« Blue Demo on Blue Devils | Main | A Gift From You To Robbie Perkins' Rich Friends »

03/28/2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00e008da1f2288340167645befd5970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Preparing For The Spin:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Roch Smith, Jr.

"The first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall wrote in Marbury vs. Madison that "it is emphatically the province of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be." Judicial activism occurs when Court decide what the law should be. Overturning Obamacare would not be such a decision."

Man, you're dense. The law currently says that people will have to purchase health care. If the Supremes overturn that, they will be saying what the law should be. Plain as day.

I've said it before, I'll say it again, it's too bad a man with an obvious brain cripples it with devotion to ideological preconceptions. It used to be amusing.

bubba

"Arm yourselves with the simple logic to defeat these arguments now, because if Obamacare goes down, they are coming."

Won't do any good, as Brainiac's response above proves.

Logic is worthless when combating the abject asininity presented from people like Brainiac.

On a related note, his personality disorders are back to the out of control point, as evidenced in this discussion at Guarino.

Someone needs to get him some help.

Roch Smith, Jr.

Bob Grenier (bubba),

If you are going to cast aspersions on people, why don't you put your name to them? A real man would.

John Wayne Clint Eastwood and  Vin Diesel all rolled into one

blogspot101 has come out of the closet, raising the bar for others to do the same. What a man.

Spag

"Man, you're dense. The law currently says that people will have to purchase health care. If the Supremes overturn that, they will be saying what the law should be. Plain as day. "

No they won't. In fact, it's a stretch of reason to argue otherwise. Striking down a law is not enacting one. If there was no health care law, and the Court decided there should be, that would be activist. Overturning this piece of legislation simply hands the power back to Congress- it does not dictate how that should happen or what it should be other than to conclude that it cannot violate the Constitution.

Spag

Roch is making friends all over the place. I thought that Ed Cone believed he was the smartest guy in town. I think Roch has stolen that mantle. His world gets smaller every day as his hubris grows.

bubba

"If you are going to cast aspersions on people, why don't you put your name to them? A real man would."

A real man doesn't violate the laws of North Carolina regarding harassment, as you have done here, and a real man doesn't violate the privacy policy set forth on his own blog, like you do, then change the language when his actions have been made public.

But real assholes do....

Stormy

As I understand process, if Roberts votes to reject Oamacare and he is in the majority, then he writes the majority opinion.

Stormy

Thank you for putting Roch in his place, Spag. It is obvious that Roch always overestimates his knowledge and intelligence. By the way, has Roch ever had a real personality, or has he always been a dork?

Joe Guarino

Sam, do you think it is likely the case will create an important new precedent on matters like the Commerce Clause; limited powers of the federal government; federalism and/or federal coercion of the individual states (i.e., the Medicaid expansion)?

Judicial activism also occurs when the court decides in a manner that contradicts the text, structure and history of the constitution.

(The left likes to define judicial activism as the overturning of liberal precedent, or the overturning of liberal legislation. Those things are impermissible, according to the left.)

Spag

The CJ can assign the opinion to another judge.

Spag

Joe, the long term implications of this should be favorable to those who believe in limited government. The Court has trended towards reigning in the abuse of the Commerce Clause beginning with the Lopez decision.

Striking down the individual mandate would be sending the message that Congressional power is not unlimited. It would be a huge defeat for Leftists who would have a lot of trouble in the future with collectivist legislation.

bubba

"Striking down the individual mandate would be sending the message that Congressional power is not unlimited."

...and thus, become a defining moment in American history.

The comments to this entry are closed.