If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS News)   Federal Appeals Court orders the Obama Administration to have the Constitutional Law Professor President give the judges a teaching moment to explain why 200+ years of precedent is wrong   (cbsnews.com) divider line 425
    More: Amusing, President Obama, United States courts of appeals, Obama administration, legal education, direct response, judicial review, United States Code, landmark case  
•       •       •

5190 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Apr 2012 at 10:34 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



425 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-04 11:08:19 AM

justtray: As mentioned by a constituional law professor in another link from a few days ago, any argument made against the healthcare reform would ultimately be entirely frivilous.

Obama should take the call to put the activist conservative supreme court justices in their place.

Then again I hope they strike it down. I'd love to see the impeachment process finally start to get rolling for people like Thomas.


A few years ago I would have been horrified at the thought of impeaching Supreme Court Justices. But they have willingly stepped into partisan politics. I do not like the idea of all 3 branches of government actively engaged in partisan political wars. But what are you going to do when the branch that is supposed to be apolitical enters the fray of its own free will? Add to that the irresponsibility of the justices in not removing themselves from cases where they have an obvious conflict of interest. They should remove themselves even if there is an appearance of a conflict. But today we Thomas telling the American people there is no conflict of interest because I said so.
 
2012-04-04 11:08:22 AM
"a law that was passed by a strong majority "

My apologies on my Boobies, I said overwhelming....but the point still stands, 219-212 is NOT a strong majority, That's just 3.1% over, not strong, not strong at all.
 
2012-04-04 11:08:49 AM

jigger: 21-37-42: Obama over-played his hand. He gained nothing by opening his mouth. If anything, he's openly challenging the USSC to overturn the law just to prove a point.

Obama campaigned against the mandate in the primaries. Maybe he wants to see it go down.


Maybe he's enjoying watching the Republicans fall over themselves to defeat something they spent a year fighting for.
 
2012-04-04 11:08:56 AM

21-37-42: jigger: jigger: cameroncrazy1984: sprawl15: cameroncrazy1984: What did he "actually say" then?

"Ultimately I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

Has the court overturned a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress in the last, oh, 100 years that regulated interstate commerce?

No?

Then it's unprecedented.

Gonzales v. Lopez (1995) struck down a law that was passed almost unanimously where Congress claimed commerce clause powers.

shiat.

United States v. Lopez. (new window)

That's a good one. A senior in high school carrying a gun, which he planned to sell for $40, got off because the Federal "Gun Free Schools Act" exceeded congressional authority with regard to the commerce clause.

I love this country.


Yeah, I didn't get that either.
 
2012-04-04 11:08:56 AM

sprawl15: Wendy's Chili: Are you saying that purchasing health insurance is not an economic activity?

Not purchasing health insurance is not an economic activity.


Sure it is. Everyone needs health care. Those without insurance push their costs onto those who do.
 
2012-04-04 11:09:32 AM

mitchcumstein1: 21-37-42: Obama over-played his hand. He gained nothing by opening his mouth. If anything, he's openly challenging the USSC to overturn the law just to prove a point.

That's the sort of thing I want from the Supreme Court of the United States. Fark the law, let's stick it in the President's ass.


But after the clearly partisian political action of this Appeals Court, would the USSC "sticking it to" Obama surprise you?

Not me...
 
2012-04-04 11:09:41 AM

Weaver95: I've never understood how 'good christians' could vote against affordable health care for poor people.


Lulz.

I never understood why the guy who put the bop in bop she bop put two bops in there. And "poor people"!

/wow, Weaver that is some weak farking sauce.
 
2012-04-04 11:09:59 AM

Weaver95: cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: relcec:

I gave you the direct, word-for-word retarded quote that came from obama's mouth.

um...Obama was trolling you dude.

I think I gave him an aneurysm.

Obama is pretty good at the whole public relations thing. his biggest strength seems to be getting the right wing in this country to underestimate him, then using that to thwap Republicans upside the head.


The rampant racism of the Republican party seems to help in this regard, what with black people being no-good stupid doo-doo heads in their eyes.
 
2012-04-04 11:10:30 AM

FlashHarry: Weaver95: I'm actually kinda worried that an appellate court judge would be so childish. I dunno...I kind of expect judges to be more impartial or to at least show more self control while on the bench.

there has been a sea change in the judiciary since bush v. gore. the judicial branch is now just as partisan as the other two branches. our whole system is broken because the framers couldn't have foreseen how psychotically asshole-ish the republican party would become after 1994.


What an ironic and idiotic statement.
 
2012-04-04 11:10:36 AM

halfof33: Weaver95: I've never understood how 'good christians' could vote against affordable health care for poor people.

Lulz.

I never understood why the guy who put the bop in bop she bop put two bops in there. And "poor people"!

/wow, Weaver that is some weak farking sauce.


Did you have a recent stroke?
 
2012-04-04 11:11:01 AM
I love that the judge is stomping his feet about this.

Personally, it looks like Obama misspoke. He was trying to talk up his legislation and the significance and he said something stupid. It isn't unprecedented.

From his clarification, it looks like he realizes that he overstepped his point.
 
2012-04-04 11:11:12 AM

badaboom: FlashHarry: Weaver95: I'm actually kinda worried that an appellate court judge would be so childish. I dunno...I kind of expect judges to be more impartial or to at least show more self control while on the bench.

there has been a sea change in the judiciary since bush v. gore. the judicial branch is now just as partisan as the other two branches. our whole system is broken because the framers couldn't have foreseen how psychotically asshole-ish the republican party would become after 1994.

What an ironic and idiotic statement.


In light of this clearly partisan judge, how so?
 
2012-04-04 11:12:26 AM

sammyk: A few years ago I would have been horrified at the thought of impeaching Supreme Court Justices. But they have willingly stepped into partisan politics. I do not like the idea of all 3 branches of government actively engaged in partisan political wars. But what are you going to do when the branch that is supposed to be apolitical enters the fray of its own free will? Add to that the irresponsibility of the justices in not removing themselves from cases where they have an obvious conflict of interest. They should remove themselves even if there is an appearance of a conflict. But today we Thomas telling the American people there is no conflict of interest because I said so.


I wonder if he knows that the 5th Circuit is not the Supreme Court and that the Germans did not in fact bomb Pearl Harbor?
 
Bf+
2012-04-04 11:12:37 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: relcec:

I gave you the direct, word-for-word retarded quote that came from obama's mouth.

um...Obama was trolling you dude.

I think I gave him an aneurysm.

Obama is pretty good at the whole public relations thing. his biggest strength seems to be getting the right wing in this country to underestimate him, then using that to thwap Republicans upside the head.

The rampant racism of the Republican party seems to help in this regard, what with black people being no-good stupid doo-doo heads in their eyes.



It's like trolling fish in a barrel...
 
2012-04-04 11:13:02 AM

MrBigglesworth: I thought Obama was supposed to be the smart president?

He said that the the law was passed with an overwhelming majority?


No, he didn't.
 
2012-04-04 11:13:51 AM

Wendy's Chili: They ruled that carrying a pistol was not an economic activity. Are you saying that purchasing health insurance is not an economic activity?


That's what gets me. It's one thing to say that carrying a pistol in a school isn't an economic activity and doesn't affect interstate commerce, but it's utterly different in kind to say that your financial choices about your healthcare don't affect interstate commerce. It most certainly, and directly, does.
 
2012-04-04 11:13:52 AM

Wendy's Chili: They ruled that carrying a pistol was not an economic activity. Are you saying that purchasing health insurance is not an economic activity?


It's not unprecedented within the last 100 years for the court to overturn a law enacted by a large majority of Congress under the guise of commerce clause powers.

But since you shifted the point, Wickard is where the SC was bullied into ruling that not participating interstate commerce "affects" interstate commerce so it "is" interstate commerce, which is retarded. That set the precedent for Congress to begin regulating all sorts of things that "affect" interstate commerce without "being" interstate commerce. Not buying insurance may "affect" interstate commerce, but it's not interstate commerce. Growing your own vegetables for your own consumption in your own backyard is also not interstate commerce, but right now Congress claims the power to force you to do it or stop doing it. Everything in some small way "affects" interstate commerce, but the power to regulate everything is not what the commerce clause says Congress should have.
 
2012-04-04 11:14:04 AM

cameroncrazy1984: halfof33: Weaver95: I've never understood how 'good christians' could vote against affordable health care for poor people.

Lulz.

I never understood why the guy who put the bop in bop she bop put two bops in there. And "poor people"!

/wow, Weaver that is some weak farking sauce.

Did you have a recent stroke?


I've never understood how 'good christians' could imply that I've had a stroke, and poor people.

POOR PEOPLE!
 
2012-04-04 11:14:11 AM

halfof33: Weaver95: I've never understood how 'good christians' could vote against affordable health care for poor people.

Lulz.

I never understood why the guy who put the bop in bop she bop put two bops in there. And "poor people"!

/wow, Weaver that is some weak farking sauce.


Many Republican go to extreme lengths to remind us all that they believe in Jesus. well...one of the thing Jesus was pretty good at was affordable health care for poor people. lets face it - he went around healing the sick and poor all the time and never once asked for anything in return. So it would seem to me that if you wanted to be 'christ like' then you'd work to find a way to make health care affordable for poor people. ok, well...affordable for everyone really.

But on this issue, suddenly the GOP is cold and hard hearted. they're doing exactly the opposite of 'christ like'. they're in fact trying their level best to either maintain the status quo OR make it more difficult tor poor people to find affordable health care. I just don't get it. how can they call themselves christian when they go around doing something that is exactly the opposite of what their god commanded them to do?
 
2012-04-04 11:14:41 AM

cameroncrazy1984: badaboom: FlashHarry: Weaver95: I'm actually kinda worried that an appellate court judge would be so childish. I dunno...I kind of expect judges to be more impartial or to at least show more self control while on the bench.

there has been a sea change in the judiciary since bush v. gore. the judicial branch is now just as partisan as the other two branches. our whole system is broken because the framers couldn't have foreseen how psychotically asshole-ish the republican party would become after 1994.

What an ironic and idiotic statement.

In light of this clearly partisan judge, how so?


Completely blaming partisanship on the OTHER guys....
 
2012-04-04 11:14:45 AM

MrBigglesworth: "a law that was passed by a strong majority "

My apologies on my Boobies, I said overwhelming....but the point still stands, 219-212 is NOT a strong majority, That's just 3.1% over, not strong, not strong at all.


There's another house of Congress. It passed by a larger majority there. 60-39.
 
2012-04-04 11:14:47 AM

cameroncrazy1984: sprawl15: Wendy's Chili: Are you saying that purchasing health insurance is not an economic activity?

Not purchasing health insurance is not an economic activity.

Yes it is


^ This is a different argument than this v

cameroncrazy1984: Your not purchasing insurance has an impact on the economy.


The argument is not that not purchasing health insurance is interstate commerce, but that the aggregate effect of many people not purchasing health insurance drives changes to the health insurance market which drives changes to the health care market, and that Congress is allowed to regulate the first step in the chain to control prices in the last step of the chain.

Nobody's arguing that not buying insurance doesn't have an effect on interstate commerce, merely that not buying it is not in and of itself interstate commerce - and cannot be independently regulated - and that the chain of causality is too large without a theoretical limiting factor that nobody has yet managed to come up with.
 
2012-04-04 11:15:07 AM

someonelse: MrBigglesworth: I thought Obama was supposed to be the smart president?

He said that the the law was passed with an overwhelming majority?

No, he didn't.


Wow, you noticed, or didn't that I corrected myself before your post. WTG, now can you admit when you are wrong after I already did before your post?
 
2012-04-04 11:15:07 AM

bulldg4life: I love that the judge is stomping his feet about this.

Personally, it looks like Obama misspoke. He was trying to talk up his legislation and the significance and he said something stupid. It isn't unprecedented.

From his clarification, it looks like he realizes that he overstepped his point.


crooksandliars.com

YOU CAN'T WALK BACK STATEMENTS!!!
ONCE YOU SAY IT IT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU MEANT AND FURTHER EXPLANATION IS AN ACT AGAINST GOD
57STATESLOBSTERGOOOGOOLAGARRRRBLGLRGLGLG
 
2012-04-04 11:15:22 AM

someonelse: MrBigglesworth: I thought Obama was supposed to be the smart president?

He said that the the law was passed with an overwhelming majority?

No, he didn't.


FTA:

"Kaersvang replies yes, and Smith continues: "I'm referring to statements by the president in past few days to the effect, and sure you've heard about them, that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed 'unelected' judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed -- he was referring to, of course, Obamacare -- to what he termed broad consensus in majorities in both houses of Congress.""
 
2012-04-04 11:15:36 AM

cameroncrazy1984: That's a good one. A senior in high school carrying a gun, which he planned to sell for $40, got off because the Federal "Gun Free Schools Act" exceeded congressional authority with regard to the commerce clause.

I love this country.

Yeah, I didn't get that either.


Sometimes the details of the case are irrelevant to the constitutional issue.
 
2012-04-04 11:15:41 AM
"Unprecedented" in a legal sense means something completely different from the colloquial sense. In the legal sense, it means "has never happened, ever" while colloquially, it's used for "extremely unlikely" and isn't as absolute.

Now, a Harvard Law Review President should pick his words more carefully when he's talking about the Court, which Obama realized, hence the next-day correction. But a right wing judge pulling one word out and giving a punitive homework assignment to some staff attorney is just being petty.

someonelse: On what basis can a federal appeals court "order" the administration to make any kind of statement?


That's what judges do. They issue orders. If a judge issues you an order, you follow it, or he'll hold you in contempt, which can include indefinite jail time. If it's an illegal order, you can usually go to a higher court to try to avoid the order, but you better be ready to comply in the meantime.

As far as whether this is illegal, I don't really think so. A judge can ask for briefing on any issue of a case, although only the most retarded and assholish judges would ask for briefing on Marbury v. Madison, which is just ConLaw 1 stuff.
 
2012-04-04 11:15:51 AM

sprawl15: Not purchasing health insurance is not an economic activity.


"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice"
-upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-04-04 11:16:37 AM

halfof33: sammyk: A few years ago I would have been horrified at the thought of impeaching Supreme Court Justices. But they have willingly stepped into partisan politics. I do not like the idea of all 3 branches of government actively engaged in partisan political wars. But what are you going to do when the branch that is supposed to be apolitical enters the fray of its own free will? Add to that the irresponsibility of the justices in not removing themselves from cases where they have an obvious conflict of interest. They should remove themselves even if there is an appearance of a conflict. But today we Thomas telling the American people there is no conflict of interest because I said so.

I wonder if he knows that the 5th Circuit is not the Supreme Court and that the Germans did not in fact bomb Pearl Harbor?


I wonder if you know that the 5th Circuit is part of the Judicial Branch...
 
2012-04-04 11:17:21 AM

MrBigglesworth: He said that the the law was passed with an overwhelming majority?


Citation needed. I didn't see that word in any of the quotes I've read.

sprawl15: Not purchasing health insurance is not an economic activity.


Says the guy who don't know much about History. (Don't know much Biology...)

Not buying buggywhips but a real crimp in the "economic activity" of the buggywhip industry, wouldn't you agree?
 
2012-04-04 11:17:40 AM

21-37-42: mitchcumstein1: 21-37-42: Obama over-played his hand. He gained nothing by opening his mouth. If anything, he's openly challenging the USSC to overturn the law just to prove a point.

That's the sort of thing I want from the Supreme Court of the United States. Fark the law, let's stick it in the President's ass.

But after the clearly partisian political action of this Appeals Court, would the USSC "sticking it to" Obama surprise you?

Not me...


No, it wouldn't. The Supreme Court is now just as political as any of the other two branches of government.
 
2012-04-04 11:19:20 AM
Thank goodness Obama is appointing good legal minds to the courts, rather than political partisans.
 
2012-04-04 11:19:24 AM

Deucednuisance: Not buying buggywhips but a real crimp in the "economic activity" of the buggywhip industry, wouldn't you agree?


If the law dictates that you can go to a Buggywhip Emergency Center and get a buggywhip for free, even if you can't pay, and the federal government or states end up paying for those buggywhips, then certainly choosing not to buy a buggywhip directly affects interstate commerce.
 
2012-04-04 11:19:33 AM

mitchcumstein1: 21-37-42: Obama over-played his hand. He gained nothing by opening his mouth. If anything, he's openly challenging the USSC to overturn the law just to prove a point.

That's the sort of thing I want from the Supreme Court of the United States. Fark the law, let's stick it in the President's ass.


An interesting point to make is that while the other branches can call press conferences, and issue all sorts of opinions and off the cuff remarks, including those intended to call the judiciary's motivations into question...the judiciary does not have that option. In fact, they, for better or worse, are ethically barred from doing so.

It is why it was seen as crude of Obama to call them out at his SOTU speech a few years back. They can't answer his criticisms.

This is another time in which the administration can call them out but they can't respond. The call out may be okay, ethical, and legal, but it doesn't mean that it won't have an effect on a judiciary that is already isolated and unable to explain their own motivations past very limited circumstances brought before them in a politically chosen cases.

But, yeah, this panel of judges is being pissy. And Obama sounded pissy, but what he said was simply a plea (a political plea) that they not do what is well within their jurisdiction to do.
 
2012-04-04 11:19:58 AM
Meanwhile, while we all circlejerk about the constitutionality of the health care mandate, the same liberty loving conservatives on the supreme court just majority opinion'd that the police have the right to strip search you for being arrested.

Clearly, government should only be big enough to jam it's finger up your ass looking for drugs, when you were pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt, while being small enough to let the poor die in the street before accessing affordable healthcare.
 
2012-04-04 11:20:21 AM

Deucednuisance: MrBigglesworth: He said that the the law was passed with an overwhelming majority?

Citation needed. I didn't see that word in any of the quotes I've read.

sprawl15: Not purchasing health insurance is not an economic activity.

Says the guy who don't know much about History. (Don't know much Biology...)

Not buying buggywhips but a real crimp in the "economic activity" of the buggywhip industry, wouldn't you agree?


Wow, You too huh? Look up above, I already corrected myself. Now will you do the same by understanding that this is the SECOND mention of this where I know I made a mistake and then commented on the correct statement? I know you wont, but whatever.
 
2012-04-04 11:20:32 AM

21-37-42: halfof33: sammyk: A few years ago I would have been horrified at the thought of impeaching Supreme Court Justices. But they have willingly stepped into partisan politics. I do not like the idea of all 3 branches of government actively engaged in partisan political wars. But what are you going to do when the branch that is supposed to be apolitical enters the fray of its own free will? Add to that the irresponsibility of the justices in not removing themselves from cases where they have an obvious conflict of interest. They should remove themselves even if there is an appearance of a conflict. But today we Thomas telling the American people there is no conflict of interest because I said so.

I wonder if he knows that the 5th Circuit is not the Supreme Court and that the Germans did not in fact bomb Pearl Harbor?

I wonder if you know that the 5th Circuit is part of the Judicial Branch...


I wonder why you didn't read the farking post I was replying to which said "Supreme Court justices"??
 
2012-04-04 11:21:28 AM

Weaver95: But on this issue, suddenly the GOP is cold and hard hearted. they're doing exactly the opposite of 'christ like'.


So, Weaver, are you saying that we should in fact govern from the Bible?
 
2012-04-04 11:22:00 AM

Deucednuisance: Not buying buggywhips but a real crimp in the "economic activity" of the buggywhip industry, wouldn't you agree?


Sure. In the buggywhip industry's activities. The people who didn't buy buggywhips, however, were not involved in that industry. Which is why it went out of business.

This is a pretty textbook example of why bad analogies used by ignorant people tend to be wastes of everybody's time.
 
2012-04-04 11:22:04 AM
Actually, Marbury v. Madison has a serious problem. Chief Justice Marshall had a conflict of interest and should have recused himself.

The case involved appointments made in the final days of the Adams administration, which his Secretary of State failed to finalize through delivery. The Secretary of State was John Marshall.

/why yes, I am fun at parties
//the people I trap in corners love hearing lots of archaic trivia
 
2012-04-04 11:22:16 AM
To everyone who thinks that 5th Circuit Judge Jerry Smith is 100% in the right, how do you feel about Greta Van Susteren telling the Department of Justice to refuse to comply with the order and dare Judge Smith to hold the DOJ in contempt? Money quote:

VAN SUSTEREN: I imagine the discussion tonight at the Justice Department - I would certainly be having this discussion - is to refuse to do it. Because it really is beyond what is necessary in the case. It has nothing to do with the case. And the lawyer answered the question in court. And it's clearly just, you know, the judge is mad. And to refuse to do it, maybe you draw a contempt charge but then I would then take it up with the full court. I'm not so sure the Department of Justice has to comply with this.
 
2012-04-04 11:23:25 AM
]

sprawl15: Nobody's arguing that not buying insurance doesn't have an effect on interstate commerce, merely that not buying it is not in and of itself interstate commerce - and cannot be independently regulated


Isn't this the same argument in Wickard v. Filburn in which the Supreme Court upheld the ability of the Congress to regulate it?

Yes, I think it was.
 
2012-04-04 11:23:31 AM

I_C_Weener: It is why it was seen as crude of Obama to call them out at his SOTU speech a few years back.


Was it seen as crude when GWB did it and Reagan did it - twice?
 
2012-04-04 11:24:21 AM

I_C_Weener: Weaver95: But on this issue, suddenly the GOP is cold and hard hearted. they're doing exactly the opposite of 'christ like'.

So, Weaver, are you saying that we should in fact govern from the Bible?


They shouldn't call themselves compassionate conservatives when the only thing they are passionate about is the stripping of our government of any services that might help the poor, the old, and the disabled. Exactly the people Jesus would want to fark over.
 
2012-04-04 11:24:26 AM

I_C_Weener: Weaver95: But on this issue, suddenly the GOP is cold and hard hearted. they're doing exactly the opposite of 'christ like'.

So, Weaver, are you saying that we should in fact govern from the Bible?


the Republicans certainly say that. Quite often, in fact. Oddly enough, when given a chance to follow true 'biblical principal' they seem to do exactly the opposite.
 
2012-04-04 11:24:28 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Brubold: ///next time maybe they'll actually take steps to lower HC costs

Like, I don't know

-making many preventative care options copay free
-ending bankruptcy via the ER because people have health insurance
-having pre-existing conditions covered

Stuff like that?

Yeah, they really should've put that stuff into the bill.


They didn't do anything to make HC costs come down on either the insurance side or the business side. Evan Bayh flat out admitted this on a radio interview a couple of years ago.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/former-senator-evan-bayh-admits-health - care-bill-does-not-stop-rising-health-costs/

The real issue that was not addressed, Laura, that you've raised now, and I think appropriately, is the cost, the cost to both the government and to your listeners. We need to take steps now to get the costs of health care under control. That was not dealt with really in an aggressive way in this legislation. I think it now needs to be.
 
2012-04-04 11:24:29 AM

badaboom: What an ironic and idiotic statement.


Explain yourself.

The statement was factual. In what way was it either "ironic" or "idiotic"?

Difficulty: Must include the continued candidacies of the four remaining GOP presidential candidates, and the apparent resurgent relevance of Sarah Palin.
 
2012-04-04 11:25:35 AM

halfof33: 21-37-42: halfof33: sammyk: A few years ago I would have been horrified at the thought of impeaching Supreme Court Justices. But they have willingly stepped into partisan politics. I do not like the idea of all 3 branches of government actively engaged in partisan political wars. But what are you going to do when the branch that is supposed to be apolitical enters the fray of its own free will? Add to that the irresponsibility of the justices in not removing themselves from cases where they have an obvious conflict of interest. They should remove themselves even if there is an appearance of a conflict. But today we Thomas telling the American people there is no conflict of interest because I said so.

I wonder if he knows that the 5th Circuit is not the Supreme Court and that the Germans did not in fact bomb Pearl Harbor?

I wonder if you know that the 5th Circuit is part of the Judicial Branch...

I wonder why you didn't read the farking post I was replying to which said "Supreme Court justices"??


I highlighted the farking portion I thought you were farking responding to.

/farking fark
 
2012-04-04 11:25:46 AM

Serious Black: To everyone who thinks that 5th Circuit Judge Jerry Smith is 100% in the right, how do you feel about Greta Van Susteren telling the Department of Justice to refuse to comply with the order and dare Judge Smith to hold the DOJ in contempt? Money quote:

VAN SUSTEREN: I imagine the discussion tonight at the Justice Department - I would certainly be having this discussion - is to refuse to do it. Because it really is beyond what is necessary in the case. It has nothing to do with the case. And the lawyer answered the question in court. And it's clearly just, you know, the judge is mad. And to refuse to do it, maybe you draw a contempt charge but then I would then take it up with the full court. I'm not so sure the Department of Justice has to comply with this.


She's an idiot. Oh la di da, I'm just going to take it up with the whole Court.

Yeah, that is how that works, moran
 
2012-04-04 11:26:05 AM

Brubold: cameroncrazy1984: Brubold: ///next time maybe they'll actually take steps to lower HC costs

Like, I don't know

-making many preventative care options copay free
-ending bankruptcy via the ER because people have health insurance
-having pre-existing conditions covered

Stuff like that?

Yeah, they really should've put that stuff into the bill.

They didn't do anything to make HC costs come down on either the insurance side or the business side. Evan Bayh flat out admitted this on a radio interview a couple of years ago.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/former-senator-evan-bayh-admits-health - care-bill-does-not-stop-rising-health-costs/

The real issue that was not addressed, Laura, that you've raised now, and I think appropriately, is the cost, the cost to both the government and to your listeners. We need to take steps now to get the costs of health care under control. That was not dealt with really in an aggressive way in this legislation. I think it now needs to be.


Oh, well if Evan Bayh said it, it must be true. Disregard all the CBO evidence and actual studies on healthcare costs since 2009. EVAN BAYH.
 
Displayed 50 of 425 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report