Posted on 07/05/2012 8:01:09 AM PDT by IMissPresidentReagan
That’s it on judicial betrayal and on to Thomas’ new book?
What a jip...
I don't listen, I QUIT three years ago.
I see these threads on FR and I remember how disgusted I was with his bombastic, look-at-me-ain't-I-great remarks, and his listeners don't seem to mind. Listeners such as YOU.
I was just laughing to myself about how Walt Williams can’t host a show without calling Thomas Sowell and I’ll be darned if he doesn’t do it again.
:-( :-( :-(
I suppose we just go back and re-read his column:
“There are many speculations as to why Chief Justice Roberts did what he did, some attributing noble and far-sighted reasons, and others attributing petty and short-sighted reasons, including personal vanity. But all of that is ultimately irrelevant.
What he did was betray his oath to be faithful to the Constitution of the United States.
Who he betrayed were the hundreds of millions of Americans — past, present and future — whole generations in the past who have fought and died for a freedom that he has put in jeopardy, in a moment of intellectual inspiration and moral forgetfulness, 300 million Americans today whose lives are to be regimented by Washington bureaucrats, and generations yet unborn who may never know the individual freedoms that their ancestors took for granted.”
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/07/04/judicial_betrayal/page/full/
Never confuse an English Major with numbers.
True, but it’s still good radio.
I agree. Veru dissappointing.
Yes, they have interesting conversations.
...Or, the dissenting opinion
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
“The dissent in NFIB v. Sebelius, written jointly by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, is one of the finest judicial opinions I’ve ever read, if not the single finest. That this opinion was only one vote shy of being a majority opinion that would bind the government and the nation going forward is a tragedy of Shakespearean magnitude.”
As the dissenting justices concluded their opinion:
The Court today decides to save a statute Congress did not write. It rules that what the statute declares to be a requirement with a penalty is instead an option subject to a tax. And it changes the intentionally coercive sanction of a total cut-off of Medicaid funds to a supposedly noncoercive cut-off of only the incremental funds that the Act makes available.
The Court regards its strained statutory interpretation as judicial modesty. It is not. It amounts instead to a vast judicial overreaching. It creates a debilitated, inoperable version of health-care regulation that Congress did not enact and the public does not expect. It makes enactment of sensible health-care regulation more difficult, since Congress cannot start afresh but must take as its point of departure a jumble of now senseless provisions, provisions that certain interests favored under the Court’s new design will struggle to retain. And it leaves the public and the States to expend vast sums of money on requirements that may or may not survive the necessary congressional revision.
The Court’s disposition, invented and atextual as it is, does not even have the merit of avoiding constitutional difficulties. It creates them.
I’d probably assume you have some credibility if you actually came to the thread on a day that Rush was hosting his show. Instead, you pick a day with a guest host to deride your fellow FReepers’ entertainment choices. Seems rather foolish to me.
rush makes 100 million per year
you don’t
your assumptions are wrong
stop complaining about successful people - it makes you look like a fool
Darn. My phone won’t load your pic..
RE: Walter Williams’ Certificate of Amnesty
I always say that I don’t feel guilt for slavery because my ancestors were occupied elsewhere at the time, being second class citizens of the Ottoman Empire.
Should I feel guilty for not feeling guilty?
Red X.
I just happened to come across this thread and did not deliberately choose a day when the Rush God was hosting.
I have a long and abiding dislike of this man and wonderment that so many think he’s so great. I suppose they’re looking past a whole host of unpleasant personality features because he speaks to their dislike of the Establishment, both Democrat and Republican.
In your eyes and those of the other Rushbots, maybe, but please understand: I don't give a damn.
I am not complaining about anyone's success. I firmly believe that those who legally do things that reward them are due all they have earned. 1) I am complaining about how anyone can practically worship a conceited ba--ard such this man is. 2) I dislike those who think they're God's gift to mankind.
P.S. I am not unsuccessful, myself. My wife and I have a combined retirement income of about $95,000. If that's failure, well, I guess we differ.
aside from trolling people that have a long list of accomplishments
this rushbot stands beside his statement - you are a fool
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.