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
 
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.
 
2012-11-23 02:05:10 PM  
"OK, fellas. We're done telling the country America will be destroyed if they don't elect that Republican who invented Obamacare. Now we have to tell them Obamacare will destroy America. Recalibrate your derp phasers to 'stunned'."
 
2012-11-23 02:05:11 PM  

John Dewey: 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.


And for somebody who has a pretty good grasp of what the Constitution says, you sure do seem to be evading my question of who gets to judge the constitutionality of laws pretty well.
 
2012-11-23 02:05:46 PM  

John Dewey: 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.


No I said this:

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


Which you deleted.

You are trying to change the subject because you can't support you own opinion. I don't give a shiat what people on the left think it has zero bearing to the comment you made, or the question I asked you about.


Now can you back up your statement or not?
 
2012-11-23 02:06:40 PM  

John Dewey: That seems to imply you think only right wingers don't understand what the constitution says


That's not what "only right wingers who have no understanding of what the Constitution says" means in this context. I doubt there are any left-wingers who believe that the Constitution doesn't give supreme judicial power to the SCOTUS.
 
2012-11-23 02:07:13 PM  

elchip: 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.


Really it "throws out a law" so when something is considered "unconstitutional" the law gets removed and can never be reinterpreted again?

Want to double down on that?
 
2012-11-23 02:07:36 PM  
Compliance with ObamaCare is going to be a problem in states like Oklahoma, "where a quarter of the population fails to comply with the requirement to purchase car insurance." It's doubtful they'll cotton to the RobertsTax, either.

Updated note to self: Never drive in/through/around Russia & Oklahoma.
 
2012-11-23 02:08:05 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: John Dewey: That seems to imply you think only right wingers don't understand what the constitution says

That's not what "only right wingers who have no understanding of what the Constitution says" means in this context. I doubt there are any left-wingers who believe that the Constitution doesn't give supreme judicial power to the SCOTUS.


You have not read many discussions regarding gun laws.
 
2012-11-23 02:08:30 PM  
When I am Emperor of the World, I shall establish a series of Homes for the Terminally Stupid, wherein they will not be troubled with events of the world or the need to make decisions of any kind.

American Stinker staff and readers shall be welcomed with open arms.
 
2012-11-23 02:10:35 PM  

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

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


So which happens:

A) the laws are considered unconsitutional remain on the books, and can be reinterpreted by higher courts or the supreme court in later cases

Or

B) They are "thrown out" permanently removed from law never to be able to be ruled on again.


Does A happen or B happen when a law is considered "unconsitutional" by courts?
 
2012-11-23 02:14:27 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: That's not what "only right wingers who have no understanding of what the Constitution says" means in this context. I doubt there are any left-wingers who believe that the Constitution doesn't give supreme judicial power to the SCOTUS.


"You seem, in pages 84 and 148, to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is "boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem," and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves. If the legislature fails to pass laws for a census, for paying the judges and other officers of government, for establishing a militia, for naturalization as prescribed by the Constitution, or if they fail to meet in congress, the judges cannot issue their mandamus to them ; if the President fails to supply the place of a judge, to appoint other civil or military officers, to issue requisite commissions, the judges cannot force him. They can issue their mandamus or distringas to no executive or legislative officer to enforce the fulfilment of their official duties, any more than the President or legislature may issue orders to the judges or their officers. Betrayed by English example, and unaware, as it should seem, of the control of our Constitution in this particular, they have at times overstepped their limit by undertaking to command executive officers in the discharge of their executive duties ; but the Constitution, in keeping three departments distinct and independent, restrains the authority of the judges to judiciary organs, as it does the executive and legislative to executive and legislative organs. The judges certainly have more frequent occasion to act on constitutional questions, because the laws of meum and tuum and of criminal action, forming the great mass of the system of law, constitute their particular department. When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves ; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."

-Thomas Jefferson on judicial review and Marbury v. Madison

Not that I agree with them.
 
2012-11-23 02:16:48 PM  
I must give John Dewey credit for casting effective Rand Paul-flavored bait. Not even his pappy's fanboys think Rand Paul is anything other than a moron (who occasionally is useful to them).
 
2012-11-23 02:17:24 PM  

Corvus: the law gets removed and can never be reinterpreted again?


Of course it can be reinterpreted again, but justices, and the ideological makeup of the court, don't change that often. Look how long Roe v. Wade has stood despite the right's 35-year attempt at reinterpreting it by appointing like-minded justices.
 
2012-11-23 02:18:17 PM  
Seems to me like the Supreme Court has a lot of unchecked power. Look at Bush v. Gore.
 
2012-11-23 02:20:01 PM  

elchip: -Thomas Jefferson on judicial review and Marbury v. Madison

Not that I agree with them.


sure, but
in the end, the congress can impeach scotus if they think that scotus has gone of the deep end.
congress can also amend the constitution to define exactly the mandate of scotus if if wanted the mandate to be different.

so Jefferson might have disagreed, but in the end, the nation has been pretty happy with the current 3 party arrangement.
 
2012-11-23 02:20:08 PM  

elchip: Corvus: the law gets removed and can never be reinterpreted again?

Of course it can be reinterpreted again, but justices, and the ideological makeup of the court, don't change that often. Look how long Roe v. Wade has stood despite the right's 35-year attempt at reinterpreting it by appointing like-minded justices.


Wait how can it be reinterpeted again if it's been "thrown out"?

Is you interpretation of the term "thrown out" is that you can use it again at a later date now?

"Thrown out" means it is GONE, that you can't then again use it in the future. That's what you said.
 
2012-11-23 02:20:26 PM  

elchip: cameroncrazy1984: That's not what "only right wingers who have no understanding of what the Constitution says" means in this context. I doubt there are any left-wingers who believe that the Constitution doesn't give supreme judicial power to the SCOTUS.

"You seem, in pages 84 and 148, to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is "boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem," and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves. If the legislature fails to pass laws for a census, for paying the judges and other officers of government, for establishing a militia, for naturalization as prescribed by the Constitution, or if they fail to meet in congress, the judges cannot issue their mandamus to them ; if the President fails to supply the place of a judge, to appoint other civil or military officers, to issue requisite commissions, the judges cannot force him. They can issue their mandamus or distringas to no executive or legislative officer to enforce the fulfilment of their official duties, any more than the President or legislature may issue orders to the judges or their officers. Betrayed by English example, and unaware, as it should seem, of the control of our Constitution in this particular, they have at times overstepped their limit by undertaking to command executive officers in the discharge of their executive duties ; bu ...


I would hope not. I mean, that would basically say that if SCOTUS had said the individual mandate was unconstitutional, the only way to completely get rid of it would be having Congress vote to repeal it. Obama could then say "Fark you guys, I want the mandate left in law," and force two-thirds of both houses to vote to overrule him. Or for a left-wing nightmare scenario, SCOTUS could say that state laws banning abortion are unconstitutional, but the state legislatures have to repeal those prohibitions to take them off the books. How is either of those situations reasonable?
 
2012-11-23 02:21:08 PM  

mcwehrle: I've missed you soooooo much!!!!

good to see you again!


You probably thought upon this that I have run away. You should just open the third eye of you.

I would like to be the one who sees things from the two sides and is then the judge of the Constitutionality of the issues very much.
 
2012-11-23 02:21:23 PM  
Not trying to troll here (and I didn't read TFA), but I thought the tax portion of the law (individual mandate) could not be further challenged until the tax has actually been assessed. As I understood it, SCOTUS found HCRA legal as the individual mandate was called a tax and within Congress' ability to assess taxes.
 
2012-11-23 02:21:30 PM  

John Dewey: Seems to me like the Supreme Court has a lot of unchecked power. Look at Bush v. Gore.


So your not capable of responding to our questions then are you? Your not smart enough to be able to back the comments you make. You say things without even understanding them.

Just trolling.
 
2012-11-23 02:21:51 PM  

John Dewey: Seems to me like the Supreme Court has a lot of unchecked power. Look at Bush v. Gore.


Seems to me like you don't want to tell us who the Constitution says has the power to judge the constitutionality of laws for some completely inexplicable reason.
 
2012-11-23 02:22:10 PM  

John Dewey: Seems to me like the Supreme Court has a lot of unchecked power. Look at Bush v. Gore.


Congress not checking the power is not the same as unchecked power.
Congress completely agrees with the current power level of the court, or they would make some changes.

impeachment or amendments to the constitution.
since congress has done neither, congress is asserting that the power sharing is just about right
 
2012-11-23 02:23:54 PM  

Corvus: Just trolling.


Wasn't even a really good troll, was it?
 
2012-11-23 02:24:49 PM  

Serious Black: I would hope not. I mean, that would basically say that if SCOTUS had said the individual mandate was unconstitutional, the only way to completely get rid of it would be having Congress vote to repeal it. Obama could then say "Fark you guys, I want the mandate left in law," and force two-thirds of both houses to vote to overrule him. Or for a left-wing nightmare scenario, SCOTUS could say that state laws banning abortion are unconstitutional, but the state legislatures have to repeal those prohibitions to take them off the books. How is either of those situations reasonable?


can we go a step further?
If congress hated ACA, why didnt the new congress pass a bill repealing it??
All they would have needed to do is get the senate to agree, wait for President Obama to veto the bill and then override the veto.

HAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
 
2012-11-23 02:32:30 PM  

meow said the dog: mcwehrle: I've missed you soooooo much!!!!

good to see you again!

You probably thought upon this that I have run away. You should just open the third eye of you.

I would like to be the one who sees things from the two sides and is then the judge of the Constitutionality of the issues very much.


My third eye looked upon the purple feral landscape, and wept.

or something something moar beer!
 
2012-11-23 02:33:02 PM  

John Dewey: Corvus: Just trolling.

Wasn't even a really good troll, was it?


Either your trolling or you are complete idiot. But probably both. I can't imagine someone that has such no life that spend time on places like here making stupid statements just to try to piss others off.
 
2012-11-23 02:33:56 PM  

Corvus: Either your trolling or you are complete idiot. But probably both. I can't imagine someone that has such no life that spend time on places like here making stupid statements just to try to piss others off.


It takes two to tango.
 
2012-11-23 02:37:53 PM  

Kibbler: DOC: Listen, you think you got problems?


You sir, are brilliant.

/Great book.
 
2012-11-23 02:38:47 PM  

John Dewey: Corvus: Either your trolling or you are complete idiot. But probably both. I can't imagine someone that has such no life that spend time on places like here making stupid statements just to try to piss others off.

It takes two to tango.


I am not doing the same thing idiot. I am trying to have actual discussions with people. But now I am just pointing out to others you are a troll and making fun of you. I am doing a completely different dance. I know you don't understand because your not very bright.

And yep I got better things to do and am about to go do them.
 
2012-11-23 02:39:56 PM  
Someone was wrong on the internet.
 
2012-11-23 02:39:58 PM  

slayer199: Not trying to troll here (and I didn't read TFA), but I thought the tax portion of the law (individual mandate) could not be further challenged until the tax has actually been assessed. As I understood it, SCOTUS found HCRA legal as the individual mandate was called a tax and within Congress' ability to assess taxes.


Close but not exactly. The Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) forbids judicial review of taxes before they go into effect. The opinion of the court was that the individual mandate was not a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act because Congress did not intend for it to be a tax. Therefore, the AIA did not prevent judicial review of the individual mandate. When they looked at the constitutionality of the individual mandate, they started by looking to see if it could be upheld as a regulation, rather than as a tax, because that was the intent of the law. The opinion of the court (5 out of the 9 justices) was that the individual mandate could not be upheld as a regulation of interstate commerce. They then went to see if there was any other congressional power that the law could be sustained under. The court found that had Congress passed this as a tax, it would clearly be constitutional (just like medicare, medicaid, social security, etc. are all enacted under Congress' power to tax and spend). So the court said that the law could be upheld as a tax, but not as a regulation.

So in short, the AIA didn't prevent judicial review of the mandate because the AIA only applies to things that congress intends to be a tax. But when the Court looked to the constitutionality of the act, they upheld it because Congress could have enacted it as a tax, even though they didn't intend to.

/Of course, the Court ignored the fact that Congress likely would not have had the votes to pass the (or to get the president to sign it) if the mandate had been clearly labeled a tax from the beginning.)
//The court also completely struck down the portions of the law that tied existing state medicaid and medicare funding to enacting the ACA, but no one ever talks about that).
 
2012-11-23 02:41:33 PM  

vpb: It's not like it's the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution or anything.


It's just a bunch of judges.
 
2012-11-23 02:43:31 PM  

John Dewey: Corvus: Either your trolling or you are complete idiot. But probably both. I can't imagine someone that has such no life that spend time on places like here making stupid statements just to try to piss others off.

It takes two to tango.


So who should have the power to judge whether something is constitutional or not?
 
2012-11-23 02:47:28 PM  

Gyrfalcon: John Dewey: Corvus: Either your trolling or you are complete idiot. But probably both. I can't imagine someone that has such no life that spend time on places like here making stupid statements just to try to piss others off.

It takes two to tango.

So who should have the power to judge whether something is constitutional or not?


The Supreme Court.
 
2012-11-23 02:49:36 PM  

Talondel: slayer199: Not trying to troll here (and I didn't read TFA), but I thought the tax portion of the law (individual mandate) could not be further challenged until the tax has actually been assessed. As I understood it, SCOTUS found HCRA legal as the individual mandate was called a tax and within Congress' ability to assess taxes.

Close but not exactly. The Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) forbids judicial review of taxes before they go into effect. The opinion of the court was that the individual mandate was not a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act because Congress did not intend for it to be a tax. Therefore, the AIA did not prevent judicial review of the individual mandate. When they looked at the constitutionality of the individual mandate, they started by looking to see if it could be upheld as a regulation, rather than as a tax, because that was the intent of the law. The opinion of the court (5 out of the 9 justices) was that the individual mandate could not be upheld as a regulation of interstate commerce. They then went to see if there was any other congressional power that the law could be sustained under. The court found that had Congress passed this as a tax, it would clearly be constitutional (just like medicare, medicaid, social security, etc. are all enacted under Congress' power to tax and spend). So the court said that the law could be upheld as a tax, but not as a regulation.

So in short, the AIA didn't prevent judicial review of the mandate because the AIA only applies to things that congress intends to be a tax. But when the Court looked to the constitutionality of the act, they upheld it because Congress could have enacted it as a tax, even though they didn't intend to.

/Of course, the Court ignored the fact that Congress likely would not have had the votes to pass the (or to get the president to sign it) if the mandate had been clearly labeled a tax from the beginning.)
//The court also completely struck down the portions of the law that tied ...


The seventh of the Ashwander rules concerning judicial restraint says that even if there is a serious concern raised about the constitutionality of a law, SCOTUS must figure out if any fairly possible construction of the law avoids those concerns. Whether Congress could have passed it is ultimately irrelevant.
 
2012-11-23 02:53:23 PM  

Gyrfalcon: John Dewey: Corvus: Either your trolling or you are complete idiot. But probably both. I can't imagine someone that has such no life that spend time on places like here making stupid statements just to try to piss others off.

It takes two to tango.

So who should have the power to judge whether something is constitutional or not?


He's admitted he was trolling and hooked us all. It's unfortunate that Poe's Law is so powerful nowadays.
 
2012-11-23 02:54:46 PM  
Damn this Corvus but I must add this as the thoughtful responses of you are hard to read when I am having the distraction. So here:

www.pagelines.com

Now thank you for having the property of the English language. You are welcome for the advisement of me to you.
 
2012-11-23 03:02:36 PM  

mcwehrle: 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!


th03.deviantart.net

As close as we can get, sorry.
 
2012-11-23 03:18:16 PM  
[marks John Dewey as a troll]

Best part....forever.
 
2012-11-23 03:18:17 PM  

vygramul: Forever Relevant: 

[www.bitlogic.com image 500x175]


i48.tinypic.com
 
2012-11-23 03:18:21 PM  
Know why libtards need health care for free? Because they don't work!! If only theyd work two jobs they wouldnt get sick!
 
2012-11-23 03:22:44 PM  

Serious Black: Gyrfalcon: John Dewey: Corvus: Either your trolling or you are complete idiot. But probably both. I can't imagine someone that has such no life that spend time on places like here making stupid statements just to try to piss others off.

It takes two to tango.

So who should have the power to judge whether something is constitutional or not?

He's admitted he was trolling and hooked us all. It's unfortunate that Poe's Law is so powerful nowadays.


There's trolling, there's Poe's Law, and there's plain idiocy. This seems to me to fall into the last category.
 
2012-11-23 03:32:09 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Serious Black: Gyrfalcon: John Dewey: Corvus: Either your trolling or you are complete idiot. But probably both. I can't imagine someone that has such no life that spend time on places like here making stupid statements just to try to piss others off.

It takes two to tango.

So who should have the power to judge whether something is constitutional or not?

He's admitted he was trolling and hooked us all. It's unfortunate that Poe's Law is so powerful nowadays.

There's trolling, there's Poe's Law, and there's plain idiocy. This seems to me to fall into the last category.


And boredom. You forgot boredom. Some idiocy. But mostly boredom.

/was honestly going to leave it at the Weeners but couldn't resist the bold text.
 
2012-11-23 03:40:52 PM  

El Pachuco: mcwehrle: 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!

[th03.deviantart.net image 150x150]

As close as we can get, sorry.


It's....it's......beautiful!!!!

*sniffle*
 
2012-11-23 03:50:29 PM  

meow said the dog: Damn this Corvus but I must add this as the thoughtful responses of you are hard to read when I am having the distraction


A) I know the difference between you and you're. Just don't really care.
B) What? is that sentence even close to English? If you are going to be a grammar nazi shouldn't you form a sentence that at least is not a complete train wreck?
 
2012-11-23 04:01:58 PM  

Corvus: meow said the dog: Damn this Corvus but I must add this as the thoughtful responses of you are hard to read when I am having the distraction

A) I know the difference between you and you're. Just don't really care.
B) What? is that sentence even close to English? If you are going to be a grammar nazi shouldn't you form a sentence that at least is not a complete train wreck?


Oh no you did not be the individual upon which did the doing of this! *snapping of the fingers*
 
2012-11-23 04:05:34 PM  
Boy oh boy, Corvus and meow mixing it up

/better get Maaco and popcorn cuz that's not gonna buff out :D
 
2012-11-23 04:07:32 PM  

Corvus: elchip: Corvus: the law gets removed and can never be reinterpreted again?

Of course it can be reinterpreted again, but justices, and the ideological makeup of the court, don't change that often. Look how long Roe v. Wade has stood despite the right's 35-year attempt at reinterpreting it by appointing like-minded justices.

Wait how can it be reinterpeted again if it's been "thrown out"?

Is you interpretation of the term "thrown out" is that you can use it again at a later date now?

"Thrown out" means it is GONE, that you can't then again use it in the future. That's what you said.


Oh FFS, so I used poor phrasing.
 
2012-11-23 04:09:45 PM  
So I'm curious, do you believe the SCOTUS is the final authority and that once they decide everyone just has to shut up... or not?

You may reverse the words in parentheses ( )

SCOTUS is the final authority on this issue and everyone should just shut up and accept (ObamaCare). I don't care what the SCOTUS says, and its not the final authority on anything so what they say about (Citizens United) doesn't matter, its still wrong.

Though I should still like to point out that I get a big old chuckle out of ObamaCare even now.

Liberals: "It's not a tax! It's covered under the Commerce Clause!"

SCOTUS: "It's a tax and not covered under the Commerce Clause. Taxes are Constitutional."

Liberals: "See! We were right!"

Except for the part where you weren't.
 
2012-11-23 04:11:09 PM  
www.ourrescuer.com
 
2012-11-23 04:11:37 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: stupid repetitive boring Fox Fluffy News cap & bells jangling


Login: Princess Ryans Knickers
Account created: 2012-11-10 14:45:25



GTFO alt troll and F Off
 
2012-11-23 04:11:50 PM  

randomjsa: So I'm curious, do you believe the SCOTUS is the final authority and that once they decide everyone just has to shut up... or not?

You may reverse the words in parentheses ( )

SCOTUS is the final authority on this issue and everyone should just shut up and accept (ObamaCare). I don't care what the SCOTUS says, and its not the final authority on anything so what they say about (Citizens United) doesn't matter, its still wrong.

Though I should still like to point out that I get a big old chuckle out of ObamaCare even now.

Liberals: "It's not a tax! It's covered under the Commerce Clause!"

SCOTUS: "It's a tax and not covered under the Commerce Clause. Taxes are Constitutional."

Liberals: "See! We were right!"

Except for the part where you weren't.


LAUGHTER O BUTTHURTNESS
 
2012-11-23 04:15:51 PM  

meow said the dog: Corvus: meow said the dog: Damn this Corvus but I must add this as the thoughtful responses of you are hard to read when I am having the distraction

A) I know the difference between you and you're. Just don't really care.
B) What? is that sentence even close to English? If you are going to be a grammar nazi shouldn't you form a sentence that at least is not a complete train wreck?

Oh no you did not be the individual upon which did the doing of this! *snapping of the fingers*


Ok, this is just getting surreal. Did someone slip me mushrooms? Last time that happened I regained awareness starring at the wikipedia page about Buddha...
 
2012-11-23 04:19:11 PM  

Kittypie070: Princess Ryans Knickers: stupid repetitive boring Fox Fluffy News cap & bells jangling

Login: Princess Ryans Knickers
Account created: 2012-11-10 14:45:25


GTFO alt troll and F Off


Alts are for p*ssies. If you're gonna troll, use your established name and and go in dry. Otherwise, go home.

/there is of course the distinct possibility that the person actually is new
 
2012-11-23 04:23:08 PM  

randomjsa: So I'm curious, do you believe the SCOTUS is the final authority and that once they decide everyone just has to shut up... or not?

You may reverse the words in parentheses ( )

SCOTUS is the final authority on this issue and everyone should just shut up and accept (ObamaCare). I don't care what the SCOTUS says, and its not the final authority on anything so what they say about (Citizens United) doesn't matter, its still wrong.

Though I should still like to point out that I get a big old chuckle out of ObamaCare even now.

Liberals: "It's not a tax! It's covered under the Commerce Clause!"

SCOTUS: "It's a tax and not covered under the Commerce Clause. Taxes are Constitutional."

Liberals: "See! We were right!"

Except for the part where you weren't.


Herp a derp a doooooo...good luck with that revolution *snicker*.
 
2012-11-23 04:24:32 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.


This is absolutely correct.

There is nothing in the Constitution which explicitly grants the Supreme Court power to invalidate an act of Congress on the basis that Congress overstepped its constitutional authority. There is certainly language which appears to imply as much, and one can make a good argument that such authority is necessarily implied by the tripartite structure of the federal government, but the fact remains that there is no such explicit grant of such authority and many of the Framers - most notably, Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the Anti-Federalists - were quite certain that in fact the Supreme Court lacked any such authority.

However, Jefferson and the rest of the doubters were outflanked by Chief Justice Marshall's masterful opinion in Marbury. An interesting thing about Marbury is that the "holding" for which it is best known, that the Supreme Court had the power to invalidate acts of Congress on constitutional grounds, isn't really the holding of the case at all. It's pure dicta. Once Marshall held that the Court lacked jurisdiction, nothing else that he wrote mattered from a legal point of view. That was his genius. By sidestepping the real issue and mentioning it only in dicta he avoided a looming constitutional crisis and gave the notion of a judicial check on Congress a legitimacy that it would otherwise have lacked.

So the troll's comment was technically correct (the best kind of correct!), but ultimately irrelevant. Thanks to the awesome brilliance of Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, that ship has long since sailed.
 
2012-11-23 04:29:27 PM  

John Dewey: 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.


Oh my God, you are awesomely stupid and terrible at the internet.

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?


CORVUS REPLIED with the following statement - To Them:Only right wingers who have no farking idea what the constitution says.

You knew that, but decided to argue against a point that was never stated in a pathetic attempt to hide the fact that YOU have no farking idea what the constitution says.

/your tears are yummy
//Please sir, I want some more
/// I'm very tired so I could be wrong. I'm not reading the entire farking derpgasm to find out.
 
2012-11-23 04:40:22 PM  
In case it wasn't obvious, I get kind of a jurisprudential stiffy when Marbury v. Madison comes up in conversation. Sorry.
 
2012-11-23 04:40:55 PM  
BWhahahahahahahahahahahahah!

American Thinker is such a fun site to read, almost as witty and interesting as Pocket Ninja.
 
2012-11-23 04:57:35 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.


Any court must necessarily have the power to judge between mutually contradictory laws and determine which is controlling, though of course such judgment is only binding within that court's jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court's jurisdiction, as dictated in the Constitution, is the entire United States. The Constitution also dictates that it is the supreme law of the land, and so any contradictions between mere statute and the Constitution must, of course, be adjudicated in favor of the Constitution. (The Constitution declaring itself the supreme law of the land is not circular, as it was given force by ratification by the several States.)

Thus, the power of judicial review is inescapably implied by the text of the Constitution and the nature of how a judicial system works.
 
2012-11-23 05:05:18 PM  

Kittypie070: Princess Ryans Knickers: stupid repetitive boring Fox Fluffy News cap & bells jangling

Login: Princess Ryans Knickers
Account created: 2012-11-10 14:45:25


GTFO alt troll and F Off


kitty, have I ever told you how much I likes you?

*curls tail around tootsies, relaxes on back of puffy couch*
 
2012-11-23 05:10:30 PM  
For the record, let us not confuse "is" with "ought". Thomas Jefferson may not have liked the idea of judicial review because of its grant of power to an unaccountable body, but the remedy for this cannot be to simply declare their jurisdiction invalid. That would be "legislative activism" or "executive activism" far in excess of any "judicial activism" the SC has ever been accused of.

Rather, the remedy is to amend the constitution. Which, incidentally, I wouldn't mind so much. State court systems (the much-ballyhooed "laboratories of democracy"), however, have shown us the pitfalls of an elected judiciary, so I'm not too keen on that.

Rather, I would prefer that Supreme Court justices be required to face regular reconfirmation. Ten years seems an appropriate term - guarantees that the reconfirmation will take place under a different President than the one who appointed them, but doesn't tie them to the same rhythm of six-year Senate terms. (I'd also put in place, as part of the amendment, the explicit requirement that reconfirmation must be done by majority vote in the Senate. Up to a point, I'm fine with filibusters for the initial confirmation - even with judicial terms of service, appointing a SC justice is a momentous decision that should take place by consensus rather than a mere majority - but once in office I think you shouldn't need a supermajority just to keep them on.)
 
2012-11-23 05:11:00 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.


WTF did I just read?
 
2012-11-23 05:12:57 PM  

John Dewey: Gyrfalcon: John Dewey: Corvus: Either your trolling or you are complete idiot. But probably both. I can't imagine someone that has such no life that spend time on places like here making stupid statements just to try to piss others off.

It takes two to tango.

So who should have the power to judge whether something is constitutional or not?

The Supreme Court.


In that case, shut the f*ck up.
 
2012-11-23 05:20:00 PM  

neenerist: vygramul: Forever Relevant: 

[www.bitlogic.com image 500x175]

[i48.tinypic.com image 480x168]


You should make it "whinger" simply as an added insult of using the non-American spelling.
 
2012-11-23 05:22:40 PM  
American Thinker is approaching the level of comedy gold found only in Conservapedia.
 
2012-11-23 05:26:59 PM  

Mithiwithi: 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.

Any court must necessarily have the power to judge between mutually contradictory laws and determine which is controlling, though of course such judgment is only binding within that court's jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court's jurisdiction, as dictated in the Constitution, is the entire United States. The Constitution also dictates that it is the supreme law of the land, and so any contradictions between mere statute and the Constitution must, of course, be adjudicated in favor of the Constitution. (The Constitution declaring itself the supreme law of the land is not circular, as it was given force by ratification by the several States.)

Thus, the power of judicial review is inescapably implied by the text of the Constitution and the nature of how a judicial system works.


Not at all, There are plenty of examples of political systems in which the judiciary has no power to supersede the authority of the legislature or the executive. Just because this is the governmental structure that we've chosen in no way implies that alternative approaches are illegitimate.

Remember, no one thought for a second that Marshall would be able to manage the Hobson's choice that the anti-Federalists had orchestrated. The presumption was that the Court would surender to Congress' ultimate authority. Onl;y a minority thought that he would take the suicide route, declare the power of judicial review, and trigger the constitutional crisis that would likely destroy the authority of the Court forever. No one but Marshall saw a third way; no one Marshall had any idea how the Federalists could win. Marshall showed the way - he won the war by conceding the battle. Remember, the upshot of Marbury that, while Congress had overstepped its constitutional authority, the Court lacked jurisdiction to do anything about it in that particular procedural posture. Marbury lost his case! Congress won that round, but it was a Pyrrhic victory. Decades later, when the Court finally addressed the issue again in a more favorable context, they were able to rely on the "long-standing" principle that the Court had the power of judicial review on constitutional grounds, despite the fact that that principle had never before been applied in practice!
 
2012-11-23 05:28:46 PM  

mcwehrle: Kittypie070: Princess Ryans Knickers: stupid repetitive boring Fox Fluffy News cap & bells jangling

Login: Princess Ryans Knickers
Account created: 2012-11-10 14:45:25


GTFO alt troll and F Off

kitty, have I ever told you how much I likes you?

*curls tail around tootsies, relaxes on back of puffy couch*


Yikes., it's like AOL all over again.
 
2012-11-23 05:33:36 PM  

BMulligan: the fact remains that there is no such explicit grant of such authority and many of the Framers - most notably, Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the Anti-Federalists - were quite certain that in fact the Supreme Court lacked any such authority.


I think that's a mistaken interpretation of the Anti-Federalists' view. The Anti-Federalists largely acknowledged the power existed, but argued that it was a bad thing with much potential for abuse.
 
2012-11-23 05:45:58 PM  

qorkfiend: BMulligan: the fact remains that there is no such explicit grant of such authority and many of the Framers - most notably, Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the Anti-Federalists - were quite certain that in fact the Supreme Court lacked any such authority.

I think that's a mistaken interpretation of the Anti-Federalists' view. The Anti-Federalists largely acknowledged the power existed, but argued that it was a bad thing with much potential for abuse.


This is a defensible interpretation, but I think it's wrong. I think they exerted a lot of political capital in keeping the constitutional language vague enough to keep their preferred interpretation alive, and largely believed that they had outmaneuvered their opponents. There's plenty of evidence to support your argument as well, however, and my belief is based more on my sense of human nature than on hard evidence.
 
2012-11-23 05:48:01 PM  

elchip: Corvus: elchip: Corvus: the law gets removed and can never be reinterpreted again?

Of course it can be reinterpreted again, but justices, and the ideological makeup of the court, don't change that often. Look how long Roe v. Wade has stood despite the right's 35-year attempt at reinterpreting it by appointing like-minded justices.

Wait how can it be reinterpeted again if it's been "thrown out"?

Is you interpretation of the term "thrown out" is that you can use it again at a later date now?

"Thrown out" means it is GONE, that you can't then again use it in the future. That's what you said.

Oh FFS, so I used poor phrasing.


No it wasn't just phrasing it was your entire point. You said, SCOTUS throws out ruling instead of just saying ruling on the case. Ruling on the case is exactly what they do. They don't throw out laws like you said.

It's not how you worded it, it was the point you were making. They do what you said they don't do (rule on cases) and they don't "throw out" laws like you said they do.
 
2012-11-23 05:50:09 PM  

randomjsa: So I'm curious, do you believe the SCOTUS is the final authority and that once they decide everyone just has to shut up... or not?

You may reverse the words in parentheses ( )

SCOTUS is the final authority on this issue and everyone should just shut up and accept (ObamaCare). I don't care what the SCOTUS says, and its not the final authority on anything so what they say about (Citizens United) doesn't matter, its still wrong.

Though I should still like to point out that I get a big old chuckle out of ObamaCare even now.

Liberals: "It's not a tax! It's covered under the Commerce Clause!"

SCOTUS: "It's a tax and not covered under the Commerce Clause. Taxes are Constitutional."

Liberals: "See! We were right!"

Except for the part where you weren't.


Funny, I've always said it was a tax. So were is your apology to me?
 
2012-11-23 05:51:51 PM  
Dear Conservatives:

We libs would just love to get all bipartisan with you, and we will, too. But you have to put down the knife and play nice. Put down the knife and let's talk.

Mkay?

Mkay.
 
2012-11-23 05:52:11 PM  
God, I do hate ye olde english text on that website.
 
2012-11-23 06:05:36 PM  

randomjsa: So I'm curious, do you believe the SCOTUS is the final authority and that once they decide everyone just has to shut up... or not?

You may reverse the words in parentheses ( )

SCOTUS is the final authority on this issue and everyone should just shut up and accept (ObamaCare). I don't care what the SCOTUS says, and its not the final authority on anything so what they say about (Citizens United) doesn't matter, its still wrong.

Though I should still like to point out that I get a big old chuckle out of ObamaCare even now.

Liberals: "It's not a tax! It's covered under the Commerce Clause!"

SCOTUS: "It's a tax and not covered under the Commerce Clause. Taxes are Constitutional."

Liberals: "See! We were right!"

Except for the part where you weren't.


Why are you are here wasting time on this subject - the Benghazi scandal isn't going to make itself!
 
2012-11-23 06:08:43 PM  

BMulligan: Not at all, There are plenty of examples of political systems in which the judiciary has no power to supersede the authority of the legislature or the executive.


China's is one of them.
 
2012-11-23 06:09:56 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.


I thought any court that did display a flag with gold fringe was invalid because the fringe indicated a military flag, and thus a military court, and civilians aren't subject to military law. Not that sovereign citizens are subject to any law higher than the county Sheriff.

/gawd I loves me some sovereign citizen craziness
 
2012-11-23 06:15:40 PM  
National flags are for indoor display and for use in ceremonies and parades. For these purposes the United States flag will be rayon banner cloth, trimmed on three sides with golden yellow fringe, 2 1/2 inches wide. It will be the same size as the flags displayed or carried with it. Authorization for indoor display in Each military courtroom.

Any courtroom that displays these flags behind the Judge is a military courtroom. You are under military law and not constitutional law, or common law, or civil law, or statute law.


If there's a fringed flag in the SCOTUS building their rulings do not apply to civilians. So sayeth sovereign-citizenship.net/
 
2012-11-23 06:21:14 PM  

thamike:

Yikes., it's like AOL all over again.


pffft.

mIRC.
 
2012-11-23 06:21:52 PM  

mcwehrle: Kittypie070: Princess Ryans Knickers: stupid repetitive boring Fox Fluffy News cap & bells jangling

Login: Princess Ryans Knickers
Account created: 2012-11-10 14:45:25


GTFO alt troll and F Off

kitty, have I ever told you how much I likes you?

*curls tail around tootsies, relaxes on back of puffy couch*


Don't encourage it.
 
2012-11-23 07:08:08 PM  
I am so sick of the "Judicial Review is unconstitutional" crap. Also, the concept was in place well before Marbury v. Madison. There is a simple reason that Judicial Review is not in the Constitution. According to Madison's notes on the convention, the subject came up on the first (or second--I don't remember which) day, and since the highest court in each member state of the Articles of Confederation had that power, it was by UNANIMOUS consent that the SCOTUS would have that power. The Framers didn't think it necessary to articulate it in the Constitution because everyone agreed, and as was stated earlier in the thread, it can be interpreted from what is written in the document. Maybe if Jefferson had been at the convention instead of living the high life as Ambassador to France he would have understood the concept better.
 
2012-11-23 07:13:47 PM  

Corvus: No it wasn't just phrasing it was your entire point. You said, SCOTUS throws out ruling instead of just saying ruling on the case. Ruling on the case is exactly what they do. They don't throw out laws like you said.

It's not how you worded it, it was the point you were making. They do what you said they don't do (rule on cases) and they don't "throw out" laws like you said they do.


They do throw out laws. What would have happened if they ruled the other way on PPACA? The law would have been thrown out. But their rulings can be overturned by future courts (the most famous example being Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board).
 
2012-11-23 07:18:07 PM  

elchip: But their rulings can be overturned by future courts (the most famous example being Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board).

Brown

has not actually been abandoned, it just looks that way in the hallways of most of our schools.
 
2012-11-23 07:27:26 PM  

thenewmissus: 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.

WTF did I just read?


Oh, all these newbies who haven't been privileged to see meow in her full glory. This is meowsaidthedog and she is a wonderful poster, to be sure. Not to be fully understood, nor to be fully comprehended except with a head full of magic mushrooms, is our meow, but simply savored as the witty yet unappreciated skewerer of trolls she is. I think she's a Russian Blue with some Norwegian Forest Cat and some Siberian Wolfhound thrown in.
 
2012-11-23 07:33:46 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: mcwehrle: Kittypie070: Princess Ryans Knickers: stupid repetitive boring Fox Fluffy News cap & bells jangling

Login: Princess Ryans Knickers
Account created: 2012-11-10 14:45:25


GTFO alt troll and F Off

kitty, have I ever told you how much I likes you?

*curls tail around tootsies, relaxes on back of puffy couch*

Don't encourage it.


Skaters gonna skate, skeeters gonna skeet, and squeeters gonna squeet.

Squeet squeet.
 
2012-11-23 07:36:41 PM  

BMulligan: elchip: But their rulings can be overturned by future courts (the most famous example being Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board).

Brown has not actually been abandoned, it just looks that way in the hallways of most of our schools.


Plessy has been abandoned.
 
2012-11-23 07:39:02 PM  

elchip: BMulligan: elchip: But their rulings can be overturned by future courts (the most famous example being Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board).

Brown has not actually been abandoned, it just looks that way in the hallways of most of our schools.

Plessy has been abandoned.


Ah, I see what you were saying. I completely misunderstood. My apologies.
 
2012-11-23 07:39:46 PM  

ProdigalSigh: 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.


I didn't get the memo but I support this idea.
 
2012-11-23 07:51:00 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.



Would somebody like to explain to him if that was the case then Obamacare's constitutionality would have never been in doubt, as would the FEC's rules and regulations for campaign spending pre-Citizens United?
 
2012-11-23 07:56:21 PM  

slayer199: Not trying to troll here (and I didn't read TFA), but I thought the tax portion of the law (individual mandate) could not be further challenged until the tax has actually been assessed. As I understood it, SCOTUS found HCRA legal as the individual mandate was called a tax and within Congress' ability to assess taxes.


Technically, that was Roberts reasoning. But this ignores the four other justices who thought that it was constitutional on either taxation or commerce grounds.
 
2012-11-23 07:59:34 PM  
American Thinker and World Net Daily make Fox News fair and balanced*.

*relatively speaking
 
2012-11-23 08:00:33 PM  

pueblonative: 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.


Would somebody like to explain to him if that was the case then Obamacare's constitutionality would have never been in doubt, as would the FEC's rules and regulations for campaign spending pre-Citizens United?


Exactly. What these dunderheads don't realize is that if the Court doesn't have the authority to adjudicate constitutionality, then surely that authority must lie with either the legislature or the executive - that is, either the Congress that passed the bill, or the president who signed it.
 
2012-11-23 08:39:36 PM  

slayer199: Not trying to troll here (and I didn't read TFA), but I thought the tax portion of the law (individual mandate) could not be further challenged until the tax has actually been assessed. As I understood it, SCOTUS found HCRA legal as the individual mandate was called a tax and within Congress' ability to assess taxes.


Yes, which is why the quote in the headline is delusional.
 
2012-11-23 09:28:20 PM  
I'm gonna presume the headline is a direct quote from TFA and simply not bother clicking the link. I'm sure I saved a few brain cells in the process.

Oh, and facepalm.jpg
 
2012-11-23 09:58:29 PM  
I took a huge dump this morning. A good 2 foot long unbroken monster. I didn't realize that when I flushed it, it would be routed to American Thinker and that they would print it.

I apologize and will speak to my plumber on Monday.
 
2012-11-23 10:15:39 PM  

Kittypie070: Princess Ryans Knickers: stupid repetitive boring Fox Fluffy News cap & bells jangling

Login: Princess Ryans Knickers
Account created: 2012-11-10 14:45:25


GTFO alt troll and F Off


Am new but thanks for the welcome!
 
2012-11-23 10:51:28 PM  
So, what's the unconstitutional part? The part that says if you're able to afford health care but are too lazy to get it you'll be taxed, but if you're either getting health care or too poor to get it you won't be taxed?
 
2012-11-23 10:52:45 PM  

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


Mmmmm.... Bacon.
 
2012-11-23 10:55:41 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.


i595.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-23 11:02:43 PM  

dartben: 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).


i2.cdn.turner.com


Unless they're losing an election. Then the Courts are their best friend, the SUPREME law of the land, etc.
 
2012-11-23 11:11:52 PM  

Lost_in_Korea: I am so sick of the "Judicial Review is unconstitutional" crap. Also, the concept was in place well before Marbury v. Madison. There is a simple reason that Judicial Review is not in the Constitution. According to Madison's notes on the convention, the subject came up on the first (or second--I don't remember which) day, and since the highest court in each member state of the Articles of Confederation had that power, it was by UNANIMOUS consent that the SCOTUS would have that power. The Framers didn't think it necessary to articulate it in the Constitution because everyone agreed, and as was stated earlier in the thread, it can be interpreted from what is written in the document. Maybe if Jefferson had been at the convention instead of living the high life as Ambassador to France he would have understood the concept better.


And it was taken as a given in prior Supreme Court cases, but you don't hear about those because they all confirmed the constitutionality of the laws.
 
2012-11-24 12:23:59 AM  

John Dewey: Wasn't even a really good troll, was it?


Nope. But the good news is that I never have to be subjected to your bullshiat again.
 
2012-11-24 12:32:55 AM  

Corvus: Funny, I've always said it was a tax. So were is your apology to me?


What's the difference between a tax and a fee? Honest question.
 
2012-11-24 12:41:14 AM  

fusillade762: Corvus: Funny, I've always said it was a tax. So were is your apology to me?

What's the difference between a tax and a fee? Honest question.


Isn't it that a tax is assessed as a percentage of the value of the item in question and a fee is a fixed value attached to the service? Would that be right?
 
2012-11-24 01:08:51 AM  

BronyMedic: This article made my brain hurt.

I don't think I like reading anymore.

[i306.photobucket.com image 500x293]


I usually read the thesis statement and first paragraphs. They don't have much going for them, but at least they don't take long to outline their arguments.
 
2012-11-24 01:18:25 AM  
FTA: Jon N. Hall is a programmer/analyst from Kansas City.

Oh, come on! This is really from The Onion, right? Right?
 
2012-11-24 01:54:18 AM  
Damn Poe's Law, ensuring that I can't take the Satire tag at face value in the Politics tab.
 
2012-11-24 06:42:42 AM  
Yeah... you're allowed to disagree with the Supreme Court. You're not allowed to be offended by other people treating them as authoritative on matters of law, though. As they are quite literally the authority on legal interpretation.
 
2012-11-24 07:42:07 AM  
The good news is that there are 5 SC justices who will roast in Hell after they die for this decision.

I hope Roberts is cast into the seventh circle and spends eternity washing Obama's balls.
 
2012-11-24 08:14:47 AM  
What is the Separation of Powers as defined in US Constitution?

s8.postimage.org
 
2012-11-24 08:24:03 AM  

BronyMedic: This article made my brain hurt.

I don't think I like reading anymore.

[i306.photobucket.com image 500x293]


American Stinker == NGTRTFA.
 
2012-11-24 08:28:23 AM  

shotglasss: The good news is that there are 5 SC justices who will roast in Hell after they die for this decision.

I hope Roberts is cast into the seventh circle and spends eternity washing Obama's balls.


Truly, history's greatest monsters.
 
2012-11-24 08:56:57 AM  

shotglasss: The good news is that there are 5 SC justices who will roast in Hell after they die for this decision.

I hope Roberts is cast into the seventh circle and spends eternity washing Obama's balls.


Yes, because a society that ensures its people are tajen care of is something Jesus would find abhorrent.
 
2012-11-24 09:10:13 AM  

mittromneysdog: shotglasss: The good news is that there are 5 SC justices who will roast in Hell after they die for this decision.

I hope Roberts is cast into the seventh circle and spends eternity washing Obama's balls.

Truly, history's greatest monsters.


Yes they are. Those who allow the masses to be stolen from are truly monsters. The SC5 who have sent the US on a path to death panels and rationed health care (you can read that as some people will be denied care that they would have been able to get before Obamacare) shall burn in hell. Too bad we don't burn people at the stake any more....it would be fun to watch them scream for mercy as they burned their way into Satan's embrace.

/amidoingitrite?
 
2012-11-24 09:11:20 AM  

vygramul: shotglasss: The good news is that there are 5 SC justices who will roast in Hell after they die for this decision.

I hope Roberts is cast into the seventh circle and spends eternity washing Obama's balls.

Yes, because a society that ensures its people are tajen care of is something Jesus would find abhorrent.


Whatever happened to the good old days...you know, when people took care of themselves and didn't expect other people to pay for them to live.
 
2012-11-24 09:47:46 AM  

mcwehrle: thamike:

Yikes., it's like AOL all over again.

pffft.

mIRC.


Yeah you're right, IRC was more for the teatime furries. AOL was vampires and old men having a seat over there.
 
2012-11-24 09:49:24 AM  

shotglasss: vygramul: shotglasss: The good news is that there are 5 SC justices who will roast in Hell after they die for this decision.

I hope Roberts is cast into the seventh circle and spends eternity washing Obama's balls.

Yes, because a society that ensures its people are tajen care of is something Jesus would find abhorrent.

Whatever happened to the good old days...you know, when people took care of themselves and didn't expect other people to pay for them to live.


Not the point. You said people are going to Hell. That's religious. And Matthew 25: 31-46 makes it clear that healing the sick is not just an option that can get you into good graces, but is an obligation - and failure to comply with that obligation results in going to Hell. So if you are a good Christian man, YOU are putting YOURSELF in mortal danger, while Roberts and the other four justices are not - not over THAT ruling.

I won't say you're going to burn in hell next to pedophiles and John Wayne Gacy, because judging someone is something that any Christian realizes is God's domain lest they, themselves, get called on their pompous bullshiat, but you should consider that only the truly selfish and those without any Christian compassion at all share your opinion. Between Jesus and Satan, we know which position they would endorse.
 
2012-11-24 10:07:22 AM  

thenewmissus: 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.

WTF did I just read?


I've got Meow favorited as "WTF am I reading." I recommend you do the same. Meow's got some good stuff, but hasn't posted in awhile.
 
2012-11-24 11:29:16 AM  

Serious Black: The seventh of the Ashwander rules concerning judicial restraint says that even if there is a serious concern raised about the constitutionality of a law, SCOTUS must figure out if any fairly possible construction of the law avoids those concerns. Whether Congress could have passed it is ultimately irrelevant.


Those are guidelines, not rules. They are not binding on anyone, and they are not without their flaws. For example, plenty of scholars (and more than one Justice) believe that the only limits on the Commerce Clause power are political ones. In other words, it's not up to the Court to decide what is or isn't interstate commerce, it's something that the voters should decide at the ballot box. Of course, if that's your theory then it's somewhat important that the political restraints on the use of those powers actually work. It's harder to pass a 'tax' than a 'regulation' purely for political reasons. If you believe that constitutional limits should be set largely by politics and not by justices, that difference should matter to you.
 
2012-11-24 11:31:24 AM  

vygramul: shotglasss: vygramul: shotglasss: The good news is that there are 5 SC justices who will roast in Hell after they die for this decision.

I hope Roberts is cast into the seventh circle and spends eternity washing Obama's balls.

Yes, because a society that ensures its people are tajen care of is something Jesus would find abhorrent.

Whatever happened to the good old days...you know, when people took care of themselves and didn't expect other people to pay for them to live.

Not the point. You said people are going to Hell. That's religious. And Matthew 25: 31-46 makes it clear that healing the sick is not just an option that can get you into good graces, but is an obligation - and failure to comply with that obligation results in going to Hell. So if you are a good Christian man, YOU are putting YOURSELF in mortal danger, while Roberts and the other four justices are not - not over THAT ruling.

I won't say you're going to burn in hell next to pedophiles and John Wayne Gacy, because judging someone is something that any Christian realizes is God's domain lest they, themselves, get called on their pompous bullshiat, but you should consider that only the truly selfish and those without any Christian compassion at all share your opinion. Between Jesus and Satan, we know which position they would endorse.


You think shotglass is a christian.

You're silly.
 
2012-11-24 11:36:56 AM  

Raharu: vygramul: shotglasss: vygramul: shotglasss: The good news is that there are 5 SC justices who will roast in Hell after they die for this decision.

I hope Roberts is cast into the seventh circle and spends eternity washing Obama's balls.

Yes, because a society that ensures its people are tajen care of is something Jesus would find abhorrent.

Whatever happened to the good old days...you know, when people took care of themselves and didn't expect other people to pay for them to live.

Not the point. You said people are going to Hell. That's religious. And Matthew 25: 31-46 makes it clear that healing the sick is not just an option that can get you into good graces, but is an obligation - and failure to comply with that obligation results in going to Hell. So if you are a good Christian man, YOU are putting YOURSELF in mortal danger, while Roberts and the other four justices are not - not over THAT ruling.

I won't say you're going to burn in hell next to pedophiles and John Wayne Gacy, because judging someone is something that any Christian realizes is God's domain lest they, themselves, get called on their pompous bullshiat, but you should consider that only the truly selfish and those without any Christian compassion at all share your opinion. Between Jesus and Satan, we know which position they would endorse.

You think shotglass is a christian.

You're silly.


Good call. I follow Mohammed and Allah.
 
2012-11-24 11:43:34 AM  

shotglasss: The SC5


I loved "Kick Out The Jam".
 
2012-11-24 11:56:56 AM  

Raharu: vygramul: shotglasss: vygramul: shotglasss: The good news is that there are 5 SC justices who will roast in Hell after they die for this decision.

I hope Roberts is cast into the seventh circle and spends eternity washing Obama's balls.

Yes, because a society that ensures its people are tajen care of is something Jesus would find abhorrent.

Whatever happened to the good old days...you know, when people took care of themselves and didn't expect other people to pay for them to live.

Not the point. You said people are going to Hell. That's religious. And Matthew 25: 31-46 makes it clear that healing the sick is not just an option that can get you into good graces, but is an obligation - and failure to comply with that obligation results in going to Hell. So if you are a good Christian man, YOU are putting YOURSELF in mortal danger, while Roberts and the other four justices are not - not over THAT ruling.

I won't say you're going to burn in hell next to pedophiles and John Wayne Gacy, because judging someone is something that any Christian realizes is God's domain lest they, themselves, get called on their pompous bullshiat, but you should consider that only the truly selfish and those without any Christian compassion at all share your opinion. Between Jesus and Satan, we know which position they would endorse.

You think shotglass is a christian.

You're silly.


He brought up Hell and people burning in it. I was actually cognizant of this likelihood, especially once I smacked the notion around a bit. I
 
2012-11-24 11:57:40 AM  

shotglasss: Raharu: vygramul: shotglasss: vygramul: shotglasss: The good news is that there are 5 SC justices who will roast in Hell after they die for this decision.

I hope Roberts is cast into the seventh circle and spends eternity washing Obama's balls.

Yes, because a society that ensures its people are tajen care of is something Jesus would find abhorrent.

Whatever happened to the good old days...you know, when people took care of themselves and didn't expect other people to pay for them to live.

Not the point. You said people are going to Hell. That's religious. And Matthew 25: 31-46 makes it clear that healing the sick is not just an option that can get you into good graces, but is an obligation - and failure to comply with that obligation results in going to Hell. So if you are a good Christian man, YOU are putting YOURSELF in mortal danger, while Roberts and the other four justices are not - not over THAT ruling.

I won't say you're going to burn in hell next to pedophiles and John Wayne Gacy, because judging someone is something that any Christian realizes is God's domain lest they, themselves, get called on their pompous bullshiat, but you should consider that only the truly selfish and those without any Christian compassion at all share your opinion. Between Jesus and Satan, we know which position they would endorse.

You think shotglass is a christian.

You're silly.

Good call. I follow Mohammed and Allah.


And that's not any better. In fact, the obligations to your brothers is stronger, not weaker.
 
2012-11-24 02:18:54 PM  
American Stinker: James Thurber, Steven Colbert and HL Mencken wrapped up into one.

Oh wait...
 
2012-11-24 02:41:38 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.


Hey, man, it's just a piece of paper !
 
2012-11-24 06:57:21 PM  

shotglasss: vygramul: shotglasss: The good news is that there are 5 SC justices who will roast in Hell after they die for this decision.

I hope Roberts is cast into the seventh circle and spends eternity washing Obama's balls.

Yes, because a society that ensures its people are tajen care of is something Jesus would find abhorrent.

Whatever happened to the good old days...you know, when people took care of themselves and didn't expect other people to pay for them to live.


I'm sorry. You have failed the Turing Test.

Please delete yourself.
 
2012-11-24 07:05:18 PM  

shotglasss: Whatever happened to the good old days...you know, when people took care of themselves and didn't expect other people to pay for them to live.


Except when they couldn't, and we let them die in the streets. You know, the good old days!
 
2012-11-24 07:39:02 PM  
shotglasss: Whatever happened to the good old days...you know, when people took care of themselves and didn't expect other people to pay for them to live.

Says some guy who's too young to remember Ducktales.
 
2012-11-25 04:16:28 AM  

Talondel: Serious Black: The seventh of the Ashwander rules concerning judicial restraint says that even if there is a serious concern raised about the constitutionality of a law, SCOTUS must figure out if any fairly possible construction of the law avoids those concerns. Whether Congress could have passed it is ultimately irrelevant.

Those are guidelines, not rules. They are not binding on anyone, and they are not without their flaws.


Jesus titty-farking Christ. I know they're not binding rules. I simply called them rules because that's what thy're known as in popular parlance. If you would rather I call them guidelines to satisfy your need to be a pedantic assclown, fine. They're "guidelines."

For example, plenty of scholars (and more than one Justice) believe that the only limits on the Commerce Clause power are political ones. In other words, it's not up to the Court to decide what is or isn't interstate commerce, it's something that the voters should decide at the ballot box. Of course, if that's your theory then it's somewhat important that the political restraints on the use of those powers actually work. It's harder to pass a 'tax' than a 'regulation' purely for political reasons. If you believe that constitutional limits should be set largely by politics and not by justices, that difference should matter to you.

I don't know anyone who actually thinks this is true, and if there really are people who think it is, they're stupid as a box of rocks. The Constitution is famous for its brevity. If the point was to give Congress the power to make all commercial regulations that the membership could pass, then why doesn't the Commerce Clause just say Congress has the power "to regulate commerce"? That's a hell of a lot more simple than saying Congress has the power to regulate commerce in three different areas. Or if the point was to let Congress to just do whatever the hell they wanted, why doesn't Article I, Section 1, just vest all legislative power in Congress? It is plainly obvious to me that the powers of Congress, including the Commerce Clause, have justiciable limits.

As for what those limits are when it comes specifically to the Interstate Commerce Clause, I think Judge Laurence Silberman's decision in Seven-Sky v. Holder is the best place to look for what constitutes an actual regulation, and the majority opinion in US v. Lopez is the best place to look for what constitutes interstate commerce that can be regulated. Once any action of Congress fits into those two categories, being a regulation and touching on a matter of itnerstate commerce, then the Interstate Commerce Clause empowers it.
 
2012-11-25 05:28:53 AM  

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.


Enlighten me, I missed Civics that day...(I'm serious)
 
2012-11-25 07:12:26 AM  

thamike: shotglasss: Whatever happened to the good old days...you know, when people took care of themselves and didn't expect other people to pay for them to live.

Says some guy who's too young to remember Ducktales.


LOL at you...I remember the Carter years because I had to live through them, along with the gas lines, staggeringly high inflation and unemployment, and the misery index. How about you?
 
2012-11-25 07:14:20 AM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: shotglasss: vygramul: shotglasss: The good news is that there are 5 SC justices who will roast in Hell after they die for this decision.

I hope Roberts is cast into the seventh circle and spends eternity washing Obama's balls.

Yes, because a society that ensures its people are tajen care of is something Jesus would find abhorrent.

Whatever happened to the good old days...you know, when people took care of themselves and didn't expect other people to pay for them to live.

I'm sorry. You have failed the Turing Test.

Please delete yourself.


Bad news for you little fella...you aren't nearly intelligent enough to grade ME on ANYTHING. Please perform a sexual impossibility on yourself.
 
2012-11-25 09:29:11 AM  

armoredbulldozer: 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.

Enlighten me, I missed Civics that day...(I'm serious)


You never took Civics.
 
2012-11-25 09:51:48 AM  

armoredbulldozer: 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.

Enlighten me, I missed Civics that day...(I'm serious)


It's some bullshiat that idiots who see symbolism as important use to argue we're under martial law, and such flags denote an "admiralty court" which lacks jurisdiction over civillians for whatever idiot logic they use. They promote codes (in thos case, flag code) above law (usually tax law) and convince themselves they hold moral high ground.
 
2012-11-25 11:59:52 AM  

shotglasss: Serious Post on Serious Thread: shotglasss: vygramul: shotglasss: The good news is that there are 5 SC justices who will roast in Hell after they die for this decision.

I hope Roberts is cast into the seventh circle and spends eternity washing Obama's balls.

Yes, because a society that ensures its people are tajen care of is something Jesus would find abhorrent.

Whatever happened to the good old days...you know, when people took care of themselves and didn't expect other people to pay for them to live.

I'm sorry. You have failed the Turing Test.

Please delete yourself.

Bad news for you little fella...you aren't nearly intelligent enough to grade ME on ANYTHING. Please perform a sexual impossibility on yourself.


Uh, that would be: "Please perform an impossible sexual act on yourself". You have failed at failing the Turing test. Again. And also the intelligence test.

Congrats. You are a stupiderpbot.

/delete yourself
 
2012-11-25 05:59:07 PM  

thamike: armoredbulldozer: 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.

Enlighten me, I missed Civics that day...(I'm serious)

You never took Civics.


Not you again. How would you know...?
 
2012-11-25 09:38:15 PM  

Serious Black: I don't know anyone who actually thinks this is true, and if there really are people who think it is, they're stupid as a box of rocks.


Have some respect, that's Justice Breyer you're talking about. The guy who voted with the minority in every single case that actually limited Congress' authority under the commerce clause (Lopez, Morrison, NFIB v. Sebelius) and who argued in NFIB v. Sebelius that there isn't really anything the federal government can't force you to buy so long as Congress thinks it's a good idea ("I would have thought that your answer to [the question], can the government . . . require you to buy cell phones be, yes, of course, they could? . . . and the same with the computers.")

Serious Black: Once any action of Congress fits into those two categories, being a regulation and touching on a matter of itnerstate commerce, then the Interstate Commerce Clause empowers it.


That is not even close to what Lopez says. If it was, the regulation at issue in Lopez would have been upheld instead of struck down, since having an effective educational system clearly has an effect on interstate commerce and the regulation at issue in Lopez was intended to produce a more effective educational system. A regulation has to do more than just 'touch' interstate commerce to be upheld. Violence against women also has an effect on interstate commerce, and that was struck down as well in Morrison.
 
2012-11-25 10:59:40 PM  

armoredbulldozer: thamike: armoredbulldozer: 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.

Enlighten me, I missed Civics that day...(I'm serious)

You never took Civics.

Not you again. How would you know...?


Are you standing up for yourself, as a man,or is this a trick question?
 
2012-11-25 11:49:03 PM  

thamike: armoredbulldozer: thamike: armoredbulldozer: 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.

Enlighten me, I missed Civics that day...(I'm serious)

You never took Civics.

Not you again. How would you know...?

Are you standing up for yourself, as a man,or is this a trick question?


Yes, I am. Is there a problem?
 
2012-11-26 01:30:23 AM  

Talondel: Serious Black: I don't know anyone who actually thinks this is true, and if there really are people who think it is, they're stupid as a box of rocks.

Have some respect, that's Justice Breyer you're talking about. The guy who voted with the minority in every single case that actually limited Congress' authority under the commerce clause (Lopez, Morrison, NFIB v. Sebelius) and who argued in NFIB v. Sebelius that there isn't really anything the federal government can't force you to buy so long as Congress thinks it's a good idea ("I would have thought that your answer to [the question], can the government . . . require you to buy cell phones be, yes, of course, they could? . . . and the same with the computers.")


And who said I had to like Justice Breyer and his legal philosophy? While I may think the Commerce Clause power is very expansive, I think the majority opinion got it right on both US v. Lopez and US v. Morrison. And at the same time, i think they got it wrong on NFIB v. Sebelius.

Serious Black: Once any action of Congress fits into those two categories, being a regulation and touching on a matter of itnerstate commerce, then the Interstate Commerce Clause empowers it.

That is not even close to what Lopez says. If it was, the regulation at issue in Lopez would have been upheld instead of struck down, since having an effective educational system clearly has an effect on interstate commerce and the regulation at issue in Lopez was intended to produce a more effective educational system. A regulation has to do more than just 'touch' interstate commerce to be upheld. Violence against women also has an effect on interstate commerce, and that was struck down as well in Morrison.


Substantial effect or relation, touch, what's the difference? Oh yeah, you're excessively pedantic. I should have known better.

I must say, even though I brought it up myself, the US v. Lopez example is funny to use in interstate commerce issues. In the wake of the decsion, Congress rewrote the law to say that the gun involved must have been involved in or affected by interstate commerce. Since virtually every single gun that has ever been shot in this country meets that description, it changed nothing about the execution law but made it patently constitutional since it took it from being tested by the third prong to the second prong of the Lopez test. Hurray for pedantry saving the Gun-Free School Zones Act! I guess it's okay for you to be pedantic after all.
 
2012-11-26 05:21:31 AM  

armoredbulldozer: thamike: armoredbulldozer: thamike: armoredbulldozer: 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.

Enlighten me, I missed Civics that day...(I'm serious)

You never took Civics.

Not you again. How would you know...?

Are you standing up for yourself, as a man,or is this a trick question?

Yes, I am. Is there a problem?


Just making sure you weren't kidding the last time. Keep your helmet on, sport.
 
2012-11-26 08:11:05 AM  

thamike: armoredbulldozer: thamike: armoredbulldozer: thamike: armoredbulldozer: 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.

Enlighten me, I missed Civics that day...(I'm serious)

You never took Civics.

Not you again. How would you know...?

Are you standing up for yourself, as a man,or is this a trick question?

Yes, I am. Is there a problem?

Just making sure you weren't kidding the last time. Keep your helmet on, sport.


It is instinct to stick up for yourself there sport. Your Dad should have pulled out..
 
2012-11-26 05:36:58 PM  

armoredbulldozer: thamike: armoredbulldozer: thamike: armoredbulldozer: thamike: armoredbulldozer: 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.

Enlighten me, I missed Civics that day...(I'm serious)

You never took Civics.

Not you again. How would you know...?

Are you standing up for yourself, as a man,or is this a trick question?

Yes, I am. Is there a problem?

Just making sure you weren't kidding the last time. Keep your helmet on, sport.

It is instinct to stick up for yourself there sport. Your Dad should have pulled out..


He did. It's not his fault your mom is a gaper.
 
Displayed 193 of 193 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report