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

Thursday, August 23, 2012

Scratching back

The good professor always sends a lot of traffic to Amazon when he links my books, so it only seems fair to help him out in return, especially when it costs nothing to nobody. Download his PDF on the Obamacare decision - no registration or cost required - and apparently he'll get to count some kind of academic coup or something. It actually makes for pretty interesting reading, and it's only 21 pages, but more importantly, downloading it will make some leftist professor whose paper on 19th Century Transgender Law in the Third Ruritanian Republic gets bumped down a notch cry.

It's moderately funny too. Consider the following quote: "This has led some commentators to suggest that Roberts’ holding in Sebelius was, like Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison, a sort of Trojan horse, smuggling in a victory over an important legal principle while shrouding that victory behind a win on the general issue for the other side. There are two problems with this conception: One is with the understanding of Marbury that it embodies, and the other is with the understanding of NFIB that it embodies."

Translation: "No, you idiot Republicans, it's exactly what it looked like. Roberts stabbed you in the back, so quit pretending you liked it."

Labels:

30 Comments:

Anonymous Josh August 23, 2012 11:50 AM  

Link says abstract not found.

Anonymous Daniel August 23, 2012 11:55 AM  

Worked for me.

Blogger Vox August 23, 2012 12:00 PM  

Fixed it. Apparently the site doesn't like it when you link directly to the download rather than the abstract.

Blogger ClarkAspen August 23, 2012 12:14 PM  

I love the smell of wonky policy papers in the morning.

Anonymous Roundtine August 23, 2012 12:30 PM  

But Republicans will love the conclusion: Most Important Election Evah

Anonymous Daniel August 23, 2012 12:35 PM  

...yeah, because electing a guy who isn't even a strict constructionist on The Book of Mormon is going to believe the Constitution is a dead document...

Anonymous ODG August 23, 2012 12:49 PM  

Downloaded because I like making leftist professors cry.

And I want good responses to idiotic Republican arguments that the ruling was a good thing.

Blogger Astrosmith August 23, 2012 12:58 PM  

Daniel August 23, 2012 12:35 PM ...yeah, because electing a guy who isn't even a strict constructionist on The Book of Mormon is going to believe the Constitution is a dead document...

Odd thing about that: until recently, I didn't know that Mormons consider the U.S. Constitution to be a divinely inspired document, on par with the Bible, BOM, POGP, etc.

Now, I like the Constitution as much as anyone around here, but I don't think it was "divinely inspired". Divine inspiration with an amendment process? Leading to the 18th and 21st amendments?

Anonymous Daniel August 23, 2012 1:09 PM  

Divine inspiration with an amendment process? Leading to the 18th and 21st amendments?

That's got nothing on the actual historical revision process of the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price and D&C. Mormon ideology is a doctrine of almost constant change. It would have to be, with living prophets having the power to absolutely reverse core dogma.

So, yeah. Anyone who thinks Romney is even capable from an intellectual point of view to adhere to the Constitution as traditionally conceived probably also expect Paul Krugman to repent of Keynesianism, because it has been so awful to him...

Anonymous DavidOfOne August 23, 2012 1:44 PM  

I'm scratching ... start shaking your leg when it's just right.

Anonymous Stilicho August 23, 2012 2:25 PM  

I'm disappointed. Reynolds, like Roberts, fails to address the constitutional limits on the taxing power of Congress. At least he did not (unlike Roberts) claim that, since it's a tax of sorts, Congress can, ipso facto, impose it without any constitutional basis.

Since John Roberts has become a synonym for cognitive dissonance, one cannot be surprised that he missed the similarity between the administration's failed cart-before-the-horse argument that the Necessary and Proper clause made the Act constitutional (arguing that the mandate is necessary to achieve the goal of the Act) and Roberts' own opinion that, since it's a tax, Congress must have the authority to levy it. Reynolds has no such excuse. Further, since the Commerce Clause does not authorize it since lack of activity is not commerce and the Constitution only allows Congress to tax commerce (excise taxes, duties, imposts), income (16th Amendment), and to levy proportional head taxes (which Roberts says this is not), then the ONLY reasonable conclusion is that Congress' taxing power does not extend to taxing a lack of commerce.

Anonymous anon123 August 23, 2012 2:48 PM  

Much of today's LGTBTLERDSGVB strategy derives from 19th C. Ruritainian Transgenderism.

Anonymous duckman August 23, 2012 3:02 PM  

Translation: "No, you idiot Republicans, it's exactly what it looked like. Roberts stabbed you in the back, so quit pretending you liked it."

Very low in the back. And the with a "knife" isn't sharp or always hard.

Blogger James Dixon August 23, 2012 3:07 PM  

> And I want good responses to idiotic Republican arguments that the ruling was a good thing.

The only good thing about the ruling is that it keeps Obamacare an issue in the election.

It has to be one of the most atrocious rulings the court has ever issued.

Anonymous Idle Spectator August 23, 2012 3:07 PM  

It is like they were stuck'd in the belly. With a gun.

Anonymous jack August 23, 2012 3:08 PM  

OT a bit here...
From Drudge, a former NPR reporter has set up a site called DecodeDC that purports to translate beltway speak to us ordinary mortals.
Suppose we will see if and how much.

http://www.decodedc.com/

Anonymous Matt August 23, 2012 3:13 PM  

I'm disappointed. Reynolds, like Roberts, fails to address the constitutional limits on the taxing power of Congress.

Reynolds is not writing a judicial opinion. He's writing about a judicial opinion.

Anonymous A.Handle August 23, 2012 3:21 PM  

Always thought Roberts was a poor judge and was pretty sure the legal field was not his calling. The recent "decision" confirmed it.

Anonymous Stilicho August 23, 2012 3:21 PM  

Reynolds is not writing a judicial opinion. He's writing about a judicial opinion.

I'm aware of that. Reynolds, like most observers, failed to address a glaring flaw in his critique. Moreover, it's arguably the most important, far reaching expansion of government power in decades. It should not be glossed over.

Anonymous Matt August 23, 2012 3:29 PM  

That's just the nature of the genre. He's writing about what's likely to happen next, not so much a detailed analysis of the decision itself. Many others have done that, and he cites plenty of 'em.

But either way, you're completely right about the disastrous tax aspect of the decision. What's particularly galling about Robert's transparently self-serving collapse is that nobody thinks his reasoning was correct. All four "conservative" justices thought his reasoning was full of it, and all four "liberal" justices thought his reasoning was full of it for different reasons. Just a disaster all around.

Anonymous Clay August 23, 2012 3:32 PM  

I'm thinking maybe Instapundit, Dr. Helen, Vox and the Spacebunny have hit the hot tub together a time or two.

Anonymous Outlaw X August 23, 2012 3:34 PM  

I Downloaded it. Do we have to read it? :)

Anonymous whatever August 23, 2012 3:46 PM  


"No, you idiot Republicans, it's exactly what it looked like. Roberts stabbed you in the back, so quit pretending you liked it."


Who says they didn't like it?

Anonymous Tom O August 23, 2012 6:21 PM  

Divine inspiration with an amendment process? Leading to the 18th and 21st amendments?

This is 100% consistent with the Lswap(D,S) faith.

Anonymous FrankBrady August 23, 2012 7:15 PM  

Reynolds, like most observers, failed to address a glaring flaw in his critique. Moreover, it's arguably the most important, far reaching expansion of government power in decades. It should not be glossed over.

Here's another. All money bills (that includes tax bills) are to originate in the House of Representatives. If memory serves, the so-called "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" did not. That alone makes its passage unconstitutional.

Anonymous FP August 23, 2012 7:40 PM  

Frank, the senate bill was a gutted bill the house had passed as I understand it.

Anonymous Anonymous August 23, 2012 8:15 PM  

The whole deal is about fucking " Pop Goes The Weasel" - El Salvador..
IRA- PLO doing just that.
Can't blame them.
So is half of Hollywood and " Slymso".
There goes Sculls - Chersco with Phyto.
" Tccare"!

Anonymous Anonymous August 23, 2012 8:18 PM  

It's all a bunch of " Baulshet".
They got MD V doing the Whambango
Turns out Ofgory B hits Gdisco.
watch out for Killa Hilla.

Blogger IM2L844 August 23, 2012 10:58 PM  

This is way off topic, but it looks like this thread has run it's course and I was so overwhelmed with admiration for my own gender I just had to share THIS LINK to some damn fine home brewed engineering.

Anonymous bw August 24, 2012 3:36 AM  

Mormon ideology is a doctrine of almost constant change - Daniel

That "Book of Abraham" thing is hilarious.

"Damn that Rosetta Stone! Who knew they'd actually be able to interpret Egyptian one day and discover that our Book of Abraham translated by our lying cult founder is really just a funeral rite for an Egyptian priest!?"

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts