;Posted on 07/02/2012 4:53:17 AM PDT by xsmommy
Word For The Day, Monday, 7/2/12
;In order that we might all raise the level of discourse and expand our language abilities, here is the daily post of "Word for the Day".
ineffable; adj.
1. incapable of being expressed or described in words; inexpressible: ineffable joy. 2. not to be spoken because of its sacredness; unutterable: the ineffable name of the deity. 1. too great or intense to be expressed in words; unutterable 2. too sacred to be uttered 3. indescribable; indefinable
Etymology: C15: from Latin ineffābilis unutterable, from in- 1 + effābilis, from effārī to utter, from fārī to speak]
ineffa'bility
Rules: Everyone must leave a post using the Word for the Day in a sentence.
The sentence must, in some way, relate to the news of the day.
The Review threads are linked for your edification. ;-)
Practice makes perfect.....post on....
Kennedy is not Souter, he is not a liberal. he is a venial man concerned about how he appears in the media, and he wants to be liked. one of Sen Grassley’s primary questions of nominees to the Sup ct is DO YOU CARE WHAT THE PAPERS SAY ABOUT YOU? i don’t know what Roberts said, but i will tell you that Justice Thomas laughed out loud when he was asked.
Because I don’t do profanity, I can only describe the words of this administration as ineffable, with a different meaning of course than the one listed.
very genteel and very appropriate! A+++ speaking of SUTER, is he going to stay or go?
and did you SEE TSN dumping on sexy Sasha yesterday??? holy cow. Pierre lefag called him a “coach killer”, marc crawford said to send him to the island of misfit toys—Columbus and called him a LOSER. just totally nasty and mean.
I still can’t see the rationale. What makes you think they will rule correctly on all the pending lawsuits and how far into the future will they stretch/postpone them? I believe they should have gotten rid of this hot mess when they had the chance and let the chips fall where they may. Bird in the hand and all that.
Did I ever tell you my son and I were in a Buffalo Wild Wings nearby and one of the waiters looked like Kenny Powers? It was one of those surreal moments when he walked up - they wear black jeans/shirt anyway (which is vintage KP) but he had one black boots, and (are you ready for this?) a curly dark mullet! Seriously he ever looked like him! At first I couldn’t speak - I just pointed and my son immediately realized who I was pointing to..... it was hard not to yell out “Hey Kenny Powers!”
Have you seen Longmire yet on A&E? Excellent show, Sunday nights, you can catch up on the 5 episodes ON DEMAND.
I think Sasha would fit in remarkably with the Wings on a line with Datsyuk. He would be re-inspired and have an older Russian mentor and not a playmate. The Wings were sending Chelios and another honcho to see Suter at his house and got the word from his agent that Ryan didn’t want anyone coming to his house. I’m hoping he stays, with all the work mgmt has done to build the team around him and Webs. They made him what they called a substantial offer so we’ll see. I can’t fault the guy for shopping around to see what he’s worth but I wish loyalty still existed. Tootoo went to Detroit where they supposedly hated him.
Just say “You’re f#$%ing out”
i think that might work, he can do great stuff when inspired. and he seems to be in need of a mentor, he and Arnott had a special bond while he was here, and he seemed to help sasha to focus.
The ruling is ineffable.
What really happened here…?
Last Thursday, Chief Justice John Roberts much to the consternation of conservatives, and (allegedly) his four likeminded bench mates, jumped ship and made the liberal bloc the majority in deciding a lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).
Lost in the wailing and gnashing of teeth, are several key starting points. The first is the nature of a lawsuit. An injured party does not walk into the court and say, please kill this law. Specific arguments are made and defended. In this case the two chief arguments were against the individual mandate, and the Medicare provisions. The Medicare provisions in essence told the states, to implement Obamacare or lose all of their Medicaid funding. That issue, which has gone little reported was ruled Unconstituional by a 7-2 majority…..
Now, this particular ‘do as we say’ mechanism has long since been a favorite cudgel of the Federal Government to force states to do everything from raising the drinking age, to enforcing all manner of Federal edicts, like Section 5 of the Voting Rights act, which requires a handful of states and other jurisdictions to get approval, or “pre-clearance,” from the U.S. Department of Justice for all changes to voting and election laws. (Think Voter ID).
Several of these issues including the Voting Rights act will come before the court in the next term.
Second, the 5 conservative justices all ruled that Congress clearly has no right to use the infamous Commerce Clause as a catch all justification to legislate against the American People, and any clear thinking about conservative angst over decades, should make any discussion of how important that is, redundant.
Now, the Individual Mandate, where the Chief Justice sent heads spinning. For the Year this Bill was debated, (If you can use that term logically when it was rammed through by a monolithic majority party), they used the term Penalty to the exclusion of the word Tax, for all the obvious reasons. The Chief Justice departed from any logical reasoning by determining the “Penalty” to be, in fact a tax, and thus declared that as Congress does have the inherent ability to levy a tax, the Court having a duty to read a bill to be Constitutional, if there are two opposing readings, used that fallacy to do so.
Now, the ACA is ruled Constitutional in terms of the Individual Mandate being a method of taxation under Congress power to Tax. Yippie Democrats. It’s here that we need to start looking at what was actually said, to see where this is going and why…
Let’s start with the inherent beauty of it…As described byTom Scocca of Slate Magazine Thursday, June 28, 2012
“In 2005, Sen. Barack Obama spoke in opposition to Roberts’ nomination, saying he did not trust his political philosophy on tough questions such as “whether the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce.” Today, Roberts did what Obama predicted he would do.”
Now, having done that, he could have remained with his right leaning colleagues, struck the bill down, and gone home. But in all probability the Medicare part would have gone 5/4 as well. Picture starting to get a little clearer?
Continuing the Chief Justice writes that it is possible to view the Penalty as a Tax, and used that rational to join the liberal bloc for a 5/4 split in favor, so the Bill stands. He goes on to further say that “The Court does not express any opinion on the wisdom of the Affordable Care Act Under the Constitution, that judgment is reserved to the people.”
So, What Really Happened Here?
The Chief Justice in short order, set up a long play on instruments long used by the Federal Government, moving long term governance rightward.
He then proceeded, with laser like accuracy proceeded to punish the left wing cabal, that as been attempting to delegitimize the court since Bush v. Gore…by calling the President signature accomplishment, a Tax heading into a tense election campaign, which has several effects.
A. Sent the White House and it’s Campaigner in Chief into panic mode, as evidenced by this Sundays news shows.
B. Started shoveling money into the Presidents opponents campaign..4.6 Million in the day following the ruling.
C.In a closely divided Senate, there are 21 seats being contested in 2012. Only 3 are being defended by Republicans, and every Democrat voted for Chief Justice Roberts and President Obama’s tax increase.
How’s that going to play on Main Street ?????
It seems the Chief Justice does not like Liberals very much. And he appears to be much smarter and slyer than they are.
The one last thing being overlooked, is that like the Medicare issue, they could have argued that the bill should stand without the Mandate but it’s clear SCOTUS would have let the bill fall by killing the mandate.
Lost in all the sturm and drang, is the fact that 43 Catholic and Small businesses have a bevy of lawsuits winding their way back through the Federal Courts, to SCOTUS, on the HHS mandate, which violates the Religious Freedoms protected by the First Amendment.
If SCOTUS was going to scuttle the bill, over the Individual Mandate, what’s going to happen when the coverage dictated by the mandate gets to them? I don’t think that’s hard to predict.
(And ironically, the Chief Justice took time to point out that it was not the Courts job to protect voters from a bad bill. Expect to see that line used against the 2010 Congress next)
Chess Anyone..?
On a website built especially for this conflict, the Archdiocese of Washington disputed the notion that the lawsuit is premature: "The mandate was made final on Feb. 15, 2012, so it is the law right now, and it will go into effect soon (Aug. 1, 2012, for some and Aug. 1, 2013, for others). We have pursued all other avenues to correct the problem without litigation, through efforts with the White House and Congress, and they have not succeeded. We can’t predict how the Supreme Court’s decision in the Affordable Care Act lawsuit will affect this mandate, and we can’t risk waiting in vain. So we must act as soon as possible to protect our rights before these deadlines come, and litigation takes time."
In fact, the Archiocese is correct that the rule has been finalized and is now law The Supreme Court, is not in the business as noted by Roberts, of fixing bad legislation.... However, I doubt the Bill survives February 2013...
Romney, rescind the regulation, President Romney will repeal the bill before the court hears it.
However, to further the point I just made to Dave, the derisive language he used, pointed directly at the left’s machinery was pretty explicit. The 5 on the right are not going to save Democrats from their own bad legislation.
Or do you really think, they’re going to re-write the coverage?
A+++ what to make of Roberts reported switching of sides, supposedly capitulating to the media and leftwing pressure, and p!$$ing Big Tone off in the process?
My belief in the sanctity of the Constitution is ineffible, but Obama is sure effing trying.
excellent!!! A+++
More like his O-ministration is a disaster of Biblical proportions...
Remember the days when the mere mention of his middle name was ineffable? Now it might as well be the same as their 2004 Candidate — John F’n Kerry*
I wonder if his going 5/4 the other way, bought 7/2 on the other issue, I agree with Krauthammer and Brit Hume, who called the decision more institutional, than Constitutional.
Striking the ACA would have been a pyrric victory, when the left went apeshit over the court, before an election, rather than after it....
It’s not possible to look at all the facts, the language,and exigent situations, and not see a very sly, very calculated play.
Charles Lane nearly fellated him on FNS yesterday.
Look you and the talking heads are not going to convince us that which Mr. Genious couldn’t convince Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy.
To cut and paste from Mr. Denninger earlier:
“And worse, none of them has proposed a damn thing to deal with what the Supreme Court just did, which is grant a permanent ability to the Federal Government to compel any behavior by linking it to a tax. Some examples of where this can (and might in the near future!) go include:
•You make cars. You’re told to sell a car to anyone who makes under $25,000 a year for $5,000. This is of course under your cost of production. If you refuse, every car you make is subject to a $5,000 tax. This is now Constitutional, as of this last week.
•You would like to have three kids. The government decides that you may have only two. If you have get pregnant with a third and refuse to have an abortion you must pay $10,000 a year in additional tax forever. This is now Constitutional, as of last week.
•You may have all the abortions you want, but each costs $10,000 in tax. This is Constitutional, as of last week.
•You must eat Broccoli and submit receipts with your 1040 proving you bought 1lb of Broccoli per person in your household per week. If you do not, you must pay $5,000 in additional tax. This is Constitutional, as of last week.
•If you are more than 10lbs overweight you must pay $2,000 of additional tax for every 10lbs overweight you are, with no cap. This is Constitutional, as of last week.”
Welcome to the new state. They own us.
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.