ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, June 30, 2012

Kicking out the Paulites

Eric Golub recommends kicking Ron Paul's supporters out of the Republican Convention:
The following words accurately describe the overwhelming majority of Ron Paul supporters.

"I will not vote for anybody other than Ron Paul. Mitt Romney is the same as Barack Obama. No to Obamney. Ron Paul or nobody. Maybe Gary Johnson, but not Mitt Romney under any circumstances."

Ron Paul supporters have decided to hold a Libertarian lovefest in Tampa, Florida, on the days directly preceding the GOP Convention. They have every right to do this, and Republicans should have zero objections to them expressing themselves in the equivalent of the town square. This is what democracy is all about. If they have the permits in order, let them protest. If the GOP tries to shut this event down, well that would be morally wrong.

However, their event ends on August 26th. The GOP Convention begins on August 27th. The GOP Convention is a Republican Convention. It is a Mitt Romney Convention. It is not a Ron Paul or Libertarian Convention. Therefore, it is perfectly acceptable at this point to ban Ron Paul supporters from the GOP Convention.

That's right. An outright ban on their presence is the only way to prevent the event from turning into a debacle. There is no legitimate reason at this point for them to be there.
That's perfectly fine with me. Kick them out, by all means. I'll just make one request. After putting on your magic underwear and getting down at your Mitt Romney convention, don't come crying back to those Ron Paul supporters begging for their votes in late October because it is THE MOSTEST IMPORTANTEST ELECTION EVAHHHHH!!!!

I could not possibly care less if Obama wins or if Romney wins. Based on the last three years, I would guess that Obama would actually do less damage since the Republicans in Congress will at least put up the occasional show of resistance to his leftward moves, whereas they will support Romney's. I have to seriously question the intelligence of any conservative who intends to vote for Romney, as the only argument that made even a remote amount of sense, the Supreme Court Appointment argument, has been permanently destroyed by Chief Justice Roberts.

By all means, the Republicans should kick out the libertarians, the constitutionalists, the nationalists, and the fiscally sane. I think it would be fantastic. It's long past time they joined a party genuinely devoted to freedom, the principles of the Founding Fathers, and the American national interest anyhow.

But what is it with neocons and their obsession with playing ideological police and kicking people out of organizations, movements, and political parties? Buckley did it, Lowry did it, and here this Golub is calling for it. It is increasingly apparent that permitting people who have ideologically "seen the light" at some point in their lives to assume positions of influence in their new party is a tremendously bad idea. If you were ever a Democrat, or worse, a Trotskyite or Socialist, that's great if you eventually came to your senses and moved rightward. But you should not be permitted any leadership position or provided a voice in the right-wing media. After all, why on Earth should anyone else on the Right, who was never dumb enough to fall for any left-wing nonsense in the first place, pay your belatedly sane opinion any attention whatsoever?

Labels:

86 Comments:

Anonymous JW June 30, 2012 5:24 PM  

Go to youtube and watch some of the "Agenda 21" videos. See why only certain 'anointed' politcians can become President.

Anonymous TheVillageIdiotRet June 30, 2012 5:29 PM  

An American Haiku to the Republican Party

Die Die Die Die Die
Burn Burn Burn Burn Burn Burn Burn
Die Die Die Die Die

DannyR

Anonymous JW June 30, 2012 5:31 PM  

" It's long past time they joined a party devoted to freedom and the American national interest anyhow."

You've got it right there Vox. If they came together and started a party with that "freedom and the American national interest" satatement as their goal, they might start wining elections. Staying in the Republican party is not getting them anywhere. They just help perpetuate the 'duopoly'.

Anonymous stg58 June 30, 2012 5:41 PM  

Here is my first tangle with this genius in the comments section:

Jay Stang • 21 hours ago • parent

blacktygrrrr: You are proud of being a Neocon? Neoconservatism is directly derived from Leon Trotsky, one of the founders of the Soviet Union. You are basically saying you are proud of being a communist.

If you are so proud of being a Neocon, I don't suppose we will see you out on a battlefield expressing your support for the latest Neocon war, will we?



blacktygrrrr MOD • 13 hours ago • parent

Jay Stang: I am proud of being a Neocon and the rest of your comment is nonsense.

My father is a veteran and a Neocon. Perhaps you wish to attack his service.

You are an intolerant zealot who calls people names like Communist for not woshipping your demigod Ron Paul.

I have no further use for you. Argue your points without attacks or get lost.

eric aka the Tygrrrr Express



Jay Stang • an hour ago • parent

blacktygrrrr: I am not attacking you Eric. I am stating historical fact. Leon Trotsky taught Leo Straus everything he knew about Communism. Leo Straus set up shop at the University of Chicago. There Straus mentored and educated the godfather of the neoconservative movement, Kristol the Elder. See? It is not an attack, it is a statement of historical fact.

Why would I attack your father's service? I disagree with his political philosophy, as I do yours, but it wouldn't make sense to attack his service.


Amazing, isn't it?

Anonymous The other skeptic June 30, 2012 6:24 PM  

Turning up, as Woody Allen says, is 80% of the battle. (As a man who chases young skirt, I guess he would know.)

By the same token, preventing challengers from turning up is 80-90% of the work to get the chosen one elected.

I do think that Mittens is more wholesome than Woody Allen, though. Certainly more wholesome than Roman Polanski.

Anonymous No_Limit_Bubba™ June 30, 2012 6:29 PM  

Romney will not win without the votes of at least some Paul supporters.

If they give Ron or Rand a speaking role at the convention, as well as some pro-liberty planks in the platform ( Hell, the GOP has always been good with rhetoric.); Romney will probably get a (tepid) endorsement from the good doctor.
The Liberty movement will continue to grow in the GOP, and it IS growing. Kicking the Paulites out would be political suicide for Romney and probably the GOP.
As a Libertarian Party member since the early '80s, I have come to the conclusion that there is no hope in the third party route. The system is rigged against it.
Look at how much better Dr Paul performed by all metrics in 2012 vs 2008. Extrapolate. The demographics are in our favor.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 June 30, 2012 6:30 PM  

I'm still wondering why Dick Morris was given any clout with conservatives. Oh wait, it was Sean Hannity...

Anonymous cherub's reveng June 30, 2012 6:31 PM  

Amazing, isn't it?

Not really. Some guy already covered years and years ago.



I didn't know what to be more amazed at: the agility of their tongues or their virtuosity at lying.

Anonymous Equestrian025 June 30, 2012 6:31 PM  

And this is why American Politics is in the state it is. The Purpose of a convention is to gather the party’s factions, allow the minority faction to have its say, but the majority will to triumph. It is not to be the Canonization of Saint Romney the Consensus Builder. Party Unity is well and good, but in November, in August, we can afford to disagree.

Blogger Toaster 802 June 30, 2012 6:32 PM  

I personally don't like Ron Paul as a candidate.

His ideology however is right on the money.

Fuck the RINO's. I go toe to toe with leftists daily and still the neocons are the most hate filled dipshits you can run across. It's breathtaking. Then at the end of a string of expletives, they are pissed that you are offended at being treated badly and that that in it's self is not enough for you to change your vote to their Manchurian (R) selection.

If Mitt is our only option I say let it burn.

"WHY??!!" Sound horrified...

Because We the People are not going to vote our way out of this. Ass.

I sold myself cheep in 08 out of fear.

I'm not afraid anymore. The Republic is dead.

Blogger Res Ipsa June 30, 2012 6:47 PM  

"I will not vote for anybody other than Ron Paul. Mitt Romney is the same as Barack Obama. No to Obamney. Ron Paul or nobody. Maybe Gary Johnson, but not Mitt Romney under any circumstances."


That's right. Some of us still love the idea of America, even if we can't find it anymore.

I'll write in Ron, just like last time. I'd say that I'd do it next time, put I have no real hope of having elections after 2012.

Anonymous Anonymous June 30, 2012 6:50 PM  

Had this exact conversation this morning.

I've said this before. If you've seen it ignore it, otherwise, take a hint.

I drink Mt. Dew. This does not mean that I like Coke over Pepsi or Pepsi over Coke, I think they both pretty much suck.

I drive a Dodge Cummins diesel, 4x4, crew cab. I think Chevys are crap and I hate freaking Fords.

I'm a follower of Jesus Christ. Not a Pharisee or a Saddusee. This means I think both the Pharisees and the Saddusees are wrong.

I'm neither a Bolshevick nor a Menshevick,I consider both of them evil. I believe in the Declaration and the Constitution.

I will not vote for Willard or the Mulatto Messiah. They can both kiss my fat posterior. I will vote for either the Constitution Party candidate or write in Ron Paul.

Get the picture.


farmer Tom

Anonymous Anonymous June 30, 2012 6:53 PM  

permitting people who have ideologically "seen the light" at some point in their lives to assume positions of influence in their new party is a tremendously bad idea


If the early Christians held to this belief, the letters from Paul of Tarsus would have been Returned To Sender.

-nick digger

Anonymous E. PERLINE June 30, 2012 6:54 PM  

If there is a threatening fire and you don't have proper fire extinguishers, just untested water from some lake, do you refuse to fight the fire?

Anonymous Anonymous June 30, 2012 7:02 PM  

nick, I think your analogy fails. It's clear from the accounts in Acts that after Saul became Paul that he spent a fair about of time, (three years I think) in public silence while learning the truth about the the person and work of Jesus Christ, and then he was still not trusted by the early church for a number of years.

In my opinion, he was only accepted after he had clearly shown in his actions and his writings that he was a different man than before.

We tend to take any high profile figure who says a few words we agree with as a messiah, come to save the Repuke party. That's not what happened with Paul.


farmer Tom

Anonymous Oh, Snap! June 30, 2012 7:12 PM  

This is what democracy is all about. If they have the permits in order, let them protest.

Jawohl, Herr Golub!

Anonymous The other skeptic June 30, 2012 7:24 PM  

The Dark Messiah will prevail.

Blogger Jamie-R June 30, 2012 7:24 PM  

Politics is not economics, Ron Paul supporters will be at the GOP convention and rightfully so. Violent revolutions usually upend an established order and institutions that gave the society stability and it's beliefs, you know like France. America was a new society when it went into revolution, so it was lucky. Now, it's established, and politics is politics, there's nothing wrong with trying to shift the demographic back to Republican thinking and away from a Marxist tilt.

Blogger RobertT June 30, 2012 7:24 PM  

Another Stupid Golub. (Sorry, I just couldn't resist.) Who the h*ll is Eric Golub anyway?

I used to think it was wasting your vote to join a fringe party. But, what the heck, if you don't have a vote anyway, what's the point?

Roberts was a bitter pill to swallow, but it just accentuates what I have always said, nobody who wants to hold public office can be trusted. Locally, in an overwhelming Republican county that Democrats seldom go to the effort to even nominate candidates, Republicans are nominating more and more radical candidates every cycle, but so far to no noticeable effect. Each year the winners prove they are more interested in getting on the public dole than they are in affecting change.

Blogger RobertT June 30, 2012 7:29 PM  

"I'm not afraid anymore. The Republic is dead."

I'm afraid you are right Toaster.

Anonymous rienzi June 30, 2012 7:30 PM  

Having never hear of him, I looked up Eric Golub. Jewish Blogger born in Brooklyn, raised on Long Island, Batchelors degree from the University of Judaism,(There really is such an institution?), worked as a stockbroker.

Hey Eric, thats a swell set of Red State credentials you got there!

I wouldn't be surprised if his next Blog isn't about changing the name of the party from Republican to Likud West.

Blogger Jamie-R June 30, 2012 7:31 PM  

My thinking is if the Republicans put up a hard-headed conservative, another 4 years in our lifetimes slides more gradually the wrong way. A moderate will defeat a moderate if people are unhappy with that moderate, mirror-image the game and win the political battle, Rudd and the Labor Party did that to Howard, our most successful Prime Minister ever, and an awardee of the US Presidential Medal. Romney is mates with Ron Paul, so that makes me think he'll turf Bernanke if he gets the chance and start putting interest rates where they need to be within the context of the amount of the money in the system. Something there needs to change. Badly.

Anonymous The other skeptic June 30, 2012 7:31 PM  

Over at VFR they think that most Americans are unaware of the momentous impact of this decision on their futures or something.

Since MPAI, surely that is nothing new? Most people are simply trying to make it from birth to death without thinking or experiencing too much pain. They are more likely interested in where their next beer and their next f*ck is coming from.

Blogger Jamie-R June 30, 2012 7:41 PM  

I keep thinking about that, the situation with men setting interest rates, I haven't read Paul's book, but how about a black market is set up by major players to game what rates might be in the market, then the Fed can see how far off base they are. The rates being held low is destroying currencies everywhere. It's bad.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler June 30, 2012 7:42 PM  

Bravo, my sentiments exactly. They are all ex-Troskytites and then they are given the Bully Pulpit and they are the God's Truth.

Bah-humbug!

"Going to hell in amerika, Going to hell in amerika..."

Anonymous RINO June 30, 2012 7:42 PM  

Why can't they just have a separate convention with Jesse Ventura as the highlight speaker like last time?

Anonymous FP June 30, 2012 8:05 PM  

"If you were ever a Democrat, or worse, a Trotskyite or Socialist, that's great if you eventually came to your senses and moved rightward. But you should not be permitted any leadership position or provided a voice in the right-wing media."

Watching the republicans here in Oregon over the last ten years, this has been made very clear to me. 2010 had the GOP going with the ex basketball player Chris Dudley for governor, who catered far too much to the liberals in Portland (some say bad advice from DC campaign staff) and lost out the 3rd party votes. Thus we got Kitzhaber aka Dr. No or Dr. Repeat, for a third term (not in a row).

Anonymous Gen. Kong June 30, 2012 8:11 PM  

VD: But what is it with neocons and their obsession with playing ideological police and kicking people out of organizations, movements, and political parties? Buckley did it, Lowry did it, and here this Golub is calling for it. It is increasingly apparent that permitting people who have ideologically "seen the light" at some point in their lives to assume positions of influence in their new party is a tremendously bad idea. If you were ever a Democrat, or worse, a Trotskyite or Socialist, that's great if you eventually came to your senses and moved rightward. But you should not be permitted any leadership position or provided a voice in the right-wing media. After all, why on Earth should anyone else on the Right, who was never dumb enough to fall for any left-wing nonsense in the first place, pay your belatedly sane opinion any attention whatsoever?

What is it? You sort of answered your own rhetorical question here. "Neocons" like Golub are not former Trotskyites at all. They're dedicated believers in Trotskyism version 2.0 - better known by the lying appellation of "neoconservative". The apple doesn't fall far from the tree and "rightists" such as Golubs, Lowrys, Kristols, Frums and Goldbergs are only on the "right" within a closed Communist system. It therefore stands to reason that all Paulites, libertarians, constitutionalists and nationalists must be purged since the only debate permitted (such as it is) is between the various flavors of Marxism.

Anonymous Sam June 30, 2012 8:15 PM  

I was just saying this morning that since Ofafa set the precident for the executive branch getting to pick and choose what laws it enforces, that NOW is the time to get Ron Paul in. He could bring this crap to a screeching halt! That being said, the GOP let the homosexuals in. They have strayed and are pretty much irrelevant.

Blogger tz June 30, 2012 8:30 PM  

Many of the 'Paulites' are delegates (and alternates) pledged to Romney on the first ballot. What happens if they simply honor the ban and there isn't a quorum or enough votes on the first ballot?

Anonymous Stickwick June 30, 2012 8:44 PM  

... the only argument that made even a remote amount of sense, the Supreme Court Appointment argument, has been permanently destroyed by Chief Justice Roberts.

I've changed my mind about the Roberts decision, and now regard it as a clever move. I'm curious what you think about this:

Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.

Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.

Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?

Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.

Blogger Jamie-R June 30, 2012 9:28 PM  

That's right. Some of us still love the idea of America, even if we can't find it anymore.

I'll write in Ron, just like last time. I'd say that I'd do it next time, put I have no real hope of having elections after 2012.


Hey Res, why don't you be a manly man and fag out on Facebook? Intelligent people want to be surrounded by their own. You frustrate me with your invisibility.

Matthew 5:14-16
"You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven."

Anonymous Difster June 30, 2012 9:36 PM  

Stickwick, that's just stupid.

Anonymous Soga June 30, 2012 9:43 PM  

I'm with Difster. Since when did the liberals care about whether or not they're raising taxes? If Congress can 'penalize' or 'tax' you for not signing up for Obama-care, what else can they 'penalize' or 'tax' you for not doing? Have you already forgotten Vox's recent analysis of the Supreme Court decision?

Anonymous Salt June 30, 2012 9:59 PM  

@Stickwick

None of that matters. End game is single payer. This was just a stepping stone to nationalized healthcare.

Anonymous Anonymous June 30, 2012 10:19 PM  

Have you looked at the polls lately? If the republican party is to have a chance it better get someone other than Romney! Yes, I am for Ron Paul. But if not him, at least someone else???

Anonymous zen0 June 30, 2012 10:22 PM  

@ Stickwick

Man is a rationalizing, not a rational, being.

I have often rationalized my spectacular failings as positives. People just don't seem to understand the nuanced character of my seeming capitulation as a glorious victory.

Friggin idiots.

Anonymous zen0 June 30, 2012 10:32 PM  

Anonymous June 30, 2012 10:19 PM
Anonymous June 30, 2012 10:21 PM


Anonymous comments are not permitted, plus yours are stupid.

Anonymous Stilicho June 30, 2012 10:42 PM  

After all, why on Earth should anyone else on the Right, who was never dumb enough to fall for any left-wing nonsense in the first place, pay your belatedly sane opinion any attention whatsoever?

They do it because they are in love with the theater of using a Kristol-the-elder for propaganda: look, even this dyed in the wool communist has realized we are right, you too can join our party and still be cool. Of course, down that path lies the logic of out-liberaling the liberals and becoming indistinguishable from their erstwhile enemies because the converts still carry a lot of their ideological baggage with them which they promptly infect their new party with, see, e.g. neo-conservatives.

Blogger Jamie-R June 30, 2012 10:50 PM  

My comment to Res goes for you too Zeno. Be like Vox, talk a lot of interesting and relevant shit in your own voice. The world needs your voices.

Anonymous Anonymous June 30, 2012 10:52 PM  

Give it up, Mittbots. It's not Romney's or Paul's GOP convention, it's the duly elected national delegates' GOP convention. The Paul supporters among them won their spots fair and square (even more, if old guard hacks hadn't vote rigged them out of many state victories) and represent about 20% of the body that is going to Tampa. To kick them out is to guarantee a Republican defeat in November.

The party is changing from a corporate controlled, pro-war, pro-banksters, pro-crush civil liberties regime to a pro-peace, anti-Fed, pro-restore the Constitution party. Ask the young people, who are on fire for Paul, not Mitt. Ask the troops, who are donating to Paul, not Mitt. Ask the internet, which is abuzz about Paul, not Mitt. Let this changing of the guard be freely expressed in Tampa, and not suppressed.

Blogger Jamie-R June 30, 2012 10:56 PM  

This is a missionary challenge, we're pilgrims in an unholy world, people just don't care. One of my best mates at work starkly said it, "you believe what you want I think it's all f**king shit personally". He's a very smart guy, but when he said that he was stating an Australiasm, I admitted my faith is an Americanism cause it's out of place now in the modern world. But my luck runs strong, and it's not cause I've given up on a form of faith others have placed in Quantum Physics and Evolution.

Anonymous Idle Spectator June 30, 2012 10:57 PM  

The market crashed in 2008. Since then, the socioeconomic decay in the United States has not only spread, but actually sped up like a ball rolling down a hill.

Unemployment bankruptcy (skyrocketing jobless rates).
Housing bankruptcy (mass defaults).
Immigration bankruptcy (no longer absorb them).
Health care bankruptcy (Obamacare).
College education bankruptcy (student loan bubble).
K-12 education bankruptcy (cutting funding and school year length).
Federal bankruptcy (Iraq, Afghanistan, welfare).
State bankruptcy (California, New York, Illnois).
Municipal bankruptcy (Stockton, CA).

Ka-china, ka-ching, ka-ka-ka-ching!
All in four years.

Are we even going to make it eight years to 2020 without war or cataclysm?

Anonymous Stilicho June 30, 2012 10:59 PM  

Stickwick, see individual responses below:

Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.

Great, but how it got started is irrelevant, they still arrived at their destination. Further, Wickard is still in place (the case that has authorized nearly every expansion of federal gov't since 1942).

Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.

What utter nonsense. It is obviously not beyond wordplay, just look at the administration's responses since the ruling. It matters not whether you pick my pocket or use a gun to mug me, you are still robbing me. Those who are offended by the use of the commerce clause to justify this theft are the same group as those who are offended by the use of the taxing power to justify this theft.


Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?

Ha! Suddenly any money granted to a State by Congress becomes an "entitlement" that cannot be taken away. That always works out well.

Roberts' opinion was one of the more sophomoric to come out of the court lately. It reads like a first year law student's work product. Perhaps Roberts does not realize that he is supposed to review and revise his clerks' work.

Anonymous Stilicho June 30, 2012 11:02 PM  

Stickwick, also note that individuals and employers are punished for failure to comply with obamacare. Those penalties (excuse me "taxes") are not contingent upon what any state government does.

Anonymous zen0 June 30, 2012 11:07 PM  

Jamie-R June 30, 2012 10:50 PM

My comment to Res goes for you too Zeno. Be like Vox, talk a lot of interesting and relevant shit in your own voice. The world needs your voices.


I am of course flattered but must decline. Some backstabbing relatives put me on facebook and I had to chastise them severely and destroy the account.

The world is not really interested in what it needs, only what it wants. It is much like various individuals I have been naive enough to give the benefit of my vast knowledge of the human condition. Alas, they listen politely and do the opposite. Now I just watch for amusement.

Throw in a dig now and then, though.

Blogger shareman99 June 30, 2012 11:28 PM  

The republican party doesn't take the hint. The liberty party is taking over the party from the bottom up. They see us as a threat. What they don't realize is they are dying as a party. The younger generation understands politics a lot more than the older generation did. The older generation is like the republicans we have in house. They are out of date on economics, foreign policy and military. Most Americans don't see Iran and Syria as a threat to our borders. The key word is borders because that is the only reason we should go to war. Then when we do go to war. We ask congress , go kick some a** , and get out. We don't rebuild for them and apologize. The convention is not a pretty pageant. They are meant to be battles where idea's come alive. It wasn't until the last 20 years that they made it a beauty pageant. We are going to Tampa to send a message that you aren't the party anymore. WE ARE!!

Blogger shareman99 June 30, 2012 11:36 PM  

Almost forgot. Romney will never beat Obama. He needs the Paul vote to succeed in the swing states. For that to happen he will need us. The question is how will he do it. Well Rand Paul as his V.P. is a start. It will take more than that. He will have to promise not support the NDAA, CISPA, HR 347, Patriot Act, and many more terrible bills. Then a promise on first day as president to make a executive order to abolish those bills. That will be the only way to get my vote. If not then I will vote Gary Johnson as president since I live in a state that doesn't allow write in. They are useless anyways since they never count them. I see Gary Johnson about 10 times more votes then the 2008 for the libertarian party. He is a honest man who ran New Mexico the way the United States should be ran.

Anonymous No_Limit_Bubba™ June 30, 2012 11:38 PM  

@shareman99


HELL YEAH!!



There's a new sheriff in town...

Anonymous zen0 June 30, 2012 11:51 PM  

He will have to promise not support the NDAA, CISPA, HR 347, Patriot Act, and many more terrible bills. Then a promise on first day as president to make a executive order to abolish those bills.

How is that abolishing of Guantanamo going for the Obamaphones?

Well, if one does not indulge in expectations one cannot be disappointed.

Apparently, the great desire of most people is to be disappointed.

Anonymous Grinder July 01, 2012 12:10 AM  

All this Obamacare crap is irrelevant. There is already enough evidence that the agenda is jewish and meant to destroy the white race. Securing the borders, expelling illegals, ending the wars, saving the economy etc. are all distractions. Is all this palavering meant for entertainment? You think things might get better if you and some clever, honest jews put your heads together and work out some solutions? It will never work. The only subject worth discussing with jews is the timeline for their departure to their beloved eretz israel. Once they are all there I'll be happy to discuss other subjects with them.

Blogger Res Ipsa July 01, 2012 12:33 AM  

Jamie R,

"Hey Res, why don't you be a manly man and fag out on Facebook?"

I never had an interest in Facebook. I still make a blog post from time to time. Why can't we comment at your place anymore?

While we're talking about fags, is Crystal Lake pregnant yet?

Blogger Crude July 01, 2012 1:10 AM  

I have to seriously question the intelligence of any conservative who intends to vote for Romney, as the only argument that made even a remote amount of sense, the Supreme Court Appointment argument, has been permanently destroyed by Chief Justice Roberts.

While I am entirely sympathetic to the skepticism of Romney, I really wonder about this. Why is it permanently destroyed based on Romney, when (apparently) the nomations of Scalia, Alito, and Thomas would work in its favor? Not to mention, the liberal justices work in its favor too.

Anonymous bw July 01, 2012 1:13 AM  

is Crystal Lake pregnant yet?

You think he's really been DownUnder and can get that done?

Anonymous bw July 01, 2012 1:40 AM  

I wouldn't be surprised if his next Blog isn't about changing the name of the party from Republican to...

Well, hell, at least back in 2000 or thereabouts the RNC/GOP DID IN FACT change the Pentagram on their Elephant from right side up to upside down...so they're on their way...good times.


Well, if one does not indulge in expectations one cannot be disappointed.
Apparently, the great desire of most people is to be disappointed.


More than a mouthful right there. They love the Lie.
They LOVE it.

Anonymous Stickwick July 01, 2012 1:55 AM  

Since when did the liberals care about whether or not they're raising taxes?

If it had been construed as a tax from the beginning, the Dems would've never tried to pass it. They were adamant that it wasn't a tax, afraid of having it characterized as a tax, and Obama promised that he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class. They're currently very sensitive to the anti-tax sentiment of the American people.

None of that matters. End game is single payer. This was just a stepping stone to nationalized healthcare.

You're missing the not-so-fine print of the decision, which is that the Commerce Clause is DEAD as a means of increasing the federal government's power. And the states' right to opt out was guaranteed by a prohibition on the federal government penalizing the states for opting out.

Great, but how it got started is irrelevant, they still arrived at their destination.

No, they didn't. They're crowing because they're too stupid to realize they didn't get what they intended.

Here's the thing. Previous Supreme Courts have made incredible blunders that have harmed the U.S. One of those was Roe v. Wade where the SC jumped in and made abortion a federal issue rather than a state issue. If it had stayed at the state level, there would be less compulsion on both sides and less conflict. The other one was Brown v. the Board of Education, where the SC got involved in the issue of segregation. No matter how good the intentions of the ruling, what it ended up doing was destroying the inner cities of America. What Roberts did was to avoid a similar hugely tragic mistake by the SC with healthcare. The problem of healthcare in America is not something that can be solved politically. Americans have to go back and reexamine their entire approach to well-being. The emphasis has to be on prevention, but what we have right now is three generations of Americans who are engaging in every unhealthy behavior you can imagine, and when they lose their health they want the government to save them from their own irresponsibility. Americans need to understand that this can't possibly work. And what Roberts is doing is he's throwing it back to the American people and saying the SC can't figure this out for you. He's showing judicial prudence and just plain wisdom. The current approach to medical treatment is going to collapse the economy and bankrupt every level of government, no matter how they decide to do it or who pays for it. Americans simply have to go back to being a responsible people instead of a bunch of obese whiners, and the decision by the SC is the only possible decision that will allow this to happen.

… also note that individuals and employers are punished for failure to comply with obamacare. Those penalties (excuse me "taxes") are not contingent upon what any state government does.

Are you talking about proportionality? If so, yes, it's nuts; but nuttiness is not the thing that the judicial system is worried about. It's only worried about constitutionality. Roberts said if you bring it in under the Commerce Clause it's unconstitutional. But since the Dems told the court they didn't care which way it was brought in, he ruled that it was constitutional as a tax. He's not passing judgment on whether taxes are good or not, because that's not the job of the SC -- there's already a constitutional amendment that allows the government to raise taxes, so he ruled on that basis.

I'm convinced Roberts' decision was quite brilliant, and I think in time others will see it, too. I have no doubt Roberts agonized over it, and that he despises Obama and ObamaCare. He all but came out and said to get rid of the bastard. But the SC avoided making this decision political, which is exactly what it should have done.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza July 01, 2012 2:25 AM  

@ Zeno and Frickbook:

Couldn't agree more, FB actually destroyed several family relationships. Thumbs down on anything FB.

Moving alone, since the NRO, Kristol and the usually RINO types run the show, it is completely in keeping with the fallacious right-left paradigm to toss out Ron Paul fans.

"libertarians, the constitutionalists, the nationalists, and the fiscally sane. I think it would be fantastic."

Agreed. Still, there is a disconnect when a people cannot see the decline, fall and painful collapse of a nation this election won't solve anything. Most repub and even dem voters are neoconned and cannot see the facade.

Any intelligent American is repulsed by the antics of Washington. Oromney is another Mcain from the GOP who doesn't want to win a damn thing.

(A slight return to the HC/ACA debate, the law is the same as the issues surrounding immigration, abortion etc., nothing will be done, repealed or replaced. (The banks and ins companies wanted the bill, the ACA would always have stood.

For those who live in Finland, Italy, Japan, Switzerland or Australia, do your respective HC delivery systems always include a governing tax body in keeping to what America has chosen? Do other countries fuse the HHS and IRS together? It is already reported states cannot afford the medicaid expansion.)

Blogger Jamie-R July 01, 2012 2:36 AM  

I am of course flattered but must decline.

Same old story, personal information was hunted, hey MacGyver handled it.

I never had an interest in Facebook. I still make a blog post from time to time. Why can't we comment at your place anymore? While we're talking about fags, is Crystal Lake pregnant yet?

Facebook requires a walled garden somewhat, better than blogs if you have people hunting you negatively, back in the day Vox had to hunt comments, I just evolved.

Don't even try and turn this on me, and don't call her Crystal Lake, her name when she started posting here was Sarah. It's Sarah.

Anonymous Stilicho July 01, 2012 7:17 AM  

What Roberts did was to avoid a similar hugely tragic mistake by the SC with healthcare.

What Roberts did was EXACTLY the same thing.

Are you talking about proportionality?

No, I'm talking about the fact that fines for noncompliance are levied directly against employers and individuals by the IRS under obamacare. This occurs regardless of what the states do. My state says it's not going to play ball with the feds, the IRS says that's no excuse for you Mr. Taxpayer, you still owe us.

there's already a constitutional amendment that allows the government to raise taxes, so he ruled on that basis.

Nope. Excise taxes are authorized under the original Constitution. Income taxes are authorized under the 16th Amendment. Which one is this Stickwick?

Quit trying to force the evidence to fit into an attractive package, embrace the randomness of the universe dear. Come to the Dark (energy) side :)

Anonymous Anonymous July 01, 2012 9:26 AM  

Unfortunately, many of my family still believe in the false dichotomy of Republican vs. Democrat. We were traditionally Southern Democrats, hating the big business interests of the Republican Party, the one that had invaded and destroyed our country and continued to do so duting the WBTS/Reconstruction. The problem is that many of us now think the Republicans have the answer, but the truth is that the party at its core has never really changed: the grass roots might be traditional conservatives, but the power brokers are not.

The Democrat Party is indeed the party of the radical Left, and there's no fixing it; but the Republicans are little better. This article just reinforces for me that it will be best for all true conservatives the day when the Republican Party goes the way of the Whigs, perhaps allowing a truly conservative party coming out of the tradition of the Anti-Federalists and the Democratic Republicans to be born. Then again, I'm not holding my breath.

Regards,
David Smit

Anonymous Anonymous July 01, 2012 12:33 PM  

It is time to take back the power. It starts from the grass roots. Get involved with the party at the local level. Put ethical people up for for office. The Bozos' facade will fall.

Anonymous paradox July 01, 2012 12:58 PM  

Good I hope the GOP is obliterated. A 150 years of the Republican Party destroying the US has been long enough.

Anonymous Stickwick July 01, 2012 1:41 PM  

What Roberts did was EXACTLY the same thing.

How was it the same thing?

No, I'm talking about the fact that fines for noncompliance are levied directly against employers and individuals by the IRS under obamacare.

Okay, yeah. So? Government has the constitutional power to do this. As I said before, it's not the job of the SC to rule on the goodness or badness of a law, but whether it is consistent with the Constitution.

Nope. Excise taxes are authorized under the original Constitution. Income taxes are authorized under the 16th Amendment. Which one is this Stickwick?

Roberts ruled that Obamacare is constitutional under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which is not limited to excise taxes, but includes the power of regulatory and prohibitive taxation. How does that not apply to Obamacare?

Quit trying to force the evidence to fit into an attractive package, embrace the randomness of the universe dear. Come to the Dark (energy) side :)

I meant what I said. You and others seem to assume I have some emotional stake in all this that is compelling me to rationalize a bad decision by a beloved justice or retrofit what I want onto the outcome. I don't have an emotional stake in this. I'm not a conservative, I despise the GOP, and until proven otherwise, my default position is that anyone involved in government is at best an unprincipled weasel who is determined to destroy this country. I was rather surprised to find that Justice Roberts' decision was as good as it was.

Anonymous Josh July 01, 2012 3:17 PM  

Stickwick, you're wrong

Anonymous No_Limit_Bubba™ July 01, 2012 3:33 PM  

Stickwick,
Justice Roberts found a previously unthought of way to legitimise a blatantly unconstitutional law.
Think of it this way. Someone is shooting at you. They only have two bullets ( the commerce clause and the general welfare clause). Roberts has given them a thord bullet.

Anonymous Stilicho July 01, 2012 4:16 PM  

Roberts ruled that Obamacare is constitutional under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which is not limited to excise taxes, but includes the power of regulatory and prohibitive taxation. How does that not apply to Obamacare?

Just because 5 of the clowns in black robes say something does not mean they are correct. Let's start with the law:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Leaving aside the contortions Roberts went through to call this a tax, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that it is a tax. Under your analysis, the federal gov't is granted unlimited power to tax anything or the lack of anything under this clause.

Yet, we see a very different conclusion in the history of the federal government's tax powers. In fact, this had to be added in order for the government to have authority to tax earnings:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Well, it is clear that the original Constitution did not grant the federal government the authority to tax just anything. What are the "Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises" it could levy? Taxes are, well, taxes and include the other categories as well as capitation taxes or head taxes that must be levied proportionately. Duties are tariffs. Impost def.:impost n tax, duty Source: NMW. Excises def.: excise n a tax on the manufacture, sale, or consumption of goods within a country Source: NMW. (as opposed to tariffs or duties levied on foreign goods).

Nowhere is there a Constitutional legal basis for taxing a failure to engage in a desired commercial transaction. Just as there was no such power to regulate the lack of commerce under the commerce clause. Roberts has created an entirely new power here in order to achieve the end he desired. In fact, Roberts entire opinion on this boils down to "trust me, it's a tax and Congress can tax anything."

Anonymous Stickwick July 01, 2012 4:23 PM  

Bubba, he did not find a third bullet. The Dems argued that this could be construed as a penalty or as a tax. All Roberts said was, okay, as a tax we can accept it. The government has the right to tax. He didn't make it up. It's like Valerie Jarrett said, they'll take it any way they can get it. Roberts is not there to judge whether it's a good law or not. He said that the SC cannot fix this for the American people -- Obamacare is a political problem, not a judicial problem. It's up to the American people to figure it out. Roberts made the right decision, and avoided a political catastrophe on par with Roe v. Wade or Brown v. the Board of Education. Can you people understand this? The SC should not be engaging in judicial activism in any direction, left or right.

Anonymous Stickwick July 01, 2012 4:30 PM  

Stilicho,

I'm not Obama, so my expertise on constitutional law is limited. However, even just a cursory look on Wikipedia indicates that there is a legal basis for Obamacare under the congressional power to regulate commerce through taxation:

This power is considered by many to be essential to the administering of government. As argued under the Articles, the lack of a power to tax renders government ineffectual. Typically, the power is used to raise revenues for the support of government. But, Congress has employed the taxing power in uses other than solely for the raising of revenue, such as:

regulatory taxation — taxing to regulate commerce;[10]

prohibitive taxation — taxing to discourage, suppress, or even exterminate commerce;[11] and finally,

tariffs — taxing as a means of protectionism.[12]

In 1922, the Supreme Court struck down a 1919 tax on child labor in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co.,[13] commonly referred to as the "Child Labor Tax Case". The Court had previously held that Congress did not have the power to directly regulate labor, and found the law at issue to be an attempt to indirectly accomplish the same end. This ruling appeared to have been reinforced in United States v. Butler,[9] in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the processing taxes instituted under the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act were an unconstitutional attempt to regulate state activity in violation of the Tenth Amendment. However, despite its outcome, Butler affirmed that Congress does have a broad power to tax, and to expend revenues within its discretion. Butler was the last case in which the Court would find a constitutional limitation on the power of Congress to tax and spend.


How does this not apply to Obamacare? It seems to clearly fall under regulatory taxation.

Anonymous Stilicho July 01, 2012 4:34 PM  

Can you people understand this? The SC should not be engaging in judicial activism in any direction, left or right.

That is a correct statement. However, you use it to justify an egregious case of judicial activism. Your problem is that you accept Roberts' decision as correct/constitutional a priori when a basic understanding of the law shows that it is not.

Anonymous F M Davis July 01, 2012 5:05 PM  

I'm not Obama..

And neither is he.

Carry on.

Anonymous Stickwick July 01, 2012 6:14 PM  

Stilicho, I'm always open to the possibility that I'm wrong about something, but you haven't shown me I'm wrong in this case. How does what I posted above not apply to Obamacare?

Anonymous Noah B. July 01, 2012 7:29 PM  

@Stickwick

You are using the same expansionary interpretation of the commerce clause that was rendered by the court during Roosevelt's administration. Please note that the Constitution gives the federal government power to "regulate interstate commerce," not to "levy regulatory taxes." Those two are not synonymous.

It is easily that this interpretation of the commerce clause is not in line with the Framers' intentions because such an interpretation would make the 9th and 10th Amendments meaningless. A federal government with unlimited power to impose "regulatory taxes" is a totalitarian regime.

Anonymous Anonymous July 01, 2012 7:52 PM  

Magic underwear? Wow. It's unfortunate to see an otherwise astute commentator reveal his true colors as a religious bigot.

Anonymous Godfrey July 01, 2012 8:23 PM  

At this point we're voting for who should be Captain the Titanic after hitting the iceberg. Captain Obama screams "forward", while Captain Romney plans to attack the ship "Persia".

Anonymous No_Limit_Bubba July 01, 2012 8:42 PM  

What Noah B. said!!


The Robert's ruling:
Is there ANYTHING that the federal government CAN'T do?

Anonymous DonReynolds July 01, 2012 8:57 PM  

I agree, Vox. The thought of voting for Juan McCain or Barack Obama in 2008 make me want to hurl industrial chunky. It was the first presidential election I had boycotted, and I had voted in every election since 1972. The choice, once again and the same as always, is between being eaten by a lion or a tiger. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, but I refuse to cast a vote anymore for the lesser of two evils. That crap is over and to be more than honest, it has got us to the stockyard we find ourselves in today.

Remember Vox, the Republican party was built on the bones of the Whig party, which used to be the other big party in this country. To borrow a paragraph from Wikipedia:

"The Whig Party was a political party of the United States during the era of Jacksonian democracy. Considered integral to the Second Party System and operating from the early 1830s to the mid-1850s,[1] the party was formed in opposition to the policies of President Andrew Jackson and his Democratic Party. In particular, the Whigs supported the supremacy of Congress over the presidency and favored a program of modernization and economic protectionism. This name was chosen to echo the American Whigs of 1776, who fought for independence, and because "Whig" was then a widely recognized label of choice for people who identified as opposing tyranny.[2] The Whig Party counted among its members such national political luminaries as Daniel Webster, William Henry Harrison, and their preeminent leader, Henry Clay of Kentucky. In addition to Harrison, the Whig Party also nominated war heroes generals Zachary Taylor and Winfield Scott. Abraham Lincoln was the chief Whig leader in frontier Illinois."

The Whig party split over the issue of slavery and the Republican party will split over the modern version of slavery.....illegal immigration, with many of the same damned arguments on both sides. Illegal immigration is the modern slavery issue and the Republipukes are about the split their own party into two halves. (Don't look for most of the Libertarians to be in the half that wants the illegal aliens deported.....including Dr. Ron Paul.)

I am amazed that the Neocon Republicans would be willing to kiss off the Ron Paul supporters (and all the other Libertarians at the same time). They will need every single vote they can sheep steal. I have not heard any of the Neocon RINO jerks suggest that the Tea party members be disallowed to participate in the Republican party. Perhaps they feel that the pro-military Tea party will pony along with the Neocons regarding the silly wars in the Middle East and their fanatical (divided) loyalty to Israel. They are probably correct.

Anonymous hoosiertoo July 01, 2012 9:00 PM  

A longtime Libertarian and consistent 3rd party supporter - voted CP in the presidential last time - I've actually joined the party and was a delegate to the IN GOP state convention this year - we did manage to get "audit the fed" on the state platform. It was the high point of the convention; the support was overwhelming and LOUD when it came to the voice vote.

The game is rigged to the point that unless there is a wholesale revolution in American thinking - not likely, IMO - third parties are not viable in a winner-take-all game. One or the other of the two major parties must be taken over from the grassroots up. The Dems are simply hopeless, so it has to be the Pubs, where there is at least some tradition of liberarianism still alive.

I'd still rather try to reason (ha!) with a Demonrat than an establishment Republican. If they do force us out of the national convention, Mittens will lose big.

Anonymous DonReynolds July 01, 2012 9:23 PM  

As for the Obamacare decision by the Supreme Court, no one bothers to mention the TENTH AMENDMENT of the US Constitution, specifically:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

By no means does the Constitution hint or suggest that the Federal government has the power to tax (and the power to destroy) or penalize any person because they have not purchased a good or service from a private firm and that all persons could be so required by Federal law, not by virtue of interstate commerce, but simply because they are alive and a citizen of the United States, regardless of age, or that the Federal government could mandate a uniform health insurance coverage for all citizens....those who have less than the uniform coverage would be penalized as well as those (such as the primary labor market) whose insurance coverage exceeds the Federally-mandated uniform coverage.

Friends, there is simply no such authority granted by the Constitution to the Federal government (no even within the taxing powers) and if that authority is recognized by the Supreme Court in error, there are NO LIMITATIONS to this device and it can be applied to every segment of consumption in turn by analogy. The Republic is in peril by this decision.

Anonymous Stilicho July 01, 2012 10:12 PM  

How does this not apply to Obamacare? It seems to clearly fall under regulatory taxation.

None of those cases stand for the proposition that Congress has the authority to tax a lack of commerce. Roberts' opinion expands the taxing power in the very same manner that the Democrats sought and failed to expand the commerce power. There is no doubt that Congress has the explicit power to tax commerce. However, there must be commerce to tax. What it does not have that this ruling purports to find is a power to levy taxes, not on commerce, but on an individual's decision to not enter into a transaction.

Anonymous Stilicho July 01, 2012 10:13 PM  

As for the Obamacare decision by the Supreme Court, no one bothers to mention the TENTH AMENDMENT of the US Constitution, specifically:

Actually, Don, you're wrong. Scalia hits it at about the 2nd paragraph of his dissent.

Anonymous ArcaneRhino July 02, 2012 1:51 PM  

Stickwick:

Unlike many others here, I am inclined to agree with you, at least insofar as what Roberts might think he has done, and what Republicans might want to believe he has done. In the legal game, however, I believe it is what is known as a distinction without a difference.

It appears to me that what Roberts has done is the usual Republican compromise of giving the leftists what they want with the "harsh gavel of disapproving finality": "unhuh, this is so a tax" and, bwahahaha, YOU CAN'T MANDATE UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, SUCKERS!

The only problem is the footnote that, while the socialists of the court were quick to jump on board with his vote to move "the agenda" forward, they immediately formulated their own statement of dissension to Roberts’ Commerce Clause position. “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke for all four liberals in complaining that Roberts’ disquisition on the Commerce Clause was unnecessary if he was going to uphold the individual mandate as a constitutionally valid tax”*.

This is interesting for two reasons. One, it shows that leftists really don’t care about law or constitutionality – as if that was in doubt [but I rarely see it presented so nakedly], and two, it provides immediate grounds for argument during the next expansion of Federal power under the Commerce clause.

The left will simply dismiss Roberts position and argue that the Obamacare mandate was a tax issue and assert that the Court was very divided over the application of the Commerce clause, which was not at issue and thus not settled by the decision. I believe that regardless of what Roberts and friends believe they have achieved, this decision in no way created any precedent by which the left will be bound.

*http://jostonjustice.blogspot.com/

Anonymous ArcaneRhino July 02, 2012 1:55 PM  

(Sorry, that should read:)

...which was not FINALLY at issue...

Anonymous ArcaneRhino July 02, 2012 1:56 PM  

Stickwick:

Unlike many others here, I am inclined to agree with you, at least insofar as what Roberts might think he has done, and what Republicans might want to believe he has done. In the legal game, however, I believe it is what is known as a distinction without a difference.

It appears to me that what Roberts has done is the usual Republican compromise of giving the leftists what they want with the "harsh gavel of disapproving finality": In summation, "unhuh, this is so a tax" and, bwahahaha, YOU CAN'T MANDATE UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, SUCKERS!

The only problem is the footnote that, while the socialists of the court were quick to jump on board with his vote to move "the agenda" forward, they they immediately formulated their own statement of dissension to Roberts’ Commerce Clause position. “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke for all four liberals in complaining that Roberts’ disquisition on the Commerce Clause was unnecessary if he was going to uphold the individual mandate as a constitutionally valid tax”*.

This is interesting for two reasons. One, it shows that leftists really don’t care about law or constitutionality – as if that was in doubt [but I rarely see it presented so nakedly], and two, it provides immediate grounds for argument during the next expansion of Federal power under the Commerce clause.

The left will simply dismiss Roberts position and argue that the Obamacare mandate was a tax issue and that the Court was very divided over the application of the Commerce clause, which was not finally at issue and thus not settled by the decision. I believe that regardless of what Roberts asserted, this decision in no way created any precedent by which the left will be bound.

*http://jostonjustice.blogspot.com/

Anonymous Ball July 02, 2012 2:17 PM  

Considering what Bush did during his term, how can anybody be surprised at the Roberts ruling? One if the first things Bush did was pass a prescription drug benefit, and then followed it up with no child left behind.

Take your "R" blinders off, you fools!

Anonymous Noah B. July 02, 2012 2:39 PM  

@Ball

Let's not forget the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, unlawful detention of American citizens, and two pointless wars.

Anonymous oregon mouse July 03, 2012 12:40 AM  

"They are meant to be battles where idea's come alive. It wasn't until the last 20 years that they made it a beauty pageant. We are going to Tampa to send a message that you aren't the party anymore. WE ARE!!"

Exactly. My husband and I were precinct committee people at the oregon state convention on June 23rd. I must admit I will stay active in the party solely for the sheer joy of watching the party establishment resort to voter fraud and Robert's Rules games just to maintain some semblance of control. We voted on delegates and the RP slate got 11 out of the 13 delegate slots, then the mysterious delays started. We were told CD4 was having trouble counting ballots. CD4 was told that CD2 was delaying the voting... and so on. The old gaurd party chairmen forced most of the meetings to adjourn at 5pm sharply but other meetings voted to continue and to vote. Lovely. Clearly the Repub Party has no sense if irony. As part of the delaying tactics they showed a video advertisement for an anti-voter fraud group called Tru the vote. Too frickin' hilarious,

The biggest lesson I took home from this is that there is absolutely no enthusiasm for Romney. Let me put it this way; in multanomah county there are 1800 slots for pcps. only 245 are filled and of those only about 65 are affiliated with the RP campaign and yet we were able to "take over" the convention (as the romney people would say). This pattern was repeated in all the districts. All of the congressional districts voted out most if not all of the old gaurd office holders and replaced them with RP supporters. This would not have been at all possible if there was any interest whatsoever in Romney as president. Both parties are serving the people lukewarm, week-old left over socialist cheese topped with nose hair and the people are becoming increasingly aware of this fact. That’s why the party leadership can’t stand internal competition. We are calling their bluff, making them show their true fascist roots and they are furious.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts