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 40
    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 (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-11-23 01:31:14 PM
10 votes:
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 11:04:19 AM
6 votes:
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
5 votes:
The American Thinker wouldn't know satire if it sat on its face.
2012-11-23 09:58:29 PM
4 votes:
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 01:20:55 PM
4 votes:
Forever Relevant: 

www.bitlogic.com
2012-11-23 12:03:39 PM
4 votes:
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 10:52:35 AM
4 votes:
I love the whining of losers in the morning
2012-11-23 01:50:48 PM
3 votes:

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 01:48:57 PM
3 votes:

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 01:18:57 PM
3 votes:
i1151.photobucket.com
2012-11-23 01:00:42 PM
3 votes:
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 12:30:36 PM
3 votes:

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


My gut has evidence to the contrary.
2012-11-23 04:01:58 PM
2 votes:

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 02:54:46 PM
2 votes:
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 02:02:39 PM
2 votes:

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 01:58:46 PM
2 votes:

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 01:33:43 PM
2 votes:
remember when Roberts was the shining bacon of light to conservatives... good times man, good times
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-11-23 10:51:48 AM
2 votes:
It's not like it's the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution or anything.
2012-11-24 07:42:07 AM
1 votes:
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.
2012-11-23 04:05:34 PM
1 votes:
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 03:18:16 PM
1 votes:
[marks John Dewey as a troll]

Best part....forever.
2012-11-23 02:41:33 PM
1 votes:

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 02:21:30 PM
1 votes:

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 02:16:48 PM
1 votes:
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 02:08:30 PM
1 votes:
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 02:07:13 PM
1 votes:

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 02:05:46 PM
1 votes:

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 02:05:11 PM
1 votes:

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 02:05:10 PM
1 votes:
"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 02:02:34 PM
1 votes:
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 02:01:53 PM
1 votes:

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 01:41:14 PM
1 votes:

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 01:40:36 PM
1 votes:

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 01:39:11 PM
1 votes:

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 01:31:02 PM
1 votes:

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 01:23:33 PM
1 votes:

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 01:21:09 PM
1 votes:
i.imgur.com
2012-11-23 01:03:31 PM
1 votes:
This article made my brain hurt.

I don't think I like reading anymore.

i306.photobucket.com
2012-11-23 12:33:06 PM
1 votes:
There are not enough facepalms to describe this.
2012-11-23 11:55:39 AM
1 votes:
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
 
Displayed 40 of 40 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report