all over the country to be involved in this historic event, to have ownership of this convention and help fulfill the President's vision for moving the country forward and winning the future. This unprecedented step is another sign that things are continuing to change under President Obama's leadership and that this will, in fact, be the "People's Convention."

____________________________


OK, let's nail this down.


Because Obama previously promised to participate in the Campaign Finance System - then went back on his word like a complete liar.


And went off and raised $700 Million - much from questionable sources.


OK -


DOES THAT INCLUDE ALL THE PARTIES, EVEN THE PARTIES PUT ON BY STATE DELEGATIONS?


Normally, the state delegations put on a series of parties,. Is Obama saying that NO STATE DELEGATION CAN TAKE CORPORATE CASH FOR ANY PARTY, ANY PURPOSE ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONVENTION ????


Otherwise, Obama can walk.....


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 4, 2011 11:46 PM | Report abuse

jprestonian at 11:41 PM


what is your position on possible sex offenders on this blog???


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 4, 2011 11:49 PM | Report abuse

@jpres it can be done either way. I favor server side fir several reasons.

(1) page load will be faster if the blocked stuff is never even downloaded
. Just look how much of the PL bandwidth goes to downloading RFR, whom nobody reads

(2) Collecting statistics is useful. When the DB says that most readers are blocking one poster, banning him becomes an easy decision

(3) it's browser nonspecific. Kevin has to do different versions for each browser, and there is still none for IE, which for some reason a lot of people still use

(4) the perf is negligible. Row counts for the user database are nowhere near millions and modern DBs handle billions without breaking a sweat. A simple join implements the filter.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 4, 2011 11:54 PM | Report abuse

Cao

So you are claiming that over the past 3 years, your nasty comments have not driven anyone away?


You have not made it unpleasant for anyone else to post?


YOU are the most vile poster on this blog - are you that completely lacking in self-awareness ????

WHAT about the little boys?

WHAT about the little boys?
WHAT about the little boys?
WHAT about the little boys?
WHAT about the little boys?
WHAT about the little boys?
WHAT about the little boys?
WHAT about the little boys?
WHAT about the little boys?
WHAT about the little boys?
WHAT about the little boys?

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 4, 2011 11:54 PM | Report abuse

Good points, but I still like the individuality allowed by the server side solution.

And there's no reason all comments have to be retrieved to implement a client-side solution. For instance, look at the commenting system at my blog (my userID dot blogspot.com). It allows client-side filtering + server-side banning, and doesn't have to load all the comments on every refresh... even has AUTO-refresh! I'm working with the developer to simplify and snazz-up the UI right now. I think it's the best commenting system ever conceived.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | February 5, 2011 12:00 AM | Report abuse

jprestonian

Cao claims to have 50 different IP addresses every day - how do you block that?


Cao and the Obama paid trolls are the real offenders around these blogs.


Case closed on that one.


The Obama paid trolls will all burn in hell.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 5, 2011 12:03 AM | Report abuse

You seem confused again qb. This is an opinion blog, not reporting. Jennifer Rubin isn't a reporter either. Not a slam, just a fact.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 5, 2011 1:14 AM | Report abuse

Imsinca, you will be surprised, I think, to know that the majority of all Supreme Court cases ever decided were decided by unanimous vote. I think that is true of the Roberts Court, BTW.

Split decisions occur because the cases the Supremes hear are complex and difficult. There may be competing lines of cases that were previously independent that are now invoked in the instant case. There may be conflicting rules of construction about different aspects of the case. There are different judicial philosophies that are apolitical, in the conservative vs. liberal sense.

The law makes strange allies. The ACLU supported the results in "Citizens United".

Deeper than ideology, Justices remain persons. So when a mother argued on an appeal against the state having taken her child that she should have had a right to appointed counsel, this is what happened as told by J. Breyer to an Austin Federal Bar dinner I attended. J. Breyer thought to himself that there had never been a right to appointed counsel in any but cases involving liberty deprivation [crimes and commitments]. Just as he thought that, Scalia asked counsel for the mom if he could name an American case that provided appointed counsel for anything but a liberty deprivation. AHA, Breyer thought - this is an easy 9-0, Antonin and I agree exactly.
Later, when the state's attorney was arguing, SDO'C, the Goldwater conservative, and RBG, the former ACLU appellate lawyer jumped all over him. "Do you mean to argue that the parent-child relationship is not a FUNDAMENTAL right?" The two women justices simply had a different life viewpoint and worked it so hard they brought four of their colleagues over.

BTW, eight of these Justices are brilliant, IMHO. As to judicial philosophies, I preferred SDO'C's approach as she honed it.

The limits of the commerce clause is one tough area for Justices as is the limit of executive privilege. When circumscribing the power of another branch other forces come into play. The cycle I will call Jackson -"Cherokee nation cases"- Van Buren - trail of tears is a reminder of the limits of the Court when the political branches disregard it. OTOH, when the Court is too deferential, as in "Korematsu", thousands of loyal citizens end up in prison compounds because of their ancestry. If the Court had ruled correctly, FDR might have ignored it as Jackson did in his hatred for Indians, but it would not have been a lasting stain on the institution.

I rambled. I apologize. Case by case this is usually not about liberals and conservatives. Sometimes it seems that it is.


Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 5, 2011 1:24 AM | Report abuse


I love the free sample site "123 Get Samples" search online to find their official website, that's where i get most of my samples from!!! yay i love free stuff.

Posted by: robindiaz5 | February 5, 2011 1:57 AM | Report abuse

Going to be interesting to see how the US responds to Mubarek.

On the one hand, US- and even Israel-friendly, and there is no branch too thin for US foreign policy to crawl to the very tip of when it comes to Israel. America even accepts their highly illegal and provocative settler movement.

On the other hand (fix nostalgia anyone?) Mubarek is a tyrant, sumping billions from his very poor country and sending out thugs to restore order.

Usually this scenario involves some resource that a US corporation wants access to. This time it's America's delinquent little ally, whose legitimacy is under concerted and deserved attack globally.

Where will the chips fall? Democracy in Muslim countries doesn't have a great track record for creating Israel-friendly governments, despite neoconservative faith. Atrocities of occupation are funny that way.

Cusp time.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 5, 2011 3:24 AM | Report abuse

* And here's one for the sucker-born-every-minute watch: Newt's PAC, which is called "American Solutions for Winning the Future," hauled in $14 million in contributions in the last year.

==

Fools soon parted from their money.

Move along, move along.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 5, 2011 3:40 AM | Report abuse

Let us take an example of Texas. The "Wise Health Insurance" is quite popular in Arizona. It provides so many offers for the low income people.

Posted by: lonnieesykes4 | February 5, 2011 4:06 AM | Report abuse

Rand Paul excoriates Henry Clay for compromising. Match McConnell promises no compromises. Michelle Bachmann goes ahead with a second SOTU response, spurning calls for unity. See a pattern forming?

"We get everything our way or we take our ball and go home."

Yeah the baggers and the movement conservatives may eat this stuff up, but the general electorate? Is this behavior good governance?

Posted by: caothien9 | February 5, 2011 4:20 AM | Report abuse

If you want to talk fools soon parted with their money look to the king's ransom wasted on the Obamanation. Never in the annals of human history has so much money been wasted so quickly. Obama's first two years were a disaster and his first mid-terms are catstrophic, for the Democrat party. Like Clinton on steroids.

It is yet to be seen if B.O. can pull a successful Clinton. Obama is trying to do Clinton without it seeming so. His Obama media, chattering nabobs are behind him 110%. They know that you can fool enough people, some of the time. Just look what happened in 2006-2008. The liberal, media shills sold the hapless moderate a pig-in-a-poke. Now we all have manure on our faces.

Posted by: battleground51 | February 5, 2011 6:25 AM | Report abuse

Yeah getting America into two wars it didn't need with nothing to gain and no clear objectives, yeah, that was disgraceful.

Oh, wait, that was Bush.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 5, 2011 6:32 AM | Report abuse

"You seem confused again qb. This is an opinion blog, not reporting. Jennifer Rubin isn't a reporter either. Not a slam, just a fact."


Wasn't me who was confused. It was srw and ruk:

"Well it does, because Greg's reporting and analysis is head and shoulders over any number of Fox "journalists" and blovators. Why don't you go there and complain about their shoddy or nonexistent journalistic standards, their advocacy of right wing causes woven into their "reporting", their stable of presidential hopefuls getting paid to shill for themselves, etc. I think Greg's work here on 1/1000 of the fox news budget puts Doocy, Hannity, Palin, Newtie, etc to shame.

Posted by: srw3 | February 4, 2011 7:54 PM | Report abuse


As a person who majored in journalism and worked for almost two decades professionally as a journalist, may I respectfully say you are truly ignorant(not in a pejorative name calling way, but a literal decription of a lack of knowledge) when it comes to journalism

I'd stifle the journalism posts if I were you, just as I hold back on legal posts.
I understand you ripping Greg or the many legal scholars for their opinions..it's what your education and professional experience have prepared you to do...not so much for on journalism however.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 4, 2011 8:43 PM | Report abuse

FB, meet srw and rukidding. They are confused and need your help. ruk will be a hard case since he is a professional journalist and thus authoritative.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 5, 2011 6:35 AM | Report abuse

"@Q.B.

"MSNBC isn't nearly as fair and balanced as Fox."

I'm afraid that's it my friend. That is such a mind numbingly ignorant statement that I can't really address you any more.
You are not just in the minority in your opinion...in terms of actual journalists and people with any freaking semblance of an intellect that hasn't been so severely warped by partisanship as you. But then you're in the minority in defending the intellect of the Wasilla twitterer...so I'm not surprised. You are such an extreme ideologue you've sacrificed any appearance of critical thinking.

Your partisanship has truly led you into the land of mental midgets. I'm serious here and not snarky...you are not worth the waste of time...that is such a patently moronic statement that I've simply lost all respect for you. Intelligence is one thing...but sacrificing it on the altar of partisan lunacy is simply pathetic. Good luck...put me on troll blocker if you have it..otherwise simply scroll by as I shall you...that is simply...ahhh why waste another breath. Good luck.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 4, 2011 11:07 PM | Report abuse"


Somehow all I can do is laugh at this. Gorsh, ru, after all we've been through!

Via con . . . whatever it is you believe in.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 5, 2011 6:40 AM | Report abuse

NOTE to liberals


After thinking about the statements from the Congressman from Memphis, who I believe is jewish. And the controversy.


I have come to the conclusion: the jews do not have control over metaphors.


That simple.


Anyone can make any metaphor they want. This thinking that some metaphors are out-of-bounds is ridiculous. Thank you.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 5, 2011 6:42 AM | Report abuse

Cao

Bush - I disagree there were CLEAR OBJECTIVES for those wars, you are spreading a lie.

In fact, in the case of Iraq, 23 reasons were listed in the war resolution - and over 20 democratic Senators voted FOR the war.


If you have a problem with the Iraq War, I suggest you contact those democratic Senators who voted FOR the war -


A war is not a revolving door, once a country is in, you are in. Pulling out is not an practical option.


In the case of Afghanistan, there is a CLEAR objective - protecting our country from a place which was used as a terrorist training camp. Why I have to say that to you, it being obvious, is beyond me.


Have you answered the questions from last night


Please name all the States in which you are required to register as a sex offender.

Thank you.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 5, 2011 6:47 AM | Report abuse

Mark:

""Imsinca, you will be surprised, I think, to know that the majority of all Supreme Court cases ever decided were decided by unanimous vote.""

I did some research a several years ago focused on which of the then current Justices voted in unison the most often, and it was interesting to discover that even the justices that disagreed most often with each still had a voting record that matched something like 65 or 70 percent of the time.

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 5, 2011 6:53 AM | Report abuse

The nattering, chattering, Obama media shills are imitating the conservative strategy of shape-shifting the faces of venerated icons, only the leftist scrub-women are putting a whole lotta lie in the historical, scrub solution.

They are trying, very hard, to change Ronald Reagan into a liberal, in hindsight. Only a complete moron would ever believe such nonsense. Liberals hated Reagan as much as they did George Bush. I know, I remember.

Reagan was conservative, through and through. JFK, on the other hand, had a lot of conservatism in him. JFK was the last, good, Democrat president.

Too bad that crazed, liberal/Marxist, wacko, Lee Harvey Oswald did a successful hit on Kennedy for his Castroite/Moscow enablers.

The Democrat party may still be an all-American party yet. Instead of a Marxist/Jihadist/America hating Obamanation.

Oh well!

Posted by: battleground51 | February 5, 2011 7:00 AM | Report abuse

Scott

So agreement at the Supreme Court is less rare than on the parts of Capitol Hill?

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 5, 2011 7:09 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

I left you a response on yesterday's Morning Plum at 9:32, if you are interested. In brief, I simply pointed out that whether or not a objective, universal morality does or can be proven to exist has no bearing on the actual issue between us...my claim that our moral notions and language assumes that it does.

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 5, 2011 7:16 AM | Report abuse

lms (and Mark),

This is interesting because I was thinking about how many different ways there are to answer and even interpret lms's questions. Now Mark has given a perfectly valid and, I think, truthful answer question, but one that is different and probably in some tension with the one I am about type (probably, because I haven't typed it yet and am not yet sure what all I will say : )).

When you say I see "law as a black and white construct," I gather you mean you think I always think the answer to a legal question is clear. And that isn't really true. There is an ambiguity hidden in your question, specifically in "the law."

People use that use that term this way, like in the Paper Chase, where they refer to someone's loving "the law." But there isn't really something called "the law." There are many, many laws. Some are good, some are bad, some are clear, some are a confused mess. Sometimes, particularly in our federal system and how (imo) it has been distorted through ultra vires growth of the federal government, it is unclear how various laws relate and work together. So disagreements and arguments arise.

You would probably be interested (if this stuff interests you) in studying the legal realist movement. In brief, you are implying a classic viewpoint of legal realism (usually identified as starting in American law with Oliver Wendell Holms ("The life of the law has not been logic. It has been experience."). Later came the trendy "critical legal studies" radicals (lawyers playing at deconstructionism).

The realists said essentially that laws are fuzzy and don't actually determine the outcome of cases, at least much of the time. Outcomes instead depend on judge's agendas, prejudices, or what they had for breakfast, and what judges really do is use legal rules to justify the results they want. (This was treated as a new idea last century; as I always point out with these things, it wasn't new at all. It just had a new expression.)

There clearly is some truth to all this. Any lawyer who isn't brain dead would have to agree. In fact, it doesn't always require legal ambiguity. I've had judges look me in the eye when hundreds of millions of dollars are on the line and absolutely, no-question-about-it, flatly refuse to apply the law, because they just couldn't and wouldn't accept it. I'm recalling one right now. It had nothing to do with the old adage that "Hard cases make bad law," or any lack of clarity in the result "the law" compelled, and everyone in the room knew it, including the lawyers on the other side. They were sweating bullets and in a state of sheer panic and meltdown. We had produced "black and white," undisputed, sworn proof that gave the court only two options, both of which meant my client won. The other side literally had no counterargument. They were speechless. But that judge simply was not going to ever rule for my client, no matter what the law said.

(cont'd)

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 5, 2011 7:17 AM | Report abuse

Although it is not spelled out directly in the First Amendment I claim

FREEDOM OF METAPHORS.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 5, 2011 7:25 AM | Report abuse

Troll said: "I'm curious as to why you seem rather uncritical of the Administration, versus the previous one, in regards to, for example, war policy? In fact, you've gone so far as to criticize wbgonne upon occasion because he's been (according to my faulty perception) "

1) Because there's a difference between someone who commits murder then shoves the body in the trunk of his car and leaves it by the side of the road... and the highways department staffer or cop who has to drive that car with the body in it to the police station.

2) I've posted more links to and passages from severe (rational) critics of the administration's role in continuing what Bush started (such as Greenwald) than has anyone else posting here.

3) Because the targets of wbgonne's criticisms are, usually in my view, the wrong targets.

Does that work for you now?

Posted by: bernielatham | February 5, 2011 7:27 AM | Report abuse

Bernie

1) Just because you post links to garbage, does not affect in any way the character of those ideas as garbage.

2) Same as item 1.

3) Reread item 1.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 5, 2011 7:30 AM | Report abuse

@mark in austin...

Thanks for that EXCELLENT post on the Supremes. It was enlightening, informative, and appreciated.

Indeed I take your fundamental points. But it does beg the question how many "controversial" cases the Court hears each year, and how many are slam dunks. I suspect, but do not know, where you will be informed, that one could say by definition all their cases are controversial by dint of their reaching the highest court in the land. From a layman's perspective "controversial" would seem to fit a case where courts at the lower tiers had disagreed. It's clear the individual mandate is a controversial(perhaps a poor choice of words..maybe difficult is more accurate) decision because we have four decisions already rendered that split right down the middle at 2-2.

I think lmsinca and I feel like a majority of Americans. Rightly or wrongly we feel the court has become extremely politicized.
I don't wish this to appear partisan...perhaps it's the Dems fault and this "politicization" started with Bork...or FDR's attempt to increase the size and stack the court. I don't really care which side is at fault..it just feels disturbing. And I concede that you as an attorney with an objective mind, might consider "feel" versus "real" as rendering my point moot.

Again it's hard for a lay person to accept any group of people..whether it be city council...a corporate board of directors..where a small group of people decide an issue and at least one of those members has a clear direct benefit if the decision should go one way and not the other. Ginni Thomas has earned hundreds of thousands of $$ literally campaigning against the ACA with Tea Party types and other conservatives. When her husband "forgets" to even list that income much less the source...well the only way I'll ever regain any respect for the S.C. is if Thomas recuses himself.
BTW as a member of a lowly appointed planning commission in a city of 250,000 I am required to fill out similar forms..the public has a right to know if I've just taken a well paying job from a developer when I'm about to sit and vote on a case where that same developer is asking us to amend the land use map or zoning laws.
I'm required under penalty (not sure how large a fine) to do this in a timely, accurate fashion every year...and a Supreme Court Justice gets away with "forgetting?" to list his wife's income?
Toss in Scalia's warm friendly relationship with people like the infamous Koch brothers, and their secret meetings, and again to a lay person The Supreme Court seems like any other group riven with conflicts of interest and shady dealings. It's bad enough I have this throughout much of my government...but at the S.C. level it's incredibly sad.

BTW I understand your post and all the valid points you make. I shall suggest however if the "mandate" issue comes down on straight party lines...rightly or wrongly it will be another huge PR hit for the Court in the public's eyes.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 5, 2011 7:40 AM | Report abuse

Further to lms and Mark:

This is not to say that a case like that was simple. To the contrary, some of the issues involved were among the most complex in any case I've handled. But in the end, the relevant legal rules that should have compelled victory in our favor were not reasonably debatable. To the extent that the judge even tried to justify his rulings, however, he used the surrounding complexity to try to explain it. It made no sense to anyone adept in the field of law. But there it was. He had his agenda, which was that my client must lose.

In many other cases, as Mark says, there are ambiguities or opacities that leave room for argument, particularly at the Supreme Court level. In general, the cases they take are the hardest. That's why they take them. A good example from last year is Shady Grove v. Allstate. Look it up and read the competing opinions if you have the fortitude. (It is a daunting task for nonlawyers because of the technical nature of the issues.) It concerns a complex relationship between federal and state laws -- more particularly which substantive and procedural rules federal courts must apply in cases based on state law. It is truly a legal puzzle that results from a confluence of various strands of legislation and judicial doctrine that were not all developed or written by the same people at the same time for the same reasons.

I happen in that case to think that Stevens' lone concurrence is the closest to getting it "right," and Scalia's plurality clearly the most wrong. (And they lined up largely contrary to their presumed ideological biases -- the cons against big business, the libs "for" it.)

After having said all that, however, I come back to this: to get Platonic for a minute, it nevertheless is the case that the idea of "law" is that it be clear. Why? So that people can understand it and guide their conduct accordingly. Most of the time "the law" is adequately clear. When it isn't, judges have various doctrines that they will try to apply, like evaluating policy purposes of the law, or adopting interetations that give effect to all provisions rather than nullify some of them. (Some of these are called "canons of construction.")

But I would also argue that politically liberal judges and lawyers are much more frequently responsible for "finding" legal "indeterminacy" where it really doesn't exist, and bending "the law" to their political ends than conservatives have been. Nor do I believe this is really that controversial a statement.

(cont'd, again!)

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 5, 2011 7:43 AM | Report abuse

So it looks like Palin's people prudently omitted the tricky Israel problem all together. That's smart and I should have considered the possibility. It avoids the problem of her later looking silly if the situation turns in a direction positive or negative, and it avoids the problem of her position making internal conservative divisions and confusions more evident (no nuance please, just simple and repeated storyline).

Another smart move was to frame a narrative of "big government couched in terms of national greatness". So she's still got some professionals around her (I haven't read the transcript, just bits).

ps to Kevin if you are around... the above is an example of "framing a narrative". Another is the Bush/Rice "in the shape of a mushroom cloud". Neither are lies. Bush's "there are no war plans on my desk" was a lie.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 5, 2011 7:44 AM | Report abuse

Obama is trying to hand a piece of the Egyptian government over to the Muslim Brotherhood.

That is a formula for a disaster: the act of an unqualified and inexperienced person who has zero idea what he is doing.

ONCE the Muslim Brotherhood comes into the government in any form, there is little to PREVENT them from taking over completely - or exercising significant control.

This is extremely serious.

Obama has zero idea what he is doing. He has not made sure the intelligence community has adequate resources in the Middle East. The US intelligence community messed up - same thing happened under Clinton. The democrats treat the intelligence community as near-criminals, and usually tries to STARVE them by cutting their budgets.


Clinton did the SAME THING.


Clinton is guilty of negligence with regard to 9/11. Clinton did not fund the intelligence community properly, and Clinton allowed/directed the withdrawl of many intelligence resources out of the Middle East.

NOW who does Obama have in charge of the CIA? A Clinton person.

Getting back to Obama - he has zero idea what he is doing.


WE CAN NOT ALLOW THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD TO ENTER THE EGYPTIAN GOVERNMENT


If Obama allows that, his LOYALTY to American national security interests HAS TO BE PUT INTO QUESTION.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 5, 2011 7:50 AM | Report abuse

rukidding writes

Thanks for that EXCELLENT post on the Supremes. It was enlightening, informative, and appreciated.


_______________________________


How about you, rukidding, stop writing hostile and uncivil comments - AND attempt to adhere to this standard in EVERY comment which you make.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 5, 2011 7:52 AM | Report abuse

Will Bunch on five key myths about Reagan...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2011/02/04/ST2011020403674.html?hpid=topnews

And if you haven't read Bunch's "Tear Down This Myth", you should. As always nowadays, used copies for pennies...

http://www.amazon.com/Tear-Down-This-Myth-Distorted/dp/141659762X

Posted by: bernielatham | February 5, 2011 7:54 AM | Report abuse

@jprestonian

"For instance, look at the commenting system at my blog (my userID dot blogspot.com). It allows client-side filtering + server-side banning, and doesn't have to load all the comments on every refresh... even has AUTO-refresh! I'm working with the developer to simplify and snazz-up the UI right now. I think it's the best commenting system ever conceived."

I went to your blog and discovered like me you are a cat lover. Aside from that however I was unable to find your "comments" section so I could see how it works...at least comments besides yours...comments from outsiders who had just wandered onto your blog and left their opinions or "takes" on a subject.

Still if "it's the best commenting system ever conceived." How about sending a detailed email to Greg to give to his techies.

While many of we regulars have been pleading for months...while the WaPo..has to know the Fix ran off many of it's contributors because of these questions of banning or dealing with the mentally disturbed anti-social amongst us..we are still waiting.

As a regular I've been trying to hang on because of the number of intellectual people who post. It seems sad to let one, or even several, individuals destroy the experience for the rest of us. I should think worse still for Greg and the WaPo that this loon discourages any new participation. If I hadn't known this blog before it ever got to WaPo...before we were ever infected by the sock puppet sicko..I would have made one quick pass...saw that oftentimes as much as 50% of the comments are from an anti social looney tune...I would have been gone before I ever discovered the value of the many cogent posters who show up here.

Occasionally somebody wanders in here and mistakenly engages our sicko with a genuine post. Generally a regular informs that poor soul not to expect a rational response because sock puppet breath is not really rational.

BTW...when this happens..a new person engages mr sock puppets...just anecdotally I rarely see that person return.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 5, 2011 8:09 AM | Report abuse

Further to lms and Mark:

I say this because, for one thing, legal realism and related approaches have been adopted and championed much more by "liberal" (and "left")than by "conservative" academics, judges and lawyers, openly and without excuse. And I think it is very much borne out in case law, where the left is usually "pushing the envelope" of constitutional and statutory interpretation. Roe v Wade remains a classic here. I always go back to it. You can think what you want about abortion, but at the end of the day Blackmun had to spin a fantastic and flimsy web of rationalizations to "find" a right to abortion in "emanations from penumbras" of the actual text of the Constitution.

The left tends to view this as the perfectly legitimate and indeed critical role of the judiciary -- to construe the "open textured" terms of a "living constitution" to "expand liberty," etc. The text plainly doesn't speak to anything like a federal abortion right. For conservatives, that's the end of it. For liberals, it isn't.

I also believe all this leads to the liberals' in fact being much more result-oriented than the conservatives. Many would undoubtedly dispute this, but in controversial cases (not the majority of relatively uncontroversial ones Mark references), I think the liberals much more reliably come out to a liberal conclusion. And I stress, again, that to their way of thinking, there really isn't anything wrong with this. I suppose my contention could be tested empirically with a good bit of research. I think it would be borne out. They more often start from a premise about "the law" that is rooted in legal realism and skepticism, and they view their role more as choosing modes of decision to get to the "right" kind of result.

Another case that comes to mind is the Deshaney case, where the dissent started out "Poor Joshua!" To me, it's another good exmample of the difference at work here. The legal argument for poor Joshua Deshaney was exceedingly slim, and would have worked a major revolution in constitutional law, but the unfortunate facts of the case would have led the liberals to "expand" the law in his favor. They saw this as the right thing to do -- find a way to rule for Joshua even thought "the law" was rather clearly against him.

Well, I've rambled enough and will end abruptly there. I'm sure I've said enough to outrage someone.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 5, 2011 8:13 AM | Report abuse


Obama is trying to hand a piece of the Egyptian government over to the Muslim Brotherhood.

That is a formula for a disaster: the act of an unqualified and inexperienced person who has zero idea what he is doing.

ONCE the Muslim Brotherhood comes into the government in any form, there is little to PREVENT them from taking over completely - or exercising significant control.

This is extremely serious.

Obama has zero idea what he is doing. He has not made sure the intelligence community has adequate resources in the Middle East. The US intelligence community messed up - same thing happened under Clinton. The democrats treat the intelligence community as near-criminals, and usually tries to STARVE them by cutting their budgets.


Clinton did the SAME THING.


Clinton is guilty of negligence with regard to 9/11. Clinton did not fund the intelligence community properly, and Clinton allowed/directed the withdrawl of many intelligence resources out of the Middle East.

NOW who does Obama have in charge of the CIA? A Clinton person.

Getting back to Obama - he has zero idea what he is doing.


WE CAN NOT ALLOW THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD TO ENTER THE EGYPTIAN GOVERNMENT


If Obama allows that, his LOYALTY to American national security interests HAS TO BE PUT INTO QUESTION.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 5, 2011 8:16 AM | Report abuse


Obama is trying to hand a piece of the Egyptian government over to the Muslim Brotherhood.

That is a formula for a disaster: the act of an unqualified and inexperienced person who has zero idea what he is doing.

ONCE the Muslim Brotherhood comes into the government in any form, there is little to PREVENT them from taking over completely - or exercising significant control.

This is extremely serious.

Obama has zero idea what he is doing. He has not made sure the intelligence community has adequate resources in the Middle East. The US intelligence community messed up - same thing happened under Clinton. The democrats treat the intelligence community as near-criminals, and usually tries to STARVE them by cutting their budgets.


Clinton did the SAME THING.


Clinton is guilty of negligence with regard to 9/11. Clinton did not fund the intelligence community properly, and Clinton allowed/directed the withdrawl of many intelligence resources out of the Middle East.

NOW who does Obama have in charge of the CIA? A Clinton person.

Getting back to Obama - he has zero idea what he is doing.


WE CAN NOT ALLOW THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD TO ENTER THE EGYPTIAN GOVERNMENT


If Obama allows that, his LOYALTY to American national security interests HAS TO BE PUT INTO QUESTION.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 5, 2011 8:16 AM | Report abuse

Another perfect example of how extremist conservatives can be scared poopless by actual democracy rather than the faux kind...

"In the past, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman suggested that Israel bomb the Aswan Dam. Three years ago, from the Knesset rostrum, he told Mubarak to go to hell. But now he's burning the phone line with calls to Israel's ambassadors around the world, instructing them to meet urgently with leaders in the host countries and deliver, as Haaretz reported earlier this week, a desperate message: "It is vital to preserve the stability of the Egyptian regime at all costs; the public criticism of President Mubarak must be toned down."

http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/the-battle-for-the-israeli-voter-passes-through-tahrir-square-1.341211

Posted by: bernielatham | February 5, 2011 8:17 AM | Report abuse

Bernie

"poopless"

NO, again you are being naive. These kinds of governments hold one or two sham elections, and then take over.


That is how HITLER operated.

OH, am I offending anyone by comparing the political tactics of HITLER with those which might be taken up by the Muslim Brotherhood ????


HA.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 5, 2011 8:21 AM | Report abuse

For this week, in order to get into the NRO site, you have to first digitally sign a contract to support Reagan's memory for a billion years. And then there's this on the front page...

"Don’t Count on Their Army
Yes, we trained Egypt’s army, but it’s still full of Egyptians.
Andrew C. McCarthy"

And you know what they're like.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 5, 2011 8:25 AM | Report abuse

Kristol has finally written something I can recommend...

"Now, people are more than entitled to their own opinions of how best to accomplish that democratic end. And it’s a sign of health that a political and intellectual movement does not respond to a complicated set of developments with one voice.

But hysteria is not a sign of health. When Glenn Beck rants about the caliphate taking over the Middle East from Morocco to the Philippines, and lists (invents?) the connections between caliphate-promoters and the American left, he brings to mind no one so much as Robert Welch and the John Birch Society. He’s marginalizing himself, just as his predecessors did back in the early 1960s.

Nor is it a sign of health when other American conservatives are so fearful of a popular awakening that they side with the dictator against the democrats. Rather, it’s a sign of fearfulness unworthy of Americans, of short-sightedness uncharacteristic of conservatives, of excuse-making for thuggery unworthy of the American conservative tradition."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/stand-freedom_541404.html

But Bill is all about forwarding the movement and electoral victory. We can understand the above as a repeat (or attempt at repeat) of Buckley's take-down of the Birchers. We can also understand it in the broader context of Kristol's recent advices for conservatives to "not waste the election" through nominating an extremist or someone who can't be reasonably expected to win (both will work to the detriment of the movement's future and he knows it).

Anyone sane would wish that Kristol's dream of decreased extremism in the movement would be pushed back. But as Kristol himself has been a key figure in facilitating that extremism, then it would be a fine thing if his dream and his movement come face to face with the recognition that their wounds, hopefully significant, are self-inflicted.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 5, 2011 8:42 AM | Report abuse

ps - note that Kristol does not go after Limbaugh

Posted by: bernielatham | February 5, 2011 8:43 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

""And you know what they're like. ""

Actually the words you posted were probably written by a headline writer trying to be witty. They don't appear in McCarthy's column anywhere.

And, not surprisingly, McCarthy's point is hardly what you imply. Speaking of the military, he says:

"Its uppermost ranks, from which rose Egypt’s presidents — Mubarak, Sadat, and modern Egypt’s founder, Gamal Abdel Nasser — are today largely pro-American. The rank and file, however, have always included thousands of Muslim fundamentalists and radicals. Unquestionably, military service is a leveling experience, creating a common bond that unites different social strata. We should not overstate its effect, though. The military features all the complexity and divisions of Egypt at large."

Of course, one would have to have actually, you know, read the article to know what he was talking about. Which I'm guessing you didn't bother with, cheap shots rather than understanding being your purpose.

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 5, 2011 8:50 AM | Report abuse

@Scott - I've found few reasons to read McCarthy. But you'll perhaps note that I said nothing about McCarthy at all above. I merely copied and pasted (verbatim) the headline which, sitting big and bold on the NRO front page, is a product of the NRO staff and editors. Yes?

Posted by: bernielatham | February 5, 2011 8:55 AM | Report abuse

Show of hands.

Is anyone remotely interested in quarterback's cartoon caricatures of this imaginary "left?" Does this stuff correspond in any way with anything that actually, you know, exists?

Posted by: caothien9 | February 5, 2011 8:59 AM | Report abuse

Following on the theological education we've been getting from Bill O'Reilly, we're treated to another geography less on Egypt by FOX, in this instance, courtesy of Glenn Beck...

http://www.salon.com/news/glenn_beck/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/02/04/hello_from_egypt

Though I didn't even know it, it seems that while living in Manhattan I was perhaps much nearer the Suez than I'd dreamed...

And don't skip that internal link to America's modern Moses...

http://twitpic.com/3wiqyy

Posted by: bernielatham | February 5, 2011 9:00 AM | Report abuse

Holy moly... Kagan too goes after Beck!

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/even-neocon-robert-kagan-has-had-enough-be

I hope someone gives Ailes a call today.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 5, 2011 9:05 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

As I said, it is probably the product of a copy editor who, yes, works for NRO. But you added your snark, with the obvious implications. Those implications are not borne out in the article itself.

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 5, 2011 9:06 AM | Report abuse

I didn't say they were, Scott. Regardless of who wrote that headline (and that's not an unimportant role for a web publication in that it is what inspires clicks and retention) it would have gone through whatever editorial mechanisms they have in place. The NRO is responsible for what sits on its pages, particularly its front page. That McCarthy didn't write it (I presume not) is irrelevant.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 5, 2011 9:10 AM | Report abuse

All, a fresh Open Thread for you:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/02/open_thread_19.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | February 5, 2011 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Kind of a belly laugh that Kristol would talk about nominating someone electable after gushing over Sarah Palin for two years, someone not only extreme and unelectable but laughably unprepared.

Glass houses, Bill.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 5, 2011 9:12 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

""Holy moly... Kagan too goes after Beck!""

Hopefully you won't let this shake your faith in the existence of the Vast Right Wing Propaganda Conspiracy. Surely there is some way to weave these seemingly inconvenient condemnations into the theory. Beck is now doing more harm than good, so he must be expelled form the organization of which, until now, he has been so integral a part, perhaps? I guess they must be praying that, once excommunicated, Beck doesn't go all whistle blower and reveal his own participation in the meetings to formulate plans to Prevent The Building Of A Liberal Consensus. (h/t George B.)

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 5, 2011 9:18 AM | Report abuse

Mark and qb

Boy, a girl has to get up early here on the West Coast to keep up with you guys.

Thank you both for the detailed explanations. I'm glad to know that many of the SC decisions are less difficult and fall less along partisan lines than others. I understand that by the time a case reaches that level there have probably been conflicting decisions from lower courts citing different precedent.

I'm wondering if Mark agrees with qb regarding the gradual pull to the left over the years that he and other conservatives seem to complain about. And ruk make a great point that from the peanut gallery we lay people really do have the impression that the court rules on many of the big cases (eg Citzen's United) along partisan lines. If that's true I can't help but wonder how we got here. I'm sure it is at least partially because of the notoriety of such cases but it sure seems there is some outside lobbying going on.

I'm also wondering why, if Roe v Wade was such a gross miscarriage of justice, it hasn't been able to be over-tuned yet.

I have almost no stake in the individual mandate, I don't really care one way or another if it survives. I think either way we are heading toward a single payer system over the long term, nothing else will work IMO. I can see both sides of the issue but I'm finding it very interesting to see the search for precedent and partisan back and forth. It's one of those battles that turns the rest of us off regarding government and the courts though.

I think the real question I was getting at is how can lawyers always seem so certain that their legal position is the "correct" one? I suppose in the long run it's not that much different than any other field that has a little overlapping grey area.

Anyway, thanks again.

Posted by: lmsinca | February 5, 2011 9:29 AM | Report abuse

lms,

Libraries are full of lawyers' efforts to explain and argue these issues. Mine at least are rather pathetic efforts to convey some of the issues as I see them. Sorry for blathering on.

"I'm also wondering why, if Roe v Wade was such a gross miscarriage of justice, it hasn't been able to be over-tuned yet."

My answer to that would be, in the end, politics. Had Bork not been Borked by Ted Kennedy et al, he would have been on the court rather than Anthony Kennedy, and Roe would have been overturned 5-4 in the Casey case in 1992.

Instead, Kennedy joined O'Connor and Souter in a plurality opinion saying, essentially, it might have been wrong, but we can't reverse it now, because it is so controversial.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 5, 2011 9:39 AM | Report abuse

Sorry Scott but my understanding of this stuff is sophisticated enough such that a comment like your last one isn't effective.

But we can agree, I expect, that NPR is run by Nazis.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 5, 2011 9:42 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

""Scott but my understanding of this stuff is sophisticated enough...""

No doubt.

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 5, 2011 9:48 AM | Report abuse

I've been wondering if O'Reilly, in his interview with Obama, will initiate discussion on theology and astrophysics. I hope so.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 5, 2011 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

""I hope so.""

He might, but don't count on much of a response beyond, perhaps, "That's above my pay grade."

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 5, 2011 10:28 AM | Report abuse

"Again it's hard for a lay person to accept any group of people..whether it be city council...a corporate board of directors..where a small group of people decide an issue and at least one of those members has a clear direct benefit if the decision should go one way and not the other. Ginni Thomas has earned hundreds of thousands of $$ literally campaigning against the ACA with Tea Party types and other conservatives. When her husband "forgets" to even list that income much less the source...well the only way I'll ever regain any respect for the S.C. is if Thomas recuses himself.

"Toss in Scalia's warm friendly relationship with people like the infamous Koch brothers, and their secret meetings, and again to a lay person The Supreme Court seems like any other group riven with conflicts of interest and shady dealings."

What you completely fail to cite is, in fact, any actual conflict of interest.
Even taken at face value and ignoring your spin and embellishments, what you've charged in no way shows that Thomas or Scalia will benefit in any way from a decision on ACA.

And your disgust is obviously selective, whether or not you admit it. Elena Kagan went directly from the O Admin that pushed O-care through to the Court.


Posted by: quarterback1 | February 5, 2011 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Reality Check:

The Republican Party Is Going To Bat, to allow Freeloaders who can afford to pay for Insurance, to not do so. What next; Will the Republicans go to bat to allow deadbeat dads to not pay child support?

If most healthy people opt out of purchasing insurance, the health care Insurance Industry, and most likely the Medical Providers system will collapse.

The Insurance Industry is based solely on having a large number of low risk, healthy people in their pools, to allow them to skim large profit margins, large salaries/bonuses, and operating expenses off the top of their premiums receivables. It is really a Ponzi scheme. Pay us when you are healthy, and we will drop you, if you look like you are going to start asking for a payout.

So who are the Republicans going to bat for, with their efforts to repeal the individual mandate? Isn't it mostly a bunch of free loaders, risk takers, or dead beats?

It has to be, or else the Insurance Companies would have already gone out of business.

So why are The Republicans going to bat for that minority of people, who just do not want to contribute their fair share?

They are still going to seek to medical care, as needed, but they just are not prepared to contribute to covering the over all costs of the system.

Should we also let them show up at restaurants, when ever they run out of food, and be allowed to eat for free?

I am not talking about people who are so poor they can not afford the premiums. The reform bill already addressed that issue. I am talking about people who can afford the premiums but do not want to pay anything for coverage, but still will seek medical care, when ever the get injured or become seriously sick.

It still strikes me, that all The Republicans are doing, is going to bat for that class of freeloaders.

Posted by: Liam-still | February 5, 2011 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Wouldn't the stupid (Majority Leader Reid's word, or at least opinion of) Justice Thomas, and perhaps the evil Justice Scalia (cue dramatic organ music and screaming villagers) benefit if Obamacare is upheld? I mean, it's pretty obvious that Ginnie Thomas' (insert appropriate insults here) sole reason for opposing Obamacare is to make money, right? Or to "rally the troops" so she can exercise influence in her lobbying efforts (to make money). And the Koch brothers, while they may have money, desire more influence. What would drive us 'necks (as shrink calls us) into greater leader-following frenzy that Obamacare being upheld. Hence their obvious order to their lacky, Scalia, UpHold! How is this logic flawed?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | February 5, 2011 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Duke University law professor Walter Dellinger argues that the commerce clause justifies the individual mandate because "the unpredictability of when or if a citizen will need health care makes the insurance market different than markets for other products."
----------------------------------------
Well, that's GOT to be the most irrelevant argument ever written as to how individuals are really packages in the interstate commerce system.

Posted by: illogicbuster | February 6, 2011 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company