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.

(The Daily)   Obama and other Democrats may have received early leaks about SCOTUS' handling of the health-care case and used the info to try to sway Roberts. This can only end well   (thedaily.com) divider line 145
    More: Interesting, Democrat Party, U.S. Supreme Court, health cares, Rehnquist, Chief Justice John Roberts, Jan Crawford, Scalia, Discussion  
•       •       •

2456 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Jul 2012 at 11:37 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-11 04:33:32 AM  

WhyteRaven74: ImpendingCynic: So SCOTUS leaked information, and the Chief Justice is subject to external influence, but naturally this is Obama's fault.

And the fact that Thomas' wife received money from groups opposed to the law should be just hunky dory. As is the fact Thomas didn't recuse himself from the case.


AND THEY STILL LOST!!!
 
2012-07-11 04:44:54 AM  

Gyrfalcon: WhyteRaven74: ImpendingCynic: So SCOTUS leaked information, and the Chief Justice is subject to external influence, but naturally this is Obama's fault.

And the fact that Thomas' wife received money from groups opposed to the law should be just hunky dory. As is the fact Thomas didn't recuse himself from the case.

AND THEY STILL LOST!!!


Yeah, but the money groups didn't lose the previous time Thomas failed to recuse himself because of his wife, and that one probably made them a bigger profit.
 
2012-07-11 05:15:29 AM  
Obummer used his time machine, went back and infiltrated Justice Roberts' law class at Harvard and mind melded with his law professor, therefore causing him to become more liberal and managed to do it just days before they were to make a decision on this case's merrits. Is there no limit to what this Kenyan usurper will do to our seperation of powers?

THIS HAS TO STOP AND IT HAS TO STOP NOW!!1!11!!
 
2012-07-11 06:36:50 AM  

St_Francis_P: badhatharry: Of course it was leaked. Roberts was pressured. Roberts caved. Democrats have no class and Roberts is a big pussy. We'll get over it.

Erm...exactly how could Democrats pressure a conservative judge?


Apparently, Patrick Leahy gave a speech in Vermont urging Roberts to uphold the ACA.
No. Seriously. That's how those cunning bastards did it.
 
2012-07-11 06:41:30 AM  
i18.photobucket.com

Maybe if you cry hard enough, it will wash the sand out of your vaginas, you f**king little biatches.
 
2012-07-11 06:47:22 AM  

Corvus: bhcompy: Corvus: It's an excise tax. Everyone has been explained this.

An excise tax requires a good to be taxed. This would be a reverse excise tax, of which this would be the first afaik.

No it would not. They already exist pre-ACA fail to act excise taxes. It doesn't matter it's considered an "indirect" tax and that is good enough.


Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown.
 
2012-07-11 06:50:20 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: "He didn't rule the way we wanted so there's obviously some vast left-wing conspiracy!!"

Grow up


I'll posit that conservatives are far quicker to invent/fall for conspiracy theories than the rest of us. The last time I considered a complicated plot was the 2000 elections...because there was a sh*t-ton of evidence supporting the claims.

Even the 2004 Ohio election concerns, etc weren't really b*tched about too much by the left (comparably speaking). The story sort of died on the vine after a small outcry. Yet Obama's birth certificate has been a source of outrage for four farking years, achieving prime-time and sometimes all-day coverage on all major cable networks.

I think I understand why conservatives are quick to accept the most convoluted explanation over Occam's Razor - they're goddamn children. Rather than admit defeat, they must construct an impossible scenario under which the liberals undercut them. At no time can they consider that maybe they just farked up, or that people just aren't that into them. That would entail admitting imperfection.

Another thing worth noting - liberals and moderates tend to eschew their wingnut conspiracy theorists, where the GOP gives them a bullhorn and mainstream play. Whenever I hear a libtard running his mouth about Bush purposely (as opposed to incompetently) allowing 9/11 to happen I want to punch him right in the face. But when a conservative comes up with some ridiculous theory it's praised as gospel by people who have the critical thinking skills of a petulant 8 year-old, and he goes on FOX to broadcast it to millions of people.

I picked up something for you guys while I was at the store -

t2.gstatic.com
 
2012-07-11 07:00:28 AM  

Weaver95: so now it's a conspiracy?

well ok, but somehow you've gotta work in chemtrails and ancient aliens or it doesn't count.


Well, you got the CIA remote sensing program that found out that Roberts was wavering, and then HAARP did the actual mind control part. And then the lizard men bribed the rest of the court to keep them silent.
 
2012-07-11 07:03:35 AM  

Nadie_AZ: Maybe the law was constitutional. Anyone think of that?


UNPOSSIBLE!
 
2012-07-11 07:04:03 AM  

Sensei Can You See: If you RTFA you see Obama and Leahy making some rather oddly timed and phrased statements that don't make much sense unless they knew what was going on in SCOTUS and wanted to try to bring public pressure to bear on Roberts.


How did I know that Roberts would be the tie-breaker before anything was "leaked" to the president and Leahy? Common f*cking sense. Roberts did his job. Now sweep up these feathers and go find a new hobby. Unless of course, you have any conspiracy theories about the Citizens United decision you want to get off your chest.
 
2012-07-11 07:06:33 AM  

St_Francis_P: The butt-hurt never stops, does it.


No need for me here, done in one.
 
2012-07-11 07:14:33 AM  
You mean like Bush v Gore? Oh the horrors
 
2012-07-11 07:19:26 AM  
"Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute"

Well so long as it's a minion of the Koch brothers, he has my full attention.

He's shocked, shocked he tells us, that Pat Leahy would try to persuade or influence a member of SCOTUS while a case is pending. That is the proper role of billionaires job creators.
 
2012-07-11 07:24:33 AM  
Did Scalia go out golfing and leak it to his GOP operative buddies....again?
 
2012-07-11 07:25:42 AM  
Well that's it then....I'm not going to vote for Roberts again.
 
2012-07-11 07:57:46 AM  

Nadie_AZ: Maybe the law was constitutional. Anyone think of that?


The Party has declared the ACA Unconstitutional and The Party is always Right. Therefore the ACA is Unconstitutional. If the Republican-nominated Chief Justice of the Supreme Court decides the ACA is constitutional, then he must be Wrong.

Amusing how this is shaking out, isn't it? I wonder how many more Republicans are starting to feel like Martin Luther.
 
2012-07-11 08:07:23 AM  

MyRandomName: Since it is tied to an act outside if gaining income it is not an income tax...


While there's some logic to the excise tax theory, it's hard to say that this isn't an income tax.

If you don't have income (or your income is below a certain level, defined by the cost of a health insurance plan in your state exchange) you're exempt from the penalty altogether. The penalty has a short range of incomes after that where it slides up to the $695. After that, it's capped at $695.

How is that "outside of gaining income"? It's directly tied to income.
 
2012-07-11 08:36:40 AM  
fineartamerica.com
 
2012-07-11 09:04:21 AM  

EnviroDude: Would you expect anything less from the democrats?


You sound tired E. Dude.
 
2012-07-11 09:04:56 AM  
The level of whining from the GOP over this is incredible.

So from now on, every ruling that doesn't go their way will be the result of the executive and legislative branches beating up on the judicial.

What's so ridiculous, is that Roberts went their way on the Commerce Clause, and gave GOP Governors a bone by ruling that the Federal Government couldn't withhold Medicaid
 
2012-07-11 09:20:15 AM  

Nadie_AZ: Maybe the law was constitutional. Anyone think of that?


perhaps.

However the bigger problem is that during the time he tried to pass healthcare he said many many times it is not a tax. Then his lawyers go to the SCOTUS and argue that it IS a tax, becuase they knew the court would not uphold their original argument.

Now he insists it is still not a tax, funny when the SCOFUS said is IS a tax.

The fact is that he lied and it will hurt him greatly in November.
 
2012-07-11 09:36:56 AM  

TIKIMAN87: The fact is that he lied and it will hurt him greatly in November.


The fact is he's going against Romney and that will aid him greatly in November.
 
2012-07-11 09:41:45 AM  

Lawnchair: MyRandomName: Since it is tied to an act outside if gaining income it is not an income tax...

While there's some logic to the excise tax theory, it's hard to say that this isn't an income tax.

If you don't have income (or your income is below a certain level, defined by the cost of a health insurance plan in your state exchange) you're exempt from the penalty altogether. The penalty has a short range of incomes after that where it slides up to the $695. After that, it's capped at $695.

How is that "outside of gaining income"? It's directly tied to income.


It is a penalty applied through taxation power. A penalty, tax penalty or tax are acceptable terms. It starts getting disingenuous when it is referred to as a tax increase or hike.

In terms of annual tax returns, if the number of late filers doubles this year and the penalties therefore increase, that isn't a tax increase.
 
2012-07-11 09:57:21 AM  

mrshowrules: Lawnchair: MyRandomName: Since it is tied to an act outside if gaining income it is not an income tax...

While there's some logic to the excise tax theory, it's hard to say that this isn't an income tax.

If you don't have income (or your income is below a certain level, defined by the cost of a health insurance plan in your state exchange) you're exempt from the penalty altogether. The penalty has a short range of incomes after that where it slides up to the $695. After that, it's capped at $695.

How is that "outside of gaining income"? It's directly tied to income.

It is a penalty applied through taxation power. A penalty, tax penalty or tax are acceptable terms. It starts getting disingenuous when it is referred to as a tax increase or hike.

In terms of annual tax returns, if the number of late filers doubles this year and the penalties therefore increase, that isn't a tax increase.


No. no. no. It the biggest tax increase in the history of taxation, if not the universe.
 
2012-07-11 10:03:30 AM  
What a farking load of garbage. When will the Republican Party learn that living like infants is not just morally wrong, but morally stupid as well?
 
2012-07-11 10:05:36 AM  

Mercutio74: TIKIMAN87: The fact is that he lied and it will hurt him greatly in November.

The fact is he's going against Romney and that will aid him greatly in November.


Ya know maybe you're right.

Seeing as how polls now have them dead even. A month ago Obama was ahead by 9 points. Funny the more Joe and Barry open their mouths the more support goes for Romney.
 
2012-07-11 10:14:20 AM  

TIKIMAN87: Mercutio74: TIKIMAN87: The fact is that he lied and it will hurt him greatly in November.

The fact is he's going against Romney and that will aid him greatly in November.

Ya know maybe you're right.

Seeing as how polls now have them dead even. A month ago Obama was ahead by 9 points. Funny the more Joe and Barry open their mouths the more support goes for Romney.


Those people would vote for a literal giant douche or turd sandwich over President Obama. Evidence:

Would you say that your vote is more FOR Mitt Romney or more AGAINST Barack Obama?+
Results shown among Romney voters
More for Mitt Romney ............................................. 35
More against Barack Obama .................................. 58
Some of both (VOL) .............................................. 5
Not sure ................................................................ 2
+ Results shown reflect responses among registered voters


Would you say that your vote is more FOR Barack Obama or more AGAINST Mitt Romney?+
Results shown among Obama voters
More for Barack Obama ......................................... 72
More against Mitt Romney ...................................... 22
Some of both (VOL) .............................................. 4
Not sure ................................................................ 2
+ Results shown reflect responses among registered voters

Source
 
2012-07-11 10:15:21 AM  

TIKIMAN87: Ya know maybe you're right.

Seeing as how polls now have them dead even. A month ago Obama was ahead by 9 points. Funny the more Joe and Barry open their mouths the more support goes for Romney.


Might want to check Nate Silver's most recent probabilities. Obviously it's very, very early in the campaign cycle, but we've still got Obama's strongest "events" left to go, that would be the debates and general speechifyin'. And those two things also happen to be Romney's weaknesses.

Obama's already trending to a win, it's just going to get worse for Romney.
 
2012-07-11 10:21:26 AM  

Gosling: HURRY! MAYBE WE CAN STILL TURN BACK TIME AND REVERSE THE SUPREME COURT DECISION! AND PREVENT OBAMA FROM EVER HAVING BEEN PRESIDENT IN THE FIRST PLACE WHILE WE'RE AT IT! SOMEONE! ANYONE! WE MUST FIND A TARDIS OR AMERICA IS DOOMED!


Good news: someone already has a time machine

Better news: it's kept in the basement of the White House

Bad News: It's Obama's and he won't let anyone else use it. Hell, he won't even let Biden LOOK at it, no matter how much Joe begs.
 
2012-07-11 10:30:38 AM  

Sensei Can You See: [Lots of dumb]


Putting aside the fact that no one has suggested a mechanism for swaying the opinion of the court one of your own sources (SCOTUSBlog) says not that there was a leak but that there "appears to have been" a leak. But not a leak on the liberal side to rally the troops but a leak from the conservative side, to let the writers know they need to start working on a cover story for why the 'obviously right' side lost.
 
2012-07-11 10:50:56 AM  

spill_thrill: [i.imgur.com image 509x381]


Bart: So finally, we're all in agreement about what's going on with the PPACA. Milhouse?
Milhouse: [steps up to blackboard] Ahem. OK, here's what we've got: Obama, in conjunction with Patrick Leahy --
Bart: Thank you.
Milhouse: -- under the supervision of Nancy Pelosi-
Lisa: [sighs]
Milhouse: -- are forcing John Roberts to find the individual mandate Constitutional in a fiendish plot to eliminate freedom....

[sotto voce] We're through the looking glass, here, people...
 
2012-07-11 10:57:21 AM  

TIKIMAN87: The fact is that he lied and it will hurt him greatly in November.


Do you actually think that the Supreme Court ruling on whether or not the individual mandate is a "tax" or not is going to sway anybody one way or the other? Seriously? Have you met one, single person who three weeks ago was fully planning on voting for Obama who will now not because of this ruling? Even one?

EDIT: I see you refer to President Obama as "Barry" so I already can anticipate your response. Carry On, you will be very sad in November...I promise.
 
2012-07-11 10:58:04 AM  
used the info to try to sway Roberts

Because, of course, the Democrats have such pull with Roberts.
 
2012-07-11 11:04:39 AM  
Hmm, okay...I know Stewart Baker, he was on the board of a nonprofit I worked for. Been drinking with him in foreign countries. He always seemed...normal. Not conspiracy oriented at all.

Huh
 
2012-07-11 11:29:35 AM  
Leaked? No.
It was Obama and his infernal magical time machine, of course!
 
2012-07-11 12:12:05 PM  

badhatharry: Of course it was leaked. Roberts was pressured. Roberts caved. Democrats have no class and Roberts is a big pussy. We'll get over it.


I don't actually think you will. I mean, you've had years to get over it and haven't. I don't actually think you ever will. I think you will carry this butthurt to your grave. Sorry man.
 
2012-07-11 12:35:27 PM  
Subby, your blog sucks and you clearly have no idea what op-ed is.
 
2012-07-11 01:16:05 PM  

bhcompy: Corvus: bhcompy: Corvus: It's an excise tax. Everyone has been explained this.

An excise tax requires a good to be taxed. This would be a reverse excise tax, of which this would be the first afaik.

No it would not. They already exist pre-ACA fail to act excise taxes. It doesn't matter it's considered an "indirect" tax and that is good enough.

But it seems they apply to entities rather than people(177).


So, you are agreeing with me that they do exist. sorry I missed the part in the constitution where it makes that distinction about taxes. maybe because it doesn't exits.
 
2012-07-11 01:20:39 PM  

bhcompy: Corvus: bhcompy: Corvus: It's an excise tax. Everyone has been explained this.

An excise tax requires a good to be taxed. This would be a reverse excise tax, of which this would be the first afaik.

No it would not. They already exist pre-ACA fail to act excise taxes. It doesn't matter it's considered an "indirect" tax and that is good enough.

But it seems they apply to entities rather than people(177).


Funny I thought "corporations where people" my friend. But Like I said there is no legal distinction that says constitutionally that separation the two. The distinction has no actual constitutional distinction.

Your saying since one fish is a different color or shape it's not a fish. The discussion was fail to act excise taxes. They exist pre-ACA. Thats what I said. I was correct. Don't move the goal posts.
 
2012-07-11 01:20:59 PM  

Corvus: bhcompy: Corvus: bhcompy: Corvus: It's an excise tax. Everyone has been explained this.

An excise tax requires a good to be taxed. This would be a reverse excise tax, of which this would be the first afaik.

No it would not. They already exist pre-ACA fail to act excise taxes. It doesn't matter it's considered an "indirect" tax and that is good enough.

But it seems they apply to entities rather than people(177).

So, you are agreeing with me that they do exist. sorry I missed the part in the constitution where it makes that distinction about taxes. maybe because it doesn't exits.


At least according to the source, this is the first time they exist on a person rather than a business, which is an important legal distinction considering tax law as it stands today(which that same source goes in to pretty thoroughly). So, yea, the concept exists, but this is a new application of the concept.
 
2012-07-11 01:33:14 PM  

bhcompy: Corvus: bhcompy: Corvus: bhcompy: Corvus: It's an excise tax. Everyone has been explained this.

An excise tax requires a good to be taxed. This would be a reverse excise tax, of which this would be the first afaik.

No it would not. They already exist pre-ACA fail to act excise taxes. It doesn't matter it's considered an "indirect" tax and that is good enough.

But it seems they apply to entities rather than people(177).

So, you are agreeing with me that they do exist. sorry I missed the part in the constitution where it makes that distinction about taxes. maybe because it doesn't exits.

At least according to the source, this is the first time they exist on a person rather than a business, which is an important legal distinction considering tax law as it stands today(which that same source goes in to pretty thoroughly). So, yea, the concept exists, but this is a new application of the concept.


Yes so you are saying the any law is illegal if it's the first type of it's kind? Think about that stupid piece of logic. Think if NO law could be passed just because a law like that didn't previous exist.

How many laws would we be able to make if that was actually true?
 
2012-07-11 01:57:33 PM  

Corvus: Yes so you are saying the any law is illegal if it's the first type of it's kind? Think about that stupid piece of logic. Think if NO law could be passed just because a law like that didn't previous exist.

How many laws would we be able to make if that was actually true?


Where did I say that? What the fark are you reading?
 
2012-07-11 02:03:04 PM  

bhcompy: Corvus: Yes so you are saying the any law is illegal if it's the first type of it's kind? Think about that stupid piece of logic. Think if NO law could be passed just because a law like that didn't previous exist.

How many laws would we be able to make if that was actually true?

Where did I say that? What the fark are you reading?


That's the argument they are making:

bhcompy: At least according to the source, this is the first time they exist on a person rather than a business, which is an important legal distinction considering tax law as it stands today(which that same source goes in to pretty thoroughly). So, yea, the concept exists, but this is a new application of the concept.


So what? because it's the first time does that make it not legal?

Why if that is not what you are saying why are you bring that up as a point like it proves something? Why do you refer to it if you think that point has no relevance?
 
2012-07-11 04:19:28 PM  
Goddamn. It's just farking KILLING THEM that the four non-budging asshats on the bench were such incredible dicks about it that Roberts switched his vote to the more sane side of the issue.

THERE HAS TO BE SOME CONSPIRACY BEHIND THIS!
 
2012-07-11 05:59:39 PM  
Obama and other Democrats may have received early leaks about SCOTUS' handling of the health-care case and used the info to try to sway Roberts.

Personally, I'm holding out for the Fark "Yeah, about that" followup.
 
Displayed 45 of 145 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | 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