Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(USA Today)   Here's some salt for your wound, conservatives: Chief Justice Roberts was originally in favor of striking down the individual mandate but not the entire law, and switched his position because the other conservatives would not compromise   (content.usatoday.com) divider line 398
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

4815 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Jul 2012 at 12:33 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-02 11:37:33 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: If only I thought like you, I'd always be right.

If only you thought about things in terms of reality and not Ayn Rand or other political theory, you'd always be right.

Right now, arguing that the SCOTUS ruling something Constitutional does not make it so is asinine and wrong.

[images3.wikia.nocookie.net image 450x338]

When you have nothing, a "funny" image macro will always suffice.


Lol, how was I supposed to respond to what you said? You seem to stalk me and fling insults. I think that an image macro is an appropriate response to that.
 
2012-07-02 11:39:06 AM  

Beaver1224: The cries of "that's wrong" or "just 'cause they say don't make it so" have gotten me curious.

Has any SCOTUS ruling of Constitutionality (for or against) been overturned by later SCOTUS decisions? Not fixed by Amendment or what have you; just "that earlier SCOTUS ruling was incorrect."


yes
There are tons of cases pre-Miranda and pre-Gideon, where the court at that time rules one thing, and a later court ruled the opposite.

Court rulings are flexible and do not require amendments to overturn them.
For example, the court could rule that zygotes are people and therefore abortion is illegal everywhere. They wont, but they could.
 
2012-07-02 11:39:40 AM  

Silly Jesus: cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: If only I thought like you, I'd always be right.

If only you thought about things in terms of reality and not Ayn Rand or other political theory, you'd always be right.

Right now, arguing that the SCOTUS ruling something Constitutional does not make it so is asinine and wrong.

[images3.wikia.nocookie.net image 450x338]

When you have nothing, a "funny" image macro will always suffice.

Lol, how was I supposed to respond to what you said? You seem to stalk me and fling insults. I think that an image macro is an appropriate response to that.


You may be right. He's cameroncrazy. But he just might be the lunatic you're looking for!
 
2012-07-02 11:40:09 AM  
Hello thread,

I am retarded. My stance is now what Rincewind53 has so eloquently explained. I learned something today.

Sincerely,
Your Silly Savior
 
2012-07-02 11:41:13 AM  
 
2012-07-02 11:44:02 AM  
Correcting myself, it was Brutus XI, not IX. Written in 1788 and eerily prescient about the judicial branch in many ways (though wrong about a few things too):


"That the judicial power of the United States, will lean strongly in favour of the general government, and will give such an explanation to the constitution, as will favour an extension of its jurisdiction, is very evident from a variety of considerations."

"They will give the sense of every article of the constitution, that may from time to time come before them. And in their decisions they will not confine themselves to any fixed or established rules, but will determine, according to what appears to them, the reason and spirit of the constitution. The opinions of the supreme court, whatever they may be, will have the force of law; because there is no power provided in the constitution, that can correct their errors, or controul their adjudications. From this court there is no appeal. And I conceive the legislature themselves, cannot set aside a judgment of this court, because they are authorised by the constitution to decide in the last resort. The legislature must be controuled by the constitution, and not the constitution by them. They have therefore no more right to set aside any judgment pronounced upon the construction of the constitution, than they have to take from the president, the chief command of the army and navy, and commit it to some other person. The reason is plain; the judicial and executive derive their authority from the same source, that the legislature do theirs; and therefore in all cases, where the constitution does not make the one responsible to, or controulable by the other, they are altogether independent of each other."

The passage I mentioned earlier, on the inevitable expansion of Necessary and Proper:
"The clause which vests the power to pass all laws which are proper and necessary, to carry the powers given into execution, it has been shewn, leaves the legislature at liberty, to do every thing, which in their judgment is best. It is said, I know, that this clause confers no power on the legislature, which they would not have had without it - though I believe this is not the fact, yet, admitting it to be, it implies that the constitution is not to receive an explanation strictly, according to its letter; but more power is implied than is expressed."
 
2012-07-02 11:46:00 AM  

Silly Jesus: Hello thread,

I am retarded. My stance is now what Rincewind53 has so eloquently explained. I learned something today.

Sincerely,
Your Silly Savior


Wow. Did someone just state they learn something and admit they were wrong? And if so, am I still on Fark?
 
2012-07-02 11:50:13 AM  

gilgigamesh: Silly Jesus: Hello thread,

I am retarded. My stance is now what Rincewind53 has so eloquently explained. I learned something today.

Sincerely,
Your Silly Savior

Wow. Did someone just state they learn something and admit they were wrong? And if so, am I still on Fark?


I believe that a miracle has just occurred. Jesus is real!

/in all seriousness, glad I could help, dude. Just know that my position of "nothing is real!" isn't taken all that seriously by a lot of people and quite a few conservative scholars who like holding onto a solid bedrock of "The Constitution has objective meaning."
 
2012-07-02 11:55:37 AM  

gilgigamesh: Silly Jesus: Hello thread,

I am retarded. My stance is now what Rincewind53 has so eloquently explained. I learned something today.

Sincerely,
Your Silly Savior

Wow. Did someone just state they learn something and admit they were wrong? And if so, am I still on Fark?


1. Don't gloat.

2. A change of opinion is not the same as admitting having been wrong.

3. Yes, you're on Fark. Smile and wave at the camera.
 
2012-07-02 12:35:09 PM  
Instead, the four joined forces and crafted a highly unusual, unsigned joint dissent. They deliberately ignored Roberts' decision, the sources said, as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate.

Supreme Court judges that aren't even willing to debate anymore. That's farking amazing.

This is what happens when you appoint conservative assholes.
 
2012-07-02 12:36:37 PM  

Rincewind53: gilgigamesh: Silly Jesus: Hello thread,

I am retarded. My stance is now what Rincewind53 has so eloquently explained. I learned something today.

Sincerely,
Your Silly Savior

Wow. Did someone just state they learn something and admit they were wrong? And if so, am I still on Fark?

I believe that a miracle has just occurred. Jesus is real!

/in all seriousness, glad I could help, dude. Just know that my position of "nothing is real!" isn't taken all that seriously by a lot of people and quite a few conservative scholars who like holding onto a solid bedrock of "The Constitution has objective meaning."


Understood. I'm aware that every opinion has a counter-opinion. Yours seems quite reasonable to me though. There is still some part of me that feels that there *should* be some objective meaning to the Constitution...but at the same time I see the need for an evolving document that can be interpreted according to the norms of the time.
 
2012-07-02 12:37:34 PM  
Being obstinate dickwads finally bit them in the ass? You don't say!
 
2012-07-02 12:38:18 PM  

Lando Lincoln: Instead, the four joined forces and crafted a highly unusual, unsigned joint dissent. They deliberately ignored Roberts' decision, the sources said, as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate.

Supreme Court judges that aren't even willing to debate anymore. That's farking amazing.

This is what happens when you appoint conservative assholes.


What's terrifying is that they werent even willing to consider that there was a way that the law could be considered constitutional.

Taxes are constitutional.
This law is a tax.
QED
 
2012-07-02 12:38:56 PM  
HEY GUYS WHAT'S GOIN ON IN THIS THRE-

OH CRAP
 
2012-07-02 12:40:03 PM  
Wait. What? The conservative wing of the SC wouldn't compromise? Can that be right? They're entrenched reactionaries? Scalia? Thomas? Alito?

Come on. You're pulling my leg.
 
2012-07-02 12:41:03 PM  
Still not admitting to the fact that Obama and other liberals were wrong about the Commerce Clause?

Didn't think so.

And Kennedy is not a conservative.
 
2012-07-02 12:42:03 PM  

randomjsa: Still not admitting to the fact that Obama and other liberals were wrong about the Commerce Clause?

Didn't think so.

And Kennedy is not a conservative.


are you ok? are you holding up alright? we're in an obamacare run america now and I was concerned how you'd handle the transition.
 
2012-07-02 12:42:09 PM  

Lucky LaRue: Wait, wait, wait.. I'm having trouble understanding what you are implying, subby. Are you asking us to believe that conservatives wouldn't compromise?


HA!
 
2012-07-02 12:43:38 PM  

randomjsa: Still not admitting to the fact that Obama and other liberals were wrong about the Commerce Clause?


Does this make Palin president?

Oh wait no it changes absolutely nothing except for the fact that Romney is not responsible FOR THE LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN MASSACHUSETTS HISTORY!!!

FOREVER!
 
2012-07-02 12:45:43 PM  

Silly Jesus: If you are all set to rule that something is unconstitutional, and then you change your mind because of political nonsense and decide that the very same thing that was unconstitutional just a minute ago is now obviously constitutional then the integrity of the entire decision is called into question.


Then the question is: was his original ruling that it was unconstitutional a matter of politics, or was his decision to change his mind a matter of politics? If one was a political consideration, why not both? And if you're going to assume all SCOTUS decisions are purely political, than how can you trust any decision they've made? And if you can't trust the Supreme Court, then you cannot trust any court. And if you cannot trust any court, than you cannot trust the foundation of any American government, state or federal. And if that's the case, then you're doomed. DOOMED!
 
2012-07-02 12:46:58 PM  
So Roberts was the only conservative on the court who wasn't being a dreaded "activist judge"?

This just keeps getting better and better.
 
2012-07-02 12:47:48 PM  
This is less an issue with Roberts than it is about a serious problem with the American conservative movement.

You can't effectively govern in this country if you can't compromise. Conservatives have painted themselves into such an ideological corner that they can't compromise without risking alienating their base. Therefore, it is impossible for conservatives to effectively govern.
 
2012-07-02 12:48:24 PM  
CONservatives are like 10 year olds. its all about them. why would they compromise??
 
2012-07-02 12:49:05 PM  

Silly Jesus: Again, that's why I put in the O.J. example. The court said he didn't kill those people


No.. the court said that the State of California did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ committed murder.

Bring found "not guilty" does not mean being found 'innocent'
 
2012-07-02 12:49:05 PM  
Just think what kind of world you could be living in, Republicans, if you simply allowed your members to compromise.
 
2012-07-02 12:49:10 PM  
"...two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations..."

Seems legit.
 
2012-07-02 12:49:49 PM  
What I would genuinely like to know, but can't, is the true motivation for Roberts. Was it political? If he switched his reasoning around, then it seems pretty clear that he played politics. But what is the deeper motivation? What is his purpose? A belief that he's cleverly giving Obama enough rope to hang himself? Or could he actually believe in ACA, to the extent that he'll switch his argument around, depending on how the other conservatives argue.

I find the latter extremely hard to believe. But, unlike the rabid right with their "Obama bad! Bad evil bad!" crap, I can't entirely rule it out.

Yet I have no way of really knowing.
 
2012-07-02 12:50:50 PM  

lexslamman: This is less an issue with Roberts than it is about a serious problem with the American conservative movement.

You can't effectively govern in this country if you can't compromise. Conservatives have painted themselves into such an ideological corner that they can't compromise without risking alienating their base. Therefore, it is impossible for conservatives to effectively govern.


Limbaugh and other GOP pundits hammer home the point damn near every day that compromise is weakness and that only 'dirty libruls' compromise. in their view, 'real conservatives' win everything they set out to get and then go home and f*ck the head cheerleader. so how can anyone in the GOP possibly compromise in that sort of environment?
 
2012-07-02 12:50:54 PM  

sweetmelissa31: But the Constitution is up for interpretation which is why we have a Supreme Court. Something is Constitutional if they say it is, there is no real objectivity about it.


It's pretty much objectively clear that LIBS BAD.
 
2012-07-02 12:52:01 PM  

lexslamman: This is less an issue with Roberts than it is about a serious problem with the American conservative movement.

You can't effectively govern in this country if you can't compromise. Conservatives have painted themselves into such an ideological corner that they can't compromise without risking alienating their base. Therefore, it is impossible for conservatives to effectively govern.


What's awesome is that Obama stood up there and warned them that they were doing this to themselves.

On live TV.

I know, I watched it. He stood up there and teased them about making him out to be a communist and the anti-christ and whatever else, and warned them that they were screwing themselves by not acting like adults and working with a spirit of compromise.

They mocked him in return and ignored his warnings.

And here we are.
 
2012-07-02 12:53:16 PM  
you should hear Limbaugh - right now he's going off about Justice Roberts being 'unduly influenced' by the media and didn't listen to the facts of the case.
 
2012-07-02 12:53:22 PM  

Kibbler: What I would genuinely like to know, but can't, is the true motivation for Roberts. Was it political? If he switched his reasoning around, then it seems pretty clear that he played politics. But what is the deeper motivation? What is his purpose? A belief that he's cleverly giving Obama enough rope to hang himself? Or could he actually believe in ACA, to the extent that he'll switch his argument around, depending on how the other conservatives argue.

I find the latter extremely hard to believe. But, unlike the rabid right with their "Obama bad! Bad evil bad!" crap, I can't entirely rule it out.

Yet I have no way of really knowing.


He probably didn't want to be an "Activist Judge". As a judge you SHOULD be making the most minimum ruling possible and he probably felt that throwing out the entire law was way too drastic.

He probably actually did what he PROMISED congress what he would do, be humble to congress, unlike many of the other conservative judges who felt they should be able erase many provisions that no one thought were unconstitutional.
 
2012-07-02 12:55:04 PM  

Weaver95: Limbaugh and other GOP pundits hammer home the point damn near every day that compromise is weakness and that only 'dirty libruls' compromise. in their view, 'real conservatives' win everything they set out to get and then go home and f*ck the head cheerleader. so how can anyone in the GOP possibly compromise in that sort of environment?


I remember when compromise was just considered part of having a working Democracy.
 
2012-07-02 12:57:22 PM  

Corvus: Weaver95: Limbaugh and other GOP pundits hammer home the point damn near every day that compromise is weakness and that only 'dirty libruls' compromise. in their view, 'real conservatives' win everything they set out to get and then go home and f*ck the head cheerleader. so how can anyone in the GOP possibly compromise in that sort of environment?

I remember when compromise was just considered part of having a working Democracy.


not anymore. The Republicans are shifting to the view that 'compromise' is a vile, dirty trick. their propaganda folks (limbaugh and Beck, among others) have been working very hard to make the word 'compromise' an insult. the GOP view is that they HAVE to win, they have to get everything done their way or NOBODY can get anything done. in their view its either all or nothing.
 
2012-07-02 12:57:36 PM  

Corvus: Weaver95: Limbaugh and other GOP pundits hammer home the point damn near every day that compromise is weakness and that only 'dirty libruls' compromise. in their view, 'real conservatives' win everything they set out to get and then go home and f*ck the head cheerleader. so how can anyone in the GOP possibly compromise in that sort of environment?

I remember when compromise was just considered part of having a working Democracy.


The problem arose in the 1990s with the new GOP majority. After 40 years of being in the minority, they were determined to have things their way and they were done compromising.

Bush sr is the last real Republican that I can respect. The rest are pant-shiating retards who treat politics like it's a sport.
 
2012-07-02 12:58:37 PM  

Weaver95: you should hear Limbaugh - right now he's going off about Justice Roberts being 'unduly influenced' by the media and didn't listen to the facts of the case.


I thought the media was all saying they were going to strike down the mandate.. Oh sorry that is reality, that has nothing to do with Republican Bizzaro World Realitytm
 
2012-07-02 12:59:53 PM  

Silly Jesus: RexTalionis: Silly Jesus: the ruling doesn't truly make it constitutional

"It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each."

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

I understand that...that's why I used the example of O.J. The court saying that he didn't murder those people doesn't mean that he didn't murder those people...but it sort of does...but not really.


I really hate to tell you this but, your O.J. fetish is showing. You might want to tuck it back up. We're discussing Health care, possibly even Death Panels, but this O.J. blather is as dead as O.J.'s ex wife and the waiter. He wasn't kind of not convicted, he wasn't convicted for murdering them. Let it go dude. Why don't you write him mean letters and please yourself?
 
2012-07-02 12:59:54 PM  

Lost Thought 00: Just think what kind of world you could be living in, Republicans, if you simply allowed your members to compromise.


They can't... Republicanism has become a religion (cult) and if there is one thing about religious people that is certain is that they do not compromise. They think they have divine providence over every position they take (regardless if their position completely contradicts their Jesus character). I really don't think there is any turning back for those folks. They'd burn this country to the ground to get their way.
 
2012-07-02 01:00:29 PM  

Weaver95: Grand_Moff_Joseph: This is so rich, it's decadent:

"The conservatives refused to join any aspect of his opinion, including sections with which they agreed, such as his analysis imposing limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause, the sources said.

Instead, the four joined forces and crafted a highly unusual, unsigned joint dissent. They deliberately ignored Roberts' decision, the sources said, as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate."

Like their brethren in Congress and state halls across the country, the conservative judges wanted it 110% their way, and when Roberts refused to accept their "all or nothing" position, they took their ball and went home.

Just like the debt ceiling issue, student loans, and so many others, the right-wing's refusal to compromise at all led them to lose the position entirely. And the saddest part is, they still won't learn.

i'm actually starting to be very concerned with just how disciplined and consistent the GOP has become.


Heil Ayn Rand.
 
2012-07-02 01:00:40 PM  
This entire government is just collapsing brick by brick. I doubt there was as much entropy in Rome.
 
2012-07-02 01:00:59 PM  

Infernalist: Corvus: Weaver95: Limbaugh and other GOP pundits hammer home the point damn near every day that compromise is weakness and that only 'dirty libruls' compromise. in their view, 'real conservatives' win everything they set out to get and then go home and f*ck the head cheerleader. so how can anyone in the GOP possibly compromise in that sort of environment?

I remember when compromise was just considered part of having a working Democracy.

The problem arose in the 1990s with the new GOP majority. After 40 years of being in the minority, they were determined to have things their way and they were done compromising.

Bush sr is the last real Republican that I can respect. The rest are pant-shiating retards who treat politics like it's a sport.


Actually it all changed for me with the Clinton Impeachment. After that I vowed never to vote Republican again (which I used to sometimes) I realized that when push came to shove they always voted for the BS that the party leaders told them. So voting for 1 Republican meant I was voting for the entire party and their BS. It's the same if not worse today.
 
2012-07-02 01:02:14 PM  

Corvus: Weaver95: you should hear Limbaugh - right now he's going off about Justice Roberts being 'unduly influenced' by the media and didn't listen to the facts of the case.

I thought the media was all saying they were going to strike down the mandate.. Oh sorry that is reality, that has nothing to do with Republican Bizzaro World Realitytm


Limbaugh is merely doing his job. he's got his marching orders and knows what the approved propaganda is for the week so he's just putting it out to the unwashed masses. I don't think Limbaugh even bothers thinking through the message anymore: he just phones it in and collects his paycheck.
 
2012-07-02 01:03:17 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: Silly Jesus: "I hate to hear people say this Judge will vote so and so, because he is a Democrat -- and this one so and so because he is a Republican. It is shameful. The Judges have the Constitution for their guidance; they have no right to any politics save the politics of rigid right and justice when they are sitting in judgment upon the great matters that come before them." - Mark Twain

Mark Twain is a dreary fraud. A person's politics cannot be set aside when deciding a controversial case. Judges are people, too.


He's also been dead for a hundred years. Things are different now.
 
2012-07-02 01:03:43 PM  

Silly Jesus: Weaver95: Silly Jesus: So what Rand Paul said isn't actually that crazy after all...the ruling doesn't truly make it constitutional,

um...that's insane. if SCOTUS says something is constitutional then it's constitutional. you might not like it, but that doesn't change reality.

Again, that's why I put in the O.J. example. The court said he didn't kill those people, but he did. So it's reality vs. whatever the court came up with due to political nonsense. I think that on some level there is a binary constitutional vs. unconstitutional without all of the political nonsense. Yes, their ruling now means that it's constitutional (court ruling means O.J. goes free) but O.J. still killed those people even though the courts said he didn't (can still be unconstitutional even though it is currently more politically expedient to say that it's constitutional).


But the thing is, there's no objective reality to fall back to in this case. It all comes down to how a rather ambiguous document is interpreted.
 
2012-07-02 01:04:59 PM  
What the hell? They don't have to compromise. They vote! The SCOTUS isn't supposed to swap feelings on positions. "I'll change my vote to yes on this if you change yours to no on that." This isn't a freaking flea market.
 
2012-07-02 01:06:34 PM  

Diogenes: Well, alot of people imbue the Constitution with moral attributes.


Probably because morality has always been a significant component of Anglo-American political theory and the Progressive political tradition? Because expanding and protecting the political rights and freedoms of people is a moral thing to do, as Justice Thurgood Marshall and Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X believed?
 
2012-07-02 01:06:39 PM  
When someone gets around to updating this for modern times, Roberts should get a chapter for this decision.

kellylowenstein.files.wordpress.com

And I'm a pasty liberal that thought his nomination was a mistake. I like it when my cynicism is challenged.
 
2012-07-02 01:07:20 PM  

vernonFL: Rosie Perez as Sonia Sotomayor.

James Gandolfini as Antonin Scalia

Mike Myers as Elena Kagan

Tyler Perry as Clarence Thomas


t2.gstatic.com

Exciting news!
 
2012-07-02 01:09:16 PM  
There is the inconvenient fact that Obama said is wouldn't be a tax, and the SC said it was a tax.

So, have fun trying to get out from under that one.

The Republicans are shifting to the view that 'compromise' is a vile, dirty trick.

You'll see that on lib blogs any day of the week. It's their #1 complaint about Obama.
 
2012-07-02 01:09:44 PM  

HeartBurnKid: But the thing is, there's no objective reality to fall back to in this case. It all comes down to how a rather ambiguous document is interpreted.


upload.wikimedia.org

Both sides are bad so vote Dred Scott? What is this moral relativism bullshiat?
 
Displayed 50 of 398 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report