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.

(American Thinker)   The mainstream media should not repeat the spurious factoid that Obamacare is constitutional since only one source (the Supreme Court) came forward to make that claim   (americanthinker.com) divider line 193
    More: Satire, obamacare, U.S. Supreme Court, majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts, Volokh Conspiracy, Commerce Clause, landmark case, Tax Day  
•       •       •

2543 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Nov 2012 at 1:15 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-23 10:47:22 AM  
I wish the "satire" tag was accurate but unfortunately they are for reals.

They are criticizing real journalists for saying the "individual mandate" is Constitutional.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-11-23 10:51:48 AM  
It's not like it's the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution or anything.
 
2012-11-23 10:52:35 AM  
I love the whining of losers in the morning
 
2012-11-23 11:04:19 AM  
Jon N. Hall is a programmer/analyst from Kansas City.

You can get a good look at a butcher's ass if you stick your head up there.
 
2012-11-23 11:53:08 AM  
The American Thinker wouldn't know satire if it sat on its face.
 
2012-11-23 11:55:39 AM  
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
 
2012-11-23 12:03:39 PM  
Yes, listen, I do not wish to do the harping on this but I would agree as we first need the opinions of several people before we can do the full reaching of the conclusion of this. The people who are needed by we have the inclusion of:

--Kevin Gutzman (Constitutional Scholar at Western Connecticut State University)
--Honorable Karen Wells Roby (President of Federal Magistrate Judges Association)
--Jesus of Bethlehem (Owner of Jesus G. Gonzalez Painting in Bethlehem, PA)
--Sean Hannity
--Fark Politics Posters

Now listen I do not wish to be the judge of this but can tell to you that I do not see in this the individual mandate of the free thyroid testing which would cure the problem of the obesity in the country of this so I do not believe that this is going to be the Constitutional thing and think that the United States Court of the Supremes but not with Diana Ross is the incorrection.

You are Welcome.
 
2012-11-23 12:22:46 PM  

meow said the dog: Yes, listen, I do not wish to do the harping on this but I would agree as we first need the opinions of several people before we can do the full reaching of the conclusion of this. The people who are needed by we have the inclusion of:

--Kevin Gutzman (Constitutional Scholar at Western Connecticut State University)
--Honorable Karen Wells Roby (President of Federal Magistrate Judges Association)
--Jesus of Bethlehem (Owner of Jesus G. Gonzalez Painting in Bethlehem, PA)
--Sean Hannity
--Fark Politics Posters

Now listen I do not wish to be the judge of this but can tell to you that I do not see in this the individual mandate of the free thyroid testing which would cure the problem of the obesity in the country of this so I do not believe that this is going to be the Constitutional thing and think that the United States Court of the Supremes but not with Diana Ross is the incorrection.

You are Welcome.


Almost perfect, but you forgot to add bone density tests. After all, so many people in this country are big-boned, so we shouldn't count them toward our obesity rate.
 
2012-11-23 12:28:37 PM  
The Supreme Court's is the only opinion that matters in this case.
 
2012-11-23 12:30:36 PM  

SilentStrider: The Supreme Court's is the only opinion that matters in this case.


My gut has evidence to the contrary.
 
2012-11-23 12:33:06 PM  
There are not enough facepalms to describe this.
 
2012-11-23 12:47:09 PM  

RedPhoenix122: Almost perfect, but you forgot to add bone density tests. After all, so many people in this country are big-boned, so we shouldn't count them toward our obesity rate.


Oh you are right about this! Why do the liberals hate the Swedish women? WHY LIBERALS DO YOU HAVE THIS HATRED OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE SWEDES AND GERMANS?
 
2012-11-23 12:50:52 PM  

meow said the dog: RedPhoenix122: Almost perfect, but you forgot to add bone density tests. After all, so many people in this country are big-boned, so we shouldn't count them toward our obesity rate.

Oh you are right about this! Why do the liberals hate the Swedish women? WHY LIBERALS DO YOU HAVE THIS HATRED OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE SWEDES AND GERMANS?


Because liberals don't like competing with other Nazi's!
 
2012-11-23 01:00:42 PM  
There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Supreme Court power to judge the constitutionality of laws. The Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court that power. Circular reasoning at its best.
 
2012-11-23 01:03:31 PM  
This article made my brain hurt.

I don't think I like reading anymore.

i306.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-23 01:18:57 PM  
i1151.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-23 01:19:48 PM  
Do hipsters own the American Thinker? Seem like they are trying to be ironic with that name.
 
2012-11-23 01:20:54 PM  
www.craigboyce.com
 
2012-11-23 01:20:55 PM  
Forever Relevant: 

www.bitlogic.com
 
2012-11-23 01:21:09 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-11-23 01:22:28 PM  

John Dewey: There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Supreme Court power to judge the constitutionality of laws. The Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court that power. Circular reasoning at its best.


Do away with unconstitutional judicial review! For America.
 
2012-11-23 01:23:33 PM  

meow said the dog: Yes, listen, I do not wish to do the harping on this but I would agree as we first need the opinions of several people before we can do the full reaching of the conclusion of this. The people who are needed by we have the inclusion of:

--Kevin Gutzman (Constitutional Scholar at Western Connecticut State University)
--Honorable Karen Wells Roby (President of Federal Magistrate Judges Association)
--Jesus of Bethlehem (Owner of Jesus G. Gonzalez Painting in Bethlehem, PA)
--Sean Hannity
--Fark Politics Posters

Now listen I do not wish to be the judge of this but can tell to you that I do not see in this the individual mandate of the free thyroid testing which would cure the problem of the obesity in the country of this so I do not believe that this is going to be the Constitutional thing and think that the United States Court of the Supremes but not with Diana Ross is the incorrection.

You are Welcome.


I've missed you soooooo much!!!!

good to see you again!
 
2012-11-23 01:27:35 PM  
Is this the thread where we praise CNN for being the only accurate media outlet that broke away from the liberal lame LSM media to report Obamacare was ruled unconstitutional?
 
2012-11-23 01:31:02 PM  

mrshowrules: I wish the "satire" tag was accurate but unfortunately they are for reals.

They are criticizing real journalists for saying the "individual mandate" is Constitutional.


So the most Conservative CJSCOTUS in 50 years doesn't know what he is talking about

Really?
 
2012-11-23 01:31:14 PM  
YOSSARIAN: So, you mean there's a way that can get me out of posting on American Thinker?

DOC: Sure there is.

YOSSARIAN: Well what is it?

DOC: Simple. I certify you as someone unable to think. Then you can't post.

YOSSARIAN: OK, so certify me! Certify me!

DOC: Can't do it.

YOSSARIAN: Why not?!?

DOC: Cause you asked me to. That proves you can think.

YOSSARIAN: What?!? That's crazy. Look, you take that potato-head over there. You know he can't think, right?

DOC: His head is completely empty. Has an echo.

YOSSARIAN: But he still has to post on American Thinker?

DOC: Yes that's right.

YOSSARIAN: But he can't think! So he shouldn't have to post!

DOC: Yes, all he has to do is ask me to certify him as unable to post.

YOSSARIAN: And then he doesn't have to post?

DOC: No, then he does have to post. He just proved he can think.

YOSSARIAN: WHAT! WHAT!

DOC: Listen, you think you got problems?
 
2012-11-23 01:33:43 PM  
remember when Roberts was the shining bacon of light to conservatives... good times man, good times
 
2012-11-23 01:36:06 PM  

aug3: remember when Roberts was the shining bacon of light to conservatives... good times man, good times


I recall him being portrayed as an intellectual almost without peer.

Did I dream that?
 
2012-11-23 01:36:45 PM  
Hi American Brain Damage,

When the SCOTUS says that something is constituational it is, by definition, constitutional. It's kinda how it works.

Hope December is better for you, for a change,
DTMB
 
2012-11-23 01:39:11 PM  

mrshowrules: I wish the "satire" tag was accurate but unfortunately they are for reals.

They are criticizing real journalists for saying the "individual mandate" is Constitutional.



In the run up to the election some farkers got behind the idea that every American Thinker thread should be given the Satire tag because.... well... Onion articles make more sense.
 
2012-11-23 01:39:24 PM  

John Dewey: There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Supreme Court power to judge the constitutionality of laws. The Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court that power. Circular reasoning at its best.


So who DOES have the power to judge the constitutionality of laws?
 
2012-11-23 01:40:36 PM  

aug3: remember when Roberts was the shining bacon of light to conservatives... good times man, good times


I wanna be a shining bacon of light!

MMMMmmmmmmmmm *bacon*


/kinda fat, could be bacon, I guess.
 
2012-11-23 01:41:14 PM  

John Dewey: There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Supreme Court power to judge the constitutionality of laws. The Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court that power. Circular reasoning at its best.


You are wrong. It says the SCOTUS is the supreme court of the land and the constitution are laws of this nation (that trump other normal laws) so how those laws affect people based on actual court cases is what all courts do. To say that constitutional law would have no say in the court of law would be making it for all practical purposes useless. Even the founding fathers talked about judicial review of laws.

Answer me this: If someone was abridging my first or second amendment rights (or any constitutional right or law) who the hell would be there to judge that if it wasn't for the judiciary?

You answer would be no one. So then the constitution would be completely useless.
 
2012-11-23 01:42:48 PM  

that bosnian sniper: Is this the thread where we praise CNN for being the only accurate media outlet that broke away from the liberal lame LSM media to report Obamacare was ruled unconstitutional?


wtfamireading.jpg
 
2012-11-23 01:42:51 PM  

Serious Black: John Dewey: There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Supreme Court power to judge the constitutionality of laws. The Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court that power. Circular reasoning at its best.

So who DOES have the power to judge the constitutionality of laws?


To them. Only right wingers who have no farking idea what the constitution says.
 
2012-11-23 01:46:14 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: that bosnian sniper: Is this the thread where we praise CNN for being the only accurate media outlet that broke away from the liberal lame LSM media to report Obamacare was ruled unconstitutional?

wtfamireading.jpg


www.boiseweekly.com

That's what he's talking about.
 
2012-11-23 01:48:57 PM  

John Dewey: There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Supreme Court power to judge the constitutionality of laws. The Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court that power. Circular reasoning at its best.


Also if you are tried in a court that doesn't display the American Flag with gold trim, the case is invalid and you're free to go.
 
2012-11-23 01:49:02 PM  

Corvus: Only right wingers who have no farking idea what the constitution says.


Really? You think that's a right wing only thing?
 
2012-11-23 01:50:48 PM  

jayhawk88: John Dewey: There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Supreme Court power to judge the constitutionality of laws. The Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court that power. Circular reasoning at its best.

Also if you are tried in a court that doesn't display the American Flag with gold trim, the case is invalid and you're free to go.


Also cover up Justice's tit. It's giving the jurors erections.
 
2012-11-23 01:51:13 PM  

Kibbler: YOSSARIAN: So, you mean there's a way that can get me out of posting on American Thinker?

DOC: Sure there is.

YOSSARIAN: Well what is it?

DOC: Simple. I certify you as someone unable to think. Then you can't post.

YOSSARIAN: OK, so certify me! Certify me!

DOC: Can't do it.

YOSSARIAN: Why not?!?

DOC: Cause you asked me to. That proves you can think.

YOSSARIAN: What?!? That's crazy. Look, you take that potato-head over there. You know he can't think, right?

DOC: His head is completely empty. Has an echo.

YOSSARIAN: But he still has to post on American Thinker?

DOC: Yes that's right.

YOSSARIAN: But he can't think! So he shouldn't have to post!

DOC: Yes, all he has to do is ask me to certify him as unable to post.

YOSSARIAN: And then he doesn't have to post?

DOC: No, then he does have to post. He just proved he can think.

YOSSARIAN: WHAT! WHAT!

DOC: Listen, you think you got problems?


That's a hell of a catch, that catch-22!

Cheers.

//Save the navigator
//Wait, I'm the navigator
 
2012-11-23 01:51:52 PM  

John Dewey: Corvus: Only right wingers who have no farking idea what the constitution says.

Really? You think that's a right wing only thing?


You still haven't answered my question as to who gets to judge the constitutionality of laws.
 
2012-11-23 01:57:14 PM  

meow said the dog: --Jesus of Bethlehem (Owner of Jesus G. Gonzalez Painting in Bethlehem, PA)


lulz
 
2012-11-23 01:57:19 PM  

John Dewey: There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Supreme Court power to judge the constitutionality of laws. The Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court that power. Circular reasoning at its best.


Yes here:

Article III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court,
and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.


...

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


The Constitution is Law, the Supreme court is the final arbitrator of US law, that's what the judiciary is. The constitution does in fact give them power to judge cases based on the Constitution or the Constitution would not be law.

You can't saw something is law but the say courts can rule based on it. It would be useless.
 
2012-11-23 01:58:46 PM  

Serious Black: John Dewey: There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Supreme Court power to judge the constitutionality of laws. The Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court that power. Circular reasoning at its best.

So who DOES have the power to judge the constitutionality of laws?


George Washington's head in a jar.
 
2012-11-23 02:00:10 PM  

John Dewey: Corvus: Only right wingers who have no farking idea what the constitution says.

Really? You think that's a right wing only thing?


So right wingers think people on the left should decide what is Constitution? Did you read what I actually typed instead of making things up?

Are you going to answer my question or keep dodging?

Who would decide on Constitutionality if it wasn't the supreme court? How would that work, if the government illegally took something from me with no trial, who would I see exactly to try to get it back?


You not able to answer any of my questions and instead making false arguments up shows you really don't even understand your own position.
 
2012-11-23 02:01:48 PM  
I have encountered individuals who believe that the claim that handgun prohibition is Unconstitutional is "spurious" due to only one source -- the Supreme Court of the United States -- claiming such. I am certain that the author would be in full agreement with those civilian disarmament advocates.
 
2012-11-23 02:01:53 PM  

Arkanaut: Serious Black: John Dewey: There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Supreme Court power to judge the constitutionality of laws. The Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court that power. Circular reasoning at its best.

So who DOES have the power to judge the constitutionality of laws?

George Washington Ronald Reagan's head in a jar.


Fixed for extra Tealarity.
 
2012-11-23 02:02:34 PM  
Another post from the propaganda site American Thinker, that has been demonstrably wrong about every single thing they've ever posted.

imageshack.us

Are righties still taking solace in sites like this, even after what was left of their credibility was destroyed by math and science?
 
2012-11-23 02:02:39 PM  

Corvus: You not able to answer any of my questions and instead making false arguments up shows you really don't even understand your own position.


You said "Only right wingers who have no farking idea what the constitution says."

That seems to imply you think only right wingers don't understand what the constitution says. I think that's pretty plain. For someone who claims to understand what the supreme law of the land says (which is pretty complicated language) you sure don't have a good grasp of what you're saying in what appears to be a simple sentence.
 
2012-11-23 02:02:39 PM  

John Dewey: There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Supreme Court power to judge the constitutionality of laws. The Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court that power. Circular reasoning at its best.


So if Congress passes a law making Islam the national religion, and the President signs it, who else is supposed to say "no, the Constitution forbids that" but the Courts? 

Good lord, I know we're supposed to believe that education is the devil, but this is 3rd grade social studies here. The whole checks and balances thing among the three equal branches of government. (And yes, I know there's a segment of the GOP that now states the judiciary is not supposed to be an equal branch but a subserviant one).
 
2012-11-23 02:04:39 PM  

Corvus: The Constitution is Law, the Supreme court is the final arbitrator of US law, that's what the judiciary is. The constitution does in fact give them power to judge cases based on the Constitution or the Constitution would not be law.


They were originally envisioned to judge cases based on the constitution and the law.

Not throw out laws based on their interpretation of the constitution.

Jefferson and Madison didn't like the outcome of Marbury v. Madison.

Of course, the current setup is much better than trusting Congress to follow the constitution in all the laws that they write.
 
Displayed 50 of 193 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report