FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 02/10/2015 9:20:13 PM PST by Howard Slugh
Linda Greenhouse, a New York Times Supreme Court reporter, stunningly suggests in a recent article that the justices need to be scolded into “reading the briefs” in a pending case. She concludes with an astonishing rhetorical flourish: Like Lucille Ball, the Court will “have a great deal of explaining to do” if it fails to rule in the manner she suggests.
It takes a lot of chutzpah to admonish the Supreme Court in such fashion. If someone is going to do so, she had better make certain that her facts are correct, and that her legal arguments are unimpeachable. Unfortunately, Greenhouse falls far short of those standards. Considering the weakness of her arguments, perhaps she should follow her own advice and read the briefs.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Is this your first Nat Rev article?
A brief overview, those not familiar with the case would do well to read it.
The statute is crystal clear.
Having facts correct and having unimpeachable legal arguments long ago ceased being something the left thinks they 'had better' do. They don't. Period. And in fact, they think they had better not have their facts correct, and had better not have unimpeachable legal arguments. Otherwise, they wouldn't have a platform.
I point this out not to be a smarty pants. I point it out because often we act/are surprised that they could be so badly in control of their facts, arguments and knowledge of the Constitution. The reality is that being out of control is part of the strategy. It's not wise to be surprised when they lie, break laws, create non-sequitor logic chains.
You/we can point out the fallacies and illegalities in their reasoning and action until the cows come home. THEY DON'T CARE. THEY DO IT PURPOSEFULLY. THEY KNOW THEY ARE DOING IT. THEY LOVE WHEN WE GET OUR PANTIES IN A BUNCH OVER IT, OR THINK WE ARE SMART BECAUSE WE POINTED IT OUT. End of caps. Sometimes they belong.
They laugh because, in the end, we get to be right, and they get what they wanted to get. Even when we have lost our country to them, we will still be right ... and they will know it. And ... they will have our country.
It's no longer, and hasn't been for a long time, a war of ideas. They won that by simply not playing. They are thugs, or, they are the mob of ignorants with pitchforks following the thugs. The sooner that's clear, the sooner we will stop telling the burglars 'it's wrong to steal you bad bad person! You can't do that!' while they walk away with our country, happy to be rich, powerful, and wrong.
Welcome to Free Republic.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
(*snort*)
No, it isn’t his first rodeo.
Welcome to FR
After reading your article it appears that 0’s team are desperately grasping at straws!
Excellent and thorough legal analysis. You’re right, the ACA cannot subsidize federal exchanges. It says so itself.
Liberals have no interest in logic, honor or reason. They only care about getting what they want.
Unhappily, that describes much of America now. The liberals on the Court, including Roberts, have no interest in interpreting the Constitution. They vote for what they want or do not want. Once they vote, they will make up any reason to justify it, but they don’t care if their ‘reason’ is absurd.
Reason does not matter to a man without honor. Only results. The only Justice on the court I truly respect is Thomas. Scalia writes well, but he also tends to vote for what he wants. Alito and Roberts have no honor. The rest don’t even pretend to have it.
Thank you for the post!
To me, all the detailed problems and arguments back and forth about the details of the so-called “ACA” is, like much of the activities of the federal government, a study in trying to do the wrong thing the right way.
Obamacare is unconstitutional and should be repealed as such. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution was in no way intended to give the federal government this kind of power, power our Founders never contemplated. Health insurance is none to the federal government’s business. Neither is health care.
All the detailed problems and arguments back and forth about the details of how to make the so-called “ACA” or some hybrid thereof work is, like much of the activities of the federal government, an effort in trying to do the wrong thing the right way - an exercise in futility.
Obamacare is unconstitutional and should be repealed as such. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution was in no way intended to give the federal government this kind of power, power our Founders never contemplated. Health insurance is none to the federal government’s business. Neither is health care.
And because the Supreme Court and federal government will almost certainly not repeal Obamacare, the states should reject ACA as an unconstitutional federal act.
Patriots must wake up to the major problem of unconstitutonal federal taxes. As previously mentioned, the Supreme Court has clarified that Congress is prohibited from laying taxes in the name of state power issues, essentially any issue which Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Patriots must work with state lawmakers to put a stop to the tsunami of illegal taxes going to DC. The idea would be to kill illegal federal taxes so that the states would be able to find revenues to establish their own social spending programs, depending on what the legal majority voters of a given state want.
More good stuff. Thanks.
Not only do I see Obamacare as a wholly unconstitutional federal act, but it also looks like within Obamacare, you’ve got the feds commandeering state legislatures by ordering them to set up exchanges. This is one area of settled law even the Supreme Court agrees with: the Constitution gives the feds no authority to commandeer state legislatures telling them what to do.
Not sure if anyone has challenged Obamacare on those grounds. But, again, that would be trying to fix something that is wholly wrong to begin with.
Layer upon layer of federal acts that the states should find unconstitutional and reject. Nuke Obamacare.
Sadly we keep thinking that the Constitution binds the Government and the Courts, when in fact the Constitution says whatever the Courts want it to say, and they care not one whit what we think.
We indeed are living in Levin's "Post Constitutional America" and both parties are complicit in the destruction of the Republic.
1Sa 8:18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.
Well, as you know, I’m saying enough already, don’t acquiesce, just reject the unconstitutional federal acts at the state level. I hope there’s a state or states that value freedom from government coercion enough to nullify and accept the consequences of losing federal funding because in the end, it will be all about the money. Freedom is worth everything IMO.
It is the only thing, without it you are just a commodity for the governments use and amusement.
I just have little confidence that we will ever be free again, at least not like the freedom I knew growing up.
The people chose a defacto king, in the last General Election whether by theft or choice doesn't really matter because neither can be easily undone.
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.