ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, June 25, 2015

The misrule of law

And the rule of lying men. This should suffice to explode any last lingering doubts about the survival of the rule of law in the USA:
“Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them,” Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.”

Roberts continued, “In this instance, the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.”

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice Antonin Scalia said, “We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.” Using the acronym for the Supreme Court, Scalia said his colleagues have twice stepped in to save the law from what Scalia considered worthy challenges.

“The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says ‘Exchange established by the State’ it means ‘Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government.’ That is of course quite absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so,” Scalia wrote.

Scalia added, “Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’ It is hard to come up with a clearer way to limit tax credits to state Exchanges than to use the words ‘established by the State.’ And it is hard to come up with a reason to include the words ‘by the State’ other than the purpose of limiting credits to state Exchanges.”
The USA presently enjoys not only the rule of men, but the rule of lying men rather than law. And, needless to say, Chief Justice Roberts helpfully demonstrates that electing more Republicans is not going to solve the problem.

Labels: ,

143 Comments:

Blogger Nate June 25, 2015 2:33 PM  

scalia's rebuttal is positively scathing.

Anonymous Porky June 25, 2015 2:36 PM  

“In this instance, the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.”

This sentence should appear on the wikipedia entry for "dissemble".

Anonymous BGS June 25, 2015 2:39 PM  

Twice Roberts has saved Obamacare. There must be pics of him snorting cocaine off 14yos on Epstein's island.

Anonymous MrGreenMan June 25, 2015 2:39 PM  

Given that Gruber has admitted, and others have admitted, this was intended to be a cudgel against the hopefully small number of GOP states that did not fall in line, but got upturned by so few states succeeding at making state exchanges, it's amazing how far Roberts will go to fix this. They must have something on him. On October 1, 2007, Jeffrey Toobin said on CNN that the conservative court of Roberts/Alito/Thomas/Kennedy/Scalia would make things predictable for some time, and would have the long echo of GWB for decades. I guess we have the long echo the man who called the Constitution a "g--- d---- piece of paper."

Blogger darkdoc June 25, 2015 2:41 PM  

And now tomorrow we have SCOTUS approving gay marriage.

Blogger Edd Jobs June 25, 2015 2:41 PM  

The federal government has simply abandoned the rule of law.

Anonymous Huckleberry (#87) -- est. 1977 June 25, 2015 2:43 PM  

It's good to see that THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION EVER -- 2004 Edition, is really paying dividends for the ANYBODY BUT ____ crowd.

Anonymous farmer Tom June 25, 2015 2:43 PM  

These kinds of blatant lawless/unlawful actions in direct violation of the written language of the law, are the final step before they unilaterally declare the right to private property and the right to keep and bear arms are declared unConstitutional, null and void.

Anonymous Fran June 25, 2015 2:43 PM  

Scalia is raciss

Anonymous WillBest June 25, 2015 2:43 PM  

I poured myself a double Aberlour A'bunadh at 10am today... I couldn't even rationalize this...

I had thought that Roberts is being blackmailed. Not that I ever expected him to be Thomas, but there is such a difference between the way he reasons through most of his opinions and the piles of shit he produces when the Obama Administration has needed a win that other explanation don't really seem to fit. But then Kennedy voted for this too..


Anonymous farmer Tom June 25, 2015 2:44 PM  

Should have edited that.

OpenID mattse001 June 25, 2015 2:44 PM  

Legal remedies seem to be in short supply.

Blogger Ragin' Dave June 25, 2015 2:44 PM  

Rule of Law, RIP. It had a good run. It's dead now, victim to a greedy, power-hungry class of would-be slave owners and power merchants.

This country is over. Dead. Finished. Gone. There's no amount of voting that's going to save it, when the people we are allowed to vote for are the same ones stabbing the premise of the USA in the back. It's all over but the shooting. Buy ammo.

Anonymous Huckleberry (#87) -- est. 1977 June 25, 2015 2:45 PM  

They must have something on him

Or he's been a hard-left communist all along.

Anonymous Musashi June 25, 2015 2:52 PM  

The Left - they're never not lying.

Blogger bob k. mando June 25, 2015 2:55 PM  

gosh. i sure am glad we elected Bush 2.

i mean, just imagine where we'd be if Algore had been allowed to pick the Supreme Court justices?



3. BGS June 25, 2015 2:39 PM
Twice Roberts has saved Obamacare. There must be pics of him snorting cocaine off 14yos on Epstein's island.



the heck with that. you got any evidence that Roberts was NOT getting a quantity discount with Hastert, renting catamites out of Bawney Fwank's basement?

Blogger Salt June 25, 2015 2:58 PM  

SCOTUS involvement in social engineering is nothing new. Roberts said it, he looks to shoehorn X into what he perceives Congress meant X to be.

Blogger Corvinus June 25, 2015 3:01 PM  

the heck with that. you got any evidence that Roberts was NOT getting a quantity discount with Hastert, renting catamites out of Bawney Fwank's basement?

Several years back, Bill Maher quipped that he was the first gay chief justice of the Supreme Court, based on him playing Tinker Bell in a school play, the fact his kids are adopted, and finally, a pic of him posing with food. "Unless he killed it, or it's a hooker jumping out of a cake, only gay men pose with food."

The Youtube clip was a howler, but unfortunately it appears to have disappeared down the memory hole.

Blogger automatthew June 25, 2015 3:01 PM  

The great god Pan is dead!

Anonymous Donn #0114 June 25, 2015 3:01 PM  

Good gravy! Did you read the comments? Universally against except for 2 obviously lib trolls. If the MSM cannot maintain the narrative on their own comments section, the Overton window is moving our way.

Anonymous Orville June 25, 2015 3:02 PM  

I wonder at what point it will dawn on a significant minority that we do not have a lawful government.

Blogger automatthew June 25, 2015 3:04 PM  

"scalia's rebuttal is positively scathing."

Words, words, words.

Blogger Bateful Higot June 25, 2015 3:05 PM  

The important thing is that now people can afford to pay insurers for their federally mandated service.

Anonymous dB June 25, 2015 3:05 PM  

I was listening to Limbaugh today and he was echoing Vox's point about this. I don't think limbuagh ever used the SJW term before as he seems to prefer "the left". But anyways, my rhetorical question to limbuagh is that "don't you see that there is no difference between republicans and democrats?" He seems to be coming around moreso these days but it really does not help him to effectively push the mantra just elect more republicans because they are so much better.

Blogger Jack Ward June 25, 2015 3:07 PM  

Yes, indeed. With things like this and the crap surrounding the TPP, I will be writing three more emails. They will go to my two senators and my congress critter [Ala] informing them I'm no longer of the Republican party, in spirit, if not fact. And, even though they may have fought hard to stop certain things like TPP, it was not hard enough. From now on I will always vote against the incumbents in the primaries and hope something decent will stick to the wall.
What a say time here in the former USA.

Blogger Rabbi B June 25, 2015 3:13 PM  

Therefore the law is paralyzed . . . the wicked hem in the righteous, so that justice is perverted. (cf. Habakkuk 1)

Anonymous Huckleberry (#87) -- est. 1977 June 25, 2015 3:14 PM  

He seems to be coming around

He always does in between elections.

Anonymous Noah B. June 25, 2015 3:15 PM  

The Japanese would have had a lot easier time with an invasion of the West Coast if no one was left who gave a damn whether or not they won. Just sayin.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 June 25, 2015 3:20 PM  

Still waiting for a politician or judge to explain to me why fining people who don't have health insurance somehow makes it more affordable.

Blogger luagha June 25, 2015 3:25 PM  

Scalia's scathing rebuttal and a buck fifty will get you a cheap cup of coffee.

Blogger Cail Corishev June 25, 2015 3:25 PM  

I remember when Obamacare was being debated and many people, even some Democrats, admitted that it was unconstitutional in parts, but said that wasn't really a problem because SCOTUS would sort that out. They'd cut out the clearly unconstitutional stuff, which was a lot, and then we'd see whether what was left amounted to anything.

They just forgot to tell the court it was supposed to be the grown-up this time.

Blogger pyrrhus June 25, 2015 3:29 PM  

Blackmail works...These decisions will eventually be seen as the beginning of the end.

Blogger Nick Stone June 25, 2015 3:30 PM  

MPAI reconfirmed...again. And some people (mostly people in positions of authority) despise my antiauthoritarian tendencies.

Blogger bob k. mando June 25, 2015 3:34 PM  

23. dB June 25, 2015 3:05 PM
He seems to be coming around moreso these days but it really does not help him to effectively push the mantra just elect more republicans because they are so much better.



he's been fixated for his entire career on the concept that a third party is a guaranteed loser and waste of votes. the Perot thing only cemented that idea for him. he's going to have to overturn practically his entire paradigm if he's going to change his mind.

and that's assuming he's not "controlled opposition" as many here like to say.

otoh, there are plenty of true believers who are still captive to the official narrative created by the public schools.

Whittle has finally come to the point where, if Jeb receives the nom, he will no longer vote Repug:
https://www.billwhittle.com/afterburner/death-dynasties

he's even to the point where he's openly admitting that the Supreme Court is openly and flagrantly violating the obvious meaning of the Constitution ( although he's only calling them out for the abuse of the Commerce Clause, he's still fixated on the "uniquely evil" practice of slavery and "justice" of the Civil War )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0olS_qeVtE#t=4538

Anonymous Jourdan June 25, 2015 3:35 PM  

Roberts is a joke, and quite possibly the worst CJ in the history of the S Ct.

Given what Catholics have done to this country when given positions of power. I think we collectively owe the men we were all taught to refer to as the "Know-Nothings" a huge apology.

Blogger bob k. mando June 25, 2015 3:39 PM  

also, i'll point out that the Constitution actually has a solution for the problem of out of control judges;
Impeachment and disbarment.

violation of Oath of office and abuse of the will of the people being the High Crime for which Roberts ( and the rest of the Court voting in this direction ) should be prosecuted.

fortunately, the sociopaths have nearly succeeded in the complete destruction of the sanctity of Oaths and integrity and honor. so we don't have to worry about that happening.

also, the Repugs don't have a 2/3s majority in the Senate, so there's no possibility of conviction even if impeached.

Blogger ScuzzaMan June 25, 2015 3:39 PM  

I highly recommend, for all the ilk, dread and minion, the Milton Mayer classic "The Thought They Were Free" (subtitled The Germans, 1933 to 1945.)

An excerpt of an excerpt, and particularly apt today of all days, and in light of this and prior articles posted here today:

""To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it—please try to believe me—unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’ that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these ‘little measures’ that no ‘patriotic German’ could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.

"How is this to be avoided, among ordinary men, even highly educated ordinary men? Frankly, I do not know. I do not see, even now. Many, many times since it all happened I have pondered that pair of great maxims, Principiis obsta and Finem respice—‘Resist the beginnings’ and ‘Consider the end.’ But one must foresee the end in order to resist, or even see, the beginnings. One must foresee the end clearly and certainly and how is this to be done, by ordinary men or even by extraordinary men?"

Principiis obsta.

Finem respice.

That's what Vox was saying about entryism earlier. This article shows the results of our failures to see the principle in the first act, to foresee its end, and so to resist it when it is small.

I had a Jungle Book when I was a kid. "Little leopards become big leopards, and big leopards kill."

We must learn to perceive correctly the nature of things and people.

Blogger ScuzzaMan June 25, 2015 3:40 PM  

bugger.

link to the excerpt: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html

Blogger Bard June 25, 2015 3:42 PM  

Of course they are blackmailed. They all are. How difficult is it to load child porn onto someone's computer? Show up for work, log in, and bang it is in your face and they have you because you have absolutely no defense. Or, as my CIA buddy once told me, a meth lab in a relative's garage works well too.

Blogger Bard June 25, 2015 3:44 PM  

You don't need any fancy blackmail pics and elaborate scenarios of you cheating on your spouse like in that Tom Cruise movie.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler June 25, 2015 3:45 PM  

Chief Justice Roberts was taught and mentored and got his job thru Lawrence Tribe.

Who is Lawrence Tribe?

Remember, there is no meaning to words under the Kabbala. There is no dogmatism. Words don't have dogmatism. There is no meaning.

Words have no meaning.

There is no rule of facts.

There is no morality.

There is no rule of Law.

All those things are Western Culture and Civilization. But we no longer live in Western Culture or Civ.

We all live in a prison. The Judeo-Masonic-Bolshevist prison.

Blogger Rabbi B June 25, 2015 3:48 PM  

""The Thought They Were Free" (subtitled The Germans, 1933 to 1945.)"


FWIW, I'll second the recommendation, Scuzza.

Blogger Shimshon June 25, 2015 3:54 PM  

It's too bad that scalia doesn't resign in protest that scotus doesn't even bother with the pretense of the rule of law anymore. That would be far more scathing criticism than anything he could possibly write.

Blogger ScuzzaMan June 25, 2015 3:55 PM  

Thanks, Rabbi.

This too caught my eye:

"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it."

It was written prior to 1955.

That's how long this scam has been well understood.

But nobody is taught this history so nobody knows this. We're taught a fantasy of good vs evil and good won and we live in the realm of the returned King of Gondor after the fall of Mordor.

Anonymous Jourdan June 25, 2015 3:55 PM  

Just finished the opinion.

This is very difficult for me, but I have decided after this latest outrage that I cannot in good conscience remain a member of the bar, even though my state's law is saner than most.

I can't be a party to this insanity even by implication. So, I'm resigning, giving up my license to practice law.

Anonymous A Visitor June 25, 2015 3:57 PM  

Going off what dB said Libmaugh pointed out how only a bit of Medicare was ever repealed. Basically, he said, Republicans will not repeal it. They'll simply tweak it to make it more efficient. Ergo, more Republicans ≠ repeal of the ACA. It's frustrating to see family members still cling to that notion.

Anonymous zen0 June 25, 2015 4:03 PM  

That separation of powers thingy seems to be on the fritz.

Call tech services.

Blogger Salt June 25, 2015 4:10 PM  

Jourdan, I think you may find it quite liberating.

OpenID mickoneverything June 25, 2015 4:10 PM  

Relevant - the court has also ruled that economic ideas that have no basis in reality are just fine to use to prosecute banks and other businesses.

http://www.fi-magazine.com/news/story/2015/06/supreme-court-upholds-disparate-impact.aspx

Anonymous Michael Maier June 25, 2015 4:11 PM  

Ragin' Dave June 25, 2015 2:44 PM Rule of Law, RIP. It had a good run.


Please... the ink wasn't dry on the BOR before they were perverting the US Constitution. How is today worse than FDR or Lincoln?

Blogger darkdoc June 25, 2015 4:12 PM  

I wrote earlier that it was unlikely the Repubs would want Obamacare to disappear. They need an issue to pretend to rally about - already today they announced they were committed to fighting for the repeal of the ACA.
They are lying big time.

But just as important, or maybe more, is that this is a fund raising issue supreme. It makes lots of money (for both parties) and lots of outrage to keep your followers coming back, so why would they want it to go away?

Abortion is still the gift that keeps giving for both parties. Has it ever been threatened? Nope. And it never will .

You need maxed-out, never ending cynicism when the topic is politics.

Blogger Rabbi B June 25, 2015 4:13 PM  

"But nobody is taught this history so nobody knows this. We're taught a fantasy of good vs evil and good won . . . '

This.

Not only that, but we cannot discern when evil is masquerading as good. Laziness? Apathy? Too comfy to really care? A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands and . . .

Blogger bob k. mando June 25, 2015 4:14 PM  

43. Shimshon June 25, 2015 3:54 PM
It's too bad that scalia doesn't resign in protest



this would be the maximum statement he could make.

unfortunately, this would hand appointment of a Supreme to ... Obama.

as with impeachment of Roberts, while it may be the 'proper' course of action, within the current political milieu, it has no chance of an outcome which is not *worse* than the current situation.

this is part of the reason why i asked Kratman sometime back if, when he had been in the .mil, he had been given an order to disarm law abiding citizens ( as was done in New Orleans ) what his response would be? what would be the response of the men he served with?

because , if the answer is anything OTHER THAN immediate arrest of the officer passing that order down, Kratman / .mil have no allegiance to the Constitution or people of the United States at all.

Blogger ScuzzaMan June 25, 2015 4:16 PM  

Michael: today they're openly admitting that they will ignore the plain meaning of the written words.

Not "re-interpreting", not "modernising", not reading a "living document" - just openly trashing it.

The trend is not new, power has always behaved thus. It's that they no longer feel any need to cloak their crime in weasel words that is new.

You should pay attention because this marks a new phase of the neofeudalist campaign.

Blogger Corvinus June 25, 2015 4:18 PM  

Given what Catholics have done to this country when given positions of power. I think we collectively owe the men we were all taught to refer to as the "Know-Nothings" a huge apology.

@Jourdan
No. Just no.

Just like Frankie, Roberts is apparently an SJW and isn't any more Catholic than the ISIS leadership.

Anonymous Noah B. June 25, 2015 4:20 PM  

The Republican Congress has had at least half a dozen chances to put an end to Obamacare. They haven't done it, and their continued howls of protest are nothing more than a cynical ploy to gain voter sympathies.

Blogger Rantor June 25, 2015 4:20 PM  

Hey W. Lindsay, you forgot to mention that Injustice Roberts is.. Catholic.

Blogger JartStar June 25, 2015 4:21 PM  

Roberts is.. Catholic.

No true Catholic...

Anonymous DT June 25, 2015 4:25 PM  

Twice Roberts has saved Obamacare. There must be pics of him snorting cocaine off 14yos on Epstein's island.

I've been under that assumption since the first SCOTUScare ruling. His decisions are twisted opposites of his normal reasoning when Obama needs a win.

Question is: how do we expose him?

Blogger secretoftheinternet June 25, 2015 4:28 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Double E June 25, 2015 4:29 PM  

Scalia added, “Words no longer have meaning...."

Welcome to American, 2015. The SJW infection runs deep.

Anonymous WhiteKnightLeo #0368 June 25, 2015 4:30 PM  

Before all the doom and gloom gets started....




You all may remember that this is not the first time that SCOTUS has done something similar to this. The Dred Scott decision was similarly lawless, similar based on the personal prejudices of the affirming judges, and helped give rise to at least one flatly unconstitutional movement that we are still trying to get rid of: gun control.

Really, you ask? One line in the Scott decision has the Chief Justice saying that if blacks were actually citizens, then they would be able to keep and carry arms with them wherever they went.



This also isn't the first time that they've made a decision that made no sense, constitutionally. The original obscenity cases, with the Chief Justice saying he can't define obscenity but he'll know it when he sees it. Or the decisions to uphold various New Deal programs.



So this has happened before, and the country didn't collapse. That doesn't mean this is a good thing, but a war isn't lost until the defeated accept their defeat. So long as they keep fighting, the possibility that they can turn things around remains.

Anonymous Minion #0172 June 25, 2015 4:34 PM  

"Constitution? We don't need no stinkin' Constitution!"

Because now words have no meaning, the law has no meaning.

As of this day, I no longer consider myself bound by whatever those scribbles in the books purport to say. I will act in my own interest all the time and get away with whatever I can get away with.

You asked for it, brothers!

OpenID simplytimothy June 25, 2015 4:34 PM  

I will not comply.

Blogger bob k. mando June 25, 2015 4:35 PM  

59. DT June 25, 2015 4:25 PM
Question is: how do we expose him?



infiltrate the D.C. Consultant and Research / dirty tricks classes.

just as there were people who knew full well what Hastert was ( who observed him taking sex holidays to the Marianas Islands, for instance ) BUT WHO CONCEALED THIS INFORMATION FOR YEARS, the same likely exists for Roberts ( and Lindsey Graham and John Boehner, etc ).

there are people who know ... but who choose to keep that knowledge concealed.

and those people are either Steve Sailor's "Gay Mafia" or they are people who want the Gay Mafia to succeed.

Anonymous ph2 June 25, 2015 4:37 PM  

My man Scalia. He will he partying wit us in the FEMA camps for sho.

Blogger Nick S June 25, 2015 4:41 PM  

They'll simply tweak it to make it more efficient. Ergo, more Republicans ≠ repeal of the ACA.

As I've said all along, it will be the Republicans who sneak in single payer healthcare in the guise of Medicare/Medicaid reform in order to "fix" Obamacare. The fanwagon will be gushing.

Blogger Corvinus June 25, 2015 4:42 PM  

No true Catholic...

@JartStar
If either you or Jourdan knew diddly squat about the Catholic religion, you wouldn't be able to use the "no true Scotsman" argument.

To put it another way: apparently, according to you two, because of people like Pelosi, Biden, and Ted Kennedy, Catholicism approves of abortion.

Anonymous BGS June 25, 2015 4:43 PM  

Hastert, renting catamites out of Bawney Fwank's basement?

I have never been to Barney Frank's basement or Roberts house so I don't know. It probably costs more than any car I have bought to pay the way in. For how general Petreaus went down but Hilleary didn't seemed like it was manufactured.

Blogger Shimshon June 25, 2015 4:44 PM  

"unfortunately, this would hand appointment of a Supreme to ... Obama."

If "good" justices appointed by "our" man in the White House are going to vote like "bad" justices, I say, bring it on. At the very least, the rationalizations provided by Obama appointees would be more entertaining. Like the signer gesticulating wildly (and meaninglessly) at Mandela's funeral.

I'm surprised anyone here even pushes the argument still that the Constitution provides remedies like impeachment and so forth. Yes, the Constitution has lots of flowery writing depicting what Congress could do if it wanted to. But it has never wanted to do it, and will never want to do it.

This ruling should be the final nail in the coffin that Republicans are at least good for nudging SCOTUS in a direction amenable to the rule of law. But of course it won't be. MPAI.

OpenID spastic0plastic June 25, 2015 4:48 PM  

The courts are just theater, they never go against the tide, though they may settle trivial matters that could more fairly and efficiently be decided with a coin flip.

Anonymous Jourdan June 25, 2015 4:48 PM  

I also realize ALL the dissenters are Catholic. It's not about individuals. It's about our Anglo heritage. In the broad scheme of things, I think it is beyond clear that Catholics simply do not understand ordered liberty and the separation of powers.

I think anyone who looks at what the Know-Nothings warned against and compared it to what is happening today will see what I'm talking about.

Anonymous BGS June 25, 2015 4:49 PM  

Even worse the Supremes ruled in favor of disparate impact. Supreme Court Rules In Favor of “Disparate Impact” – Application For Housing Tracts, Loans, Grants and Subsidies Under legal interpretation rules of “Disparate Impact” it is unlawful not to hire illegal aliens. If a company uses eligible (legal) work authorization status as a requirement on employment applications (when making hiring decisions), and if the use of legal work eligibility is used as a qualifier, and the eligibility (qualification) standards disqualify a protected class (ethnicity) at a disparate rate, then it is unlawful not to hire illegal aliens.

The civil rights act(s) guaranteed -through law- equality in opportunity. Disparate Impact guarantees -through legal interpretation- equality in outcome.
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/06/25/wow-supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-disparate-impact-application-for-housing-tracts-loans-grants-and-subsidies/#more-102855

Blogger Corvinus June 25, 2015 4:55 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Cail Corishev June 25, 2015 4:55 PM  

I don't see why Roberts would require blackmail. Why can't he just be a northeastern liberal Republican of exactly the sort you'd expect Bush to pick, who then grew in office? I just glanced at his Wikipedia page and saw that he previously did pro bono work for homosexual advocates. Were people expecting anything other than a status quo "moderate"?

Blogger ScuzzaMan June 25, 2015 4:58 PM  

WhiteKnightLeo: possibly you're missing the point.

There's no defeatism here.

Only a determination to see what is.

Blogger JaimeInTexas June 25, 2015 5:00 PM  

"scalia's rebuttal is positively scathing."
Words, words, words.

Roberts says: Scalia is a member of SCOTUS. Scalia support the institution of SCOTUS. SCOTUS agrees with Obamacare. Therefore, Scalia supports and agrees with Obamacare.

Blogger Corvinus June 25, 2015 5:03 PM  

I also realize ALL the dissenters are Catholic. It's not about individuals. It's about our Anglo heritage. In the broad scheme of things, I think it is beyond clear that Catholics simply do not understand ordered liberty and the separation of powers.

If by that you mean separation of the branches of the government, I don't think any of us lack that ability.

And what do you mean by "Anglo heritage"? Are you implying that Anglos must be Protestant to have a proper conception of separation of powers, because Catholics cannot understand it? Because that assertion is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

No, the Know-Nothings deserve just as much contempt as the current SJWs.

Anonymous Beau June 25, 2015 5:04 PM  

Therefore the law is paralyzed . . . the wicked hem in the righteous, so that justice is perverted. (cf. Habakkuk 1)

ding, ding, ding! We have a thread win.

Blogger JaimeInTexas June 25, 2015 5:06 PM  

Not too many years ago, the SCOTUS decided that since growing wheat for intrastate commerce potentially could affect interstate commerce in the aggregate, the uSA's Congress can regulate wheat (anything) crops. IIRC, both Scalia agreed with decision.

Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005)

Blogger Shimshon June 25, 2015 5:11 PM  

"Roberts says: Scalia is a member of SCOTUS. Scalia support the institution of SCOTUS. SCOTUS agrees with Obamacare. Therefore, Scalia supports and agrees with Obamacare."

Exactly. If the decision is as bad as Scalia says it is, he should have tendered his resignation along with the opinion. I doubt a single Republican will call him on it either, because they'd prefer their precious nominees over actual principle any day of the week.

I've been assuming that the homosexual decision is going to go the wrong way too. Because to decide otherwise would be a rather serious setback for the SJW agenda, which Roberts and the rest of them are clearly on board with too. Serious enough (years certainly, perhaps even decades, and they're all out of patience at this point) that they will push it through, no matter the consequences.

Anonymous Phil Mann June 25, 2015 5:18 PM  

All this talk of blackmail is misguided. It assumes Roberts is being forced to rule against his true thoughts. Far more likely is that, now safely in power, he's simply following the agenda he's had all along. Hardly the first time this has happened, and it's no surprise given the Harvard/Ivy pedigree that is a virtual prerequisite for consideration for such a position, regardless of who does the appointing.

"Give me control over a man's education and thoughts, and I care not who appoints him to the Supreme Court." Or something like that.

Anonymous Elijah Rhodes June 25, 2015 5:36 PM  

Paging Captain John Rumford. It's time for some good men to get to work...

Anonymous Roundtine June 25, 2015 5:42 PM  

I also realize ALL the dissenters are Catholic. It's not about individuals. It's about our Anglo heritage. In the broad scheme of things, I think it is beyond clear that Catholics simply do not understand ordered liberty and the separation of powers.
Catholics are almost 50/50 on a lot of issues. It doesn't tell you much if someone is Catholic or not. The education is strong though, which is why you see right-wing justices are Catholic.

Blogger Cataline Sergius June 25, 2015 5:44 PM  

The man is a conservative Ivy Leaguer why is anyone surprised about his rulings.

Those guys always see more in common with liberal Ivy Leaguers than they do with the plebs from State colleges.

He makes rulings like a Bush appointee. Be grateful he's not another David Souter.

Blogger MidKnight (#138) June 25, 2015 5:56 PM  

Damn

Anonymous patrick kelly June 25, 2015 6:03 PM  

41. W.LindsayWheeler
"We all live in a prison. The Judeo-Masonic-Bolshevist prison.
....Chief Justice Roberts was taught and mentored and got his job thru Lawrence Tribe. "

57. Rantor June 25, 2015 4:20 PM
Hey W. Lindsay, you forgot to mention that Injustice Roberts is.. Catholic.

58. JartStar
Roberts is.. Catholic.

No true Catholic...

68. Corvinus
No true Catholic...

@JartStar
If either you or Jourdan knew diddly squat about the Catholic religion, you wouldn't be able to use the "no true Scotsman" argument.

You's Guys are a riot....now that's comedy...

I love this blog....


Anonymous Jonathan June 25, 2015 6:07 PM  

The court does not contain one white, male, Protestant, does it?

Blogger Rantor June 25, 2015 6:09 PM  

Yes I want Scalia to stay on the court, he's better than all the rest. To have him resign now would put another Obama appointed SJW on the court.

The six who supported the opinion should be impeached and after appropriate deliberations disbarred, lose their pensions, and if possible banished to a Middle East country that accepted Guantanamo detainees.

Anonymous FP June 25, 2015 6:11 PM  

"I was listening to Limbaugh today and he was echoing Vox's point about this. I don't think limbuagh ever used the SJW term before as he seems to prefer "the left". But anyways, my rhetorical question to limbuagh is that "don't you see that there is no difference between republicans and democrats?" He seems to be coming around moreso these days but it really does not help him to effectively push the mantra just elect more republicans because they are so much better. "

dB, he seemed rather peeved today and went after all the right wing pundits who slammed him just a day ago for his "they'll go after the American flag next" line. Which was proven correct within 24 hours by Farrakhan. He had a rant about Perot last week or so that explained why he hates 3rd party politics and doesn't like Trump. They won't stick it out and will hurt the GOP. I can see his point but he's still a fool for thinking we can vote our way out of this. Then again he ranted today about the GOP will never repeal obamacare.

As for Roberts the lying traitor. Meh. One more reason to not take the black robed thugs seriously. A complete reversal of his 2012 ruling. Its a tax, no a penalty! We can't fix congress' mistakes in law writing! No, wait! Yes we can!

Blogger Rantor June 25, 2015 6:11 PM  

No Jonathan, no Protestants, just Catholics and Jews. Our Republican Presidents, despite being Protestant, never saw fit to appoint a Protestant to the court.

Blogger Edd Jobs June 25, 2015 6:12 PM  

Scalia embraced the substantive due process doctrine in McDonald v. City of Chicago. Because he previously abandoned the rule of law and embraced judicial activism, his otherwise valid criticism of the Court's decision reeks of hypocrisy.

Anonymous Noah B. June 25, 2015 6:16 PM  

"Because now words have no meaning, the law has no meaning. "

Bad laws have to be looked at in the broader context and the structure of the particular situation, and then ignored.

Blogger bob k. mando June 25, 2015 6:36 PM  

82. Phil Mann June 25, 2015 5:18 PM
Far more likely is that, now safely in power, he's simply following the agenda he's had all along.



i agree with this.

my point about Hastert and comparing Roberts too him is this: there are people in DC who KNOW about the perverse lifestyles these men engage in.

and who conceal that information.

do you think Hastert ever did anything he didn't really 'believe' in? except as a sop to his base? do you think it an accident that one of Hastert's 'highest principles' was the collegiality with which congressmen treat one another? especially those from the other party?

okay, then how in the hell did this freak ( who we KNOW was fucking boys since the late 1960s ) become Republican Whip and then House Speaker?

Blogger Rantor June 25, 2015 6:37 PM  

Some mildly good news, it looks like the conservatives in Congress got Boehner to back down from stripping a chairman of his committee. Rumor seems to be that conservatives were prepared to join Democrats and vote Boehner out of his speaker ship. I only hope this is true. Boehner's support for the Pacific trade pact was reprehensible.

Blogger totenhenchen June 25, 2015 6:38 PM  

Scalia be raciss

Anonymous WillBest June 25, 2015 6:38 PM  

Yes I want Scalia to stay on the court, he's better than all the rest. To have him resign now would put another Obama appointed SJW on the court

Thomas is the best justice on the court. Scalia is tolerable, as is Alito.

The court does not contain one white, male, Protestant, does it?

I believe its 6 Catholics and 3 Jews.

I don't see why Roberts would require blackmail. Why can't he just be a northeastern liberal Republican of exactly the sort you'd expect Bush to pick

Because these opinions don't even read like the kinds he usually writes. It would be nice if somebody with the resources could send all his opinions, scholarly writing, etc. in for forensic analysis to determine if these things were even written by him.

Blogger automatthew June 25, 2015 6:42 PM  

If Scalia had a pair, he'd give Obama more than one slot to nominate.

Blogger Mark June 25, 2015 6:43 PM  

@darkdoc

"And now tomorrow we have SCOTUS approving gay marriage."

Don't be silly, the royals don't work on Fridays like the plebes. They'll overturn the west on Monday.

And then the real assault will be on to strip every church and non-progressive individual in the land of every asset they have in the name of bigotry.

Blogger Rantor June 25, 2015 6:45 PM  

Injustice Roberts is a pathetic, disgusting and pretty much worthless being. He invents solutions which are not supported by the plain letter of the law. He is a SJW. He lies and doubles down.

Anonymous taqiyyologist June 25, 2015 6:56 PM  

OT, if you haven't heard -- still, only one side has shown up in the race war:

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/06/24/reward-1250-for-information-on-this-attack-details-below/

12 percent will become 5 percent of America if the other side ever shows up.

Blogger Cataline Sergius June 25, 2015 6:58 PM  

I had large comment that I turned into a small blog post, just to avoid thread hijacking.

Supreme Court Appointees Are No Reason to Vote for Baby Bush

Anonymous Whitey McWhite June 25, 2015 6:59 PM  

SCOTUScare... I like that.

It's harmless of course. W-word G-word thing-that-shall-not-be mentioned makes irrelevant both socialized medicine and the lawless judicial rule by which it was imposed and modified.

In the long run, the black-robed judicial dictatorship is going to be the collective ruler of... I was going to say a blasted heath, but a certain neighborhood in the City of New London is more to the point.

They make a desert, and call it rule-of-law.

The only important thing the SCOTUS has done lately was to rule that Arizona has little right to enforce any law, including federal law, that bears on who will enter and live in that state. That renders the state of Arizona non-sovereign, American federalism a dead letter, and the nation of America an innocent victim on death row. But exactly because of that longstanding tendency in the dictatorial court's super-legislation, all its laws have a use-by date.

Looking forward reveals this decision as unimportant; looking back does the same. This is not a moral or institutional turning point. The Supreme Court made itself a super-legislature a long time ago, with Brown at latest, and Roe put so much blood on its hands that it's hard to accept that it could ever go downhill morally after that.

It's kind of funny, the Supreme Court saying: it's not what the statute says, it's how we want SCOTUSCare to work.

But that's all it is.

Anonymous Saved June 25, 2015 7:05 PM  

"I believe its 6 Catholics and 3 Jews."

John C. Wright's idea of Catholic Government exists on Earth.

Anonymous rienzi June 25, 2015 7:05 PM  

I'm rapidly developing an "Italian" attitude toward the law. A set of suggestions to be followed or ignored, and not taken too terribly seriously

Blogger Nobody June 25, 2015 7:15 PM  

These kinds of blatant lawless/unlawful actions in direct violation of the written language of the law, are the final step before they unilaterally declare the right to private property and the right to keep and bear arms are declared unConstitutional, null and void.

Your consteetootion has been null and void for a very long time. Paying lip service to it by colorful interpretation doesn't count as having a consteetootion. It is amusing to see people still whining about how they are destroying our consteetootion when it is, in fact, deader than a decaying fly larvae infested piece of meat.

But, but, we still can have property and our guns! (Wink-Wink)

Blogger Nobody June 25, 2015 7:18 PM  

"If you can keep it."

Indeed.

Blogger Corvinus June 25, 2015 7:18 PM  

No Jonathan, no Protestants, just Catholics and Jews. Our Republican Presidents, despite being Protestant, never saw fit to appoint a Protestant to the court.

@Rantor
I think there's actually a regional cartel going on rather than a religious one. All the justices except Thomas are from just three states: NY, NJ, and CA. None of which have many conservative Protestants.

Anonymous BGS June 25, 2015 7:25 PM  

It turns out the heckler at the white house dinner was an illegal alien tranny. I wondered how hard it would be to sneak in to one of those, but I hear Bath House Barry has food tasters.
If you where the only survivor of a White House dinner my love, the hugo award winning story of brave trans illegal trans racial tranny LaTrina Mestizo & 40lbs of hemlock.

Blogger Corvinus June 25, 2015 7:25 PM  

All the justices except Thomas are from just three states: NY, NJ, and CA. None of which have many conservative Protestants.

In addition, the conservative justices have to get at least tacit approval from the Democrats. A Southern Baptist from Texas would be rejected before you could say "Bork". But an Italian-American, OTOH, won't raise the Democrats' SJW hackles nearly as much.

Anonymous Whitey McWhite June 25, 2015 7:31 PM  

rienzi: "I'm rapidly developing an "Italian" attitude toward the law. A set of suggestions to be followed or ignored, and not taken too terribly seriously"

Very sensible.

Anonymous DNW June 25, 2015 7:38 PM  

Jourdan June 25, 2015 4:48 PM

I also realize ALL the dissenters are Catholic. It's not about individuals. It's about our Anglo heritage. In the broad scheme of things, I think it is beyond clear that Catholics simply do not understand ordered liberty and the separation of powers.

I think anyone who looks at what the Know-Nothings warned against and compared it to what is happening today will see what I'm talking about."


Depends on which "Anglo" heritage you are talking about. Massachusetts Bay Colony was early on a theocracy. Massachusetts had a state supported church until 1833, though it was earlier disestablished.


According to at least one famous Protestant, the Constitution, was a "covenant with death and an agreement with Hell." ; and deserved no respect.

"As early as 1841, Garrison, who condemned the United States for continuing to sanction slavery, began urging the North to secede from the Union." http://www.masshist.org/collection-guides/view/fa0278

Park Street Church, was Congregationalist.

Roger Taney was of course a Catholic and we know which decision he was most famous for, and that Lincoln was on the verge of having him arrested over the Merryman writ in the ex parte Merryman affair.

However what you say may have some truth to it, in the same way that to say German Lutheran immigrants after the revolution of 1848 on average probably valued constitutional liberty less and social solidarity more than Anglo-Celts in America did, would also probably be true. You get a good taste of that in the reminiscences of General Richard Taylor, CSA.

After the cessation of hostilities he recounts that he was involved in a banquet of sorts ...

" There was, as ever, a skeleton at the feast, in the person of a general officer who had recently left Germany to become a citizen and soldier of the United States. This person, with the strong accent and idioms of the Fatherland, comforted me by assurances that we of the South would speedily recognize our ignorance and errors, especially about slavery and the rights of States, and rejoice in the results of the war. In vain Canby and Palmer tried to suppress him. On a celebrated occasion an Emperor of Germany proclaimed himself above grammar, and this earnest philosopher was not to be restrained by canons of taste. I apologized meekly for my ignorance, on the ground that my ancestors had come from England to Virginia in 1608, and, in the short intervening period of two hundred and fifty-odd years, had found no time to transmit to me correct ideas of the duties of American citizenship. Moreover, my grandfather, commanding the 9th Virginia regiment in our Revolutionary army, had assisted in the defeat and capture of the Hessian mercenaries at Trenton, and I lamented that he had not, by association with these worthies, enlightened his understanding. My friend smiled blandly, and assured me of his willingness to instruct me. Happily for the world, since the days of Huss and Luther, neither tyranny nor taste can repress the Teutonic intellect in search of truth or exposure of error. A kindly, worthy people, the Germans, but wearing on occasions."

Thank Gaia Minnesota and Wisconsin are such bastions of Constitutionalism nowadays.

Anonymous DNW June 25, 2015 7:50 PM  

"All the justices except Thomas are from just three states: NY, NJ, and CA. None of which have many conservative Protestants.

In addition, the conservative justices have to get at least tacit approval from the Democrats. A Southern Baptist from Texas would be rejected before you could say "Bork". But an Italian-American, OTOH, won't raise the Democrats' SJW hackles nearly as much."



Yes, not being of a suspicious or cynical nature one would think - as I was just ruminating the other day - that there would be at least one Protestant Evangelical or Baptist on the Court.

Seems almost impossible that there should not be, if only just by "accident". And of course if we are concerned to distribute our risks proportionally, why there might well be two or three of them.

It almost seems as if someone is working very hard to makes certain that not all "voices are heard".

You are right. Catholics constituted the last chance for any potentially conservative or originalist sensibility to appear on the court.

When will Protestant Evangelicals start raising a ruckus in the streets and the halls of Congress? If they are going to be beaten down into second class citizens, they might as well makes the organisms of the left come out and admit the game.



Anonymous Godfrey June 25, 2015 7:56 PM  

They're actually providing "The Resistance" a service. Everyday more people realize the illegitimacy of the government. The government is our best recruiter. I hardly ever meet a person that supports it these days.

Blogger Edd Jobs June 25, 2015 8:19 PM  

Here's a thought - as long as Roberts is rewriting the law to justify his decision, he should go ahead and issue a court order changing the statute's language.

Anonymous clk June 25, 2015 8:29 PM  

"You's Guys are a riot....now that's comedy"... I been listening to whining over the last 3 days about moderates and how they shot you in the back when you are not looking and here we have one group of Christians (Protestants) shooting another (Catholics) in the back ... why is this ? The Protestants and Catholics share something like 98% of each others beliefs, one is an offshoot of the other and yet you want to shoot all the Catholics...Catholicism is a wide, rich religion which is the corner stone of Christianity and western culture... a little respect please for your brothers in Christ.

Would you really have expected any other answer than what we got today ? ... this is why you have the SCOTUS... its not just meant to read the words -- its to make decisions on the totality of the evidence and here there was sufficient evidence from the authors to the intent of the law... I think here Roberts and the majority got this one right.

If this bothers you... just think about facing another 8 years of a democratic president Hillary getting to send 4 more to the court...

We all can't move to Italy...

Anonymous T June 25, 2015 8:50 PM  

If this bothers you... just think about facing another 8 years of a democratic president Hillary getting to send 4 more to the court...

So they can issue the exact same rulings? Oh NO!

Anonymous Hoss June 25, 2015 9:10 PM  

"...its not just meant to read the words"

So now they're projecting intent. I thought architect Gruber's words were more than sufficient to judge intent when he said the bill was deliberately worded like that to put political pressure on republican governors to join the fray. But, who needs to listen to specifics when you can just rule for the side of more, bigger government.

Anonymous WillBest June 25, 2015 9:10 PM  

So they can issue the exact same rulings? Oh NO!

In fairness to the conservatives, they did just rule that personal property is in fact subject to the just compensation clause. Which is nice because Obama and the liberals were all set to limit takings to only real property.

Meaning the Progs wouldn't even have to give you $25 when they come around and confiscate your gun in another 8-10 years.

Blogger James Dixon June 25, 2015 9:15 PM  

> If this bothers you... just think about facing another 8 years of a democratic president Hillary getting to send 4 more to the court...

I expect Hillary to be President for Life, not just 8 years. I also expect that to be the trigger for the official start of Round 2.

Anonymous Jourdan June 25, 2015 9:20 PM  

On the contrary, the more open opponents of our ancients rights and liberties appointed to the court the better. While we still have the numbers to correct the situation.

Anonymous DNW June 25, 2015 9:30 PM  

" we have one group of Christians (Protestants) shooting another (Catholics) in the back ."


Doesn't look like it to me; but I can appreciate those who might look askance at some contemporary Catholics when it comes to the principles of constitutionalism. And of course when you throw the labor Catholics of the past and the Social Justice Sacrament crown of the present into the mix, they would have a point.

Social Justice spouting left-fascism has in fact found a home in the American Catholic church. Of course there were social gospel Protestants over a hundred years ago, and I've heard it mentioned that Al Gore and Bill Clinton are at least nominally Protestant.

Many Catholics, some of whom are extremely blunt regarding their views on Protestantism, would nonetheless themselves agree about the American Catholic church and its offspring... http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/catholic-battle-at-supreme-court

You should hear what the guy says about the American bishops.

Anonymous DNW June 25, 2015 9:31 PM  

"crown"?

Crowd ...

Blogger JaimeInTexas June 25, 2015 9:31 PM  

DNW A couple of days ago aI tried to find that aTaylor quote. Thanks!!!

Anonymous T June 25, 2015 10:16 PM  

In fairness to the conservatives, they did just rule that personal property is in fact subject to the just compensation clause.

So they have to print monopoly money and pretend while they're confiscating? Oh boy!

Vote GOP! ¡Heb! 2016! We work really hard to give legitimacy to the illegitimate actions of Democrats!

What a joke.

Anonymous T June 25, 2015 10:19 PM  

Just to reiterate...

they did just rule that personal property is in fact subject to the just compensation clause.

This guy recites that like it's some kind of a victory and not something completely obvious and really, the entire point of the just compensation clause? Isn't the whole point of the just compensation clause...personal property?

So the conservatives ruled that the clause exists. Amazing!

What a low bar we set. Really.

Blogger JaimeInTexas June 25, 2015 11:14 PM  

Raisins! Because they are a public good.

Anonymous LegallySpeaking June 25, 2015 11:18 PM  

As a lawyer, reading Roberts's last Obamacare decision was put him the category of Taney. Now he's in the realm of Blackmun.

A little history: Taney was the writer of the infamous Dred Scott decision. Taney saw slavery as a virulent, country-dividing issue, and took it upon himself to write a decision that he hoped would end the controversy once and for all. Instead, Dred Scott pissed off both sides, solved nothing, and is, by all accounts, piss-poorly written. Was hung around Taney's neck for his legacy, made them partial social outcasts, and even hindered future catholic judicial appointments (Taney was the first Catholic on the court).

When Obamacare 1 came out, Roberts seemingly did the same. Lost all credibility, but seemingly with a noble intent, if terribly misguided.

But now Roberts is Blackmun, the man who wrote Roe v. Wade. On the court, Blackmun proceeded from a slight conservative with a well-respected legal mind to a full blown ranting lefty loon with no legal support for his aruments. Many claimed that the backlash from Roe v. Wade had an extreme emotional effect on Blackmun ("Blackmun the Babykiller"). By the end of his career, he was so unhinged mentally his clerks basically wrote his entire opinions after he told them what side he was on, and he only added very emotional outbursts to the writing ("Poor Joshua!"). Blackmun even turned on his old kindergarten friend and fellow justice, Douglas. In short, Blackmun basically lost his mind and his dignity and his skills. The only people who mourned his death or leaving the court were the babykillers, as even lefties admitted his decisions, especially Roe, had very little legal basis or coherency.

Roberts has reached Blackmun's level. I thought he might get there after the Obamacare I decision came out, but not so quickly. Obamacare 2 really shows he's at Blackmun level now, minus some of the overt emotionality (it'll come later, I'll bet).

Of course, there was no chance after Obamacare 1's laughable machinations that Roberts would ever save the constitution. It was dead, dead, dead after Obamacare 1, so Obamacare 2 doesn't really matter.

We are on a downturn in history. Guns, gold, and get out of Dodge, kids.

Anonymous LegallySpeaking June 25, 2015 11:28 PM  

P.S. Many have noted that Scalia has given up writing dissents or arguing to persuade lawyers of the present, but is instead writing for future generations of lawyers. Certainly his scholarship is designed to keep future legal thinkers on track; see his book Reading Law for a great primer on correct legal thinking.

In my opinion, Scalia has given up writing even for future lawyers of this country; I think he smells the decline and recognizes the rot. He is now writing for future historians, to explain that not everyone from our government was crazy or a liar, and to counsel future governments to be careful in choosing their judiciary and training them. He's a real Last of the Romans-type.

Blogger Joshua Sinistar June 25, 2015 11:43 PM  

I don't have any problems with this. Now that they have abandoned the US Constitution, they are no longer a legitimate government and now the enemy of all true Americans.
The United States has not been a real nation since 1964 anyway. The need to continue to apply any sense of loyalty to this Rump State and its enfeebled retards with heads like leyyuce makes its collapse and destruction all but certain. I suppose some of you imagine I am premature in this analysis and that this Rump Group of Asses still has the force to compel loyalty or at least the following of their dictates. However, I am not entirely convinced of this. The sorry state of the Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina and the ridiculously mild Hurricane Sandy seems to suggest that most if not all of the so-called emergency agencies may in fact be fictional paper agencies with offices and no real assets to enforcement.
They hasty training exercises such as Jade Helm and the clomsy execution of these drills suggests the serious degradation of the Federal Power Base as tired and offended John Wayne and GI Joe types leave the military to be replaced by far inferior diverse and perverse soldiery.
I suspect that at this point The United States is no longer a Superpower, and that the degradation of morale amongst the remainder of the Federales is miserable and lacking in any will. Also with the appointment of female Admirals and black commanders I suspect the entire Federale Force is now similar to a minor Third World Status as far as quality of command and control as well.

Anonymous FP June 26, 2015 12:15 AM  

"12 percent will become 5 percent of America if the other side ever shows up."

Well, enough showed up via the treehouse blog to find the perps. Cops have been investigating it apparently since it happened on June 19th... but according to the local news, it isn't racially motivated.

OpenID ymarsakar June 26, 2015 12:35 AM  

Joshua Sinistar,

Mostly accurate I assess.

Although some people go back further to the dawn of the Democrat party, before or after 1861.

Anonymous Jack Amok June 26, 2015 1:23 AM  

I wonder at what point it will dawn on a significant minority that we do not have a lawful government.

It already has. Over two-thirds of Americans think the government is illegitimate. The only reasons it hasn't been, ah, what was that phrase... altered or abolished... is because not enough people agree yet on a better alternative.

There are two misguided conservative groups going about doing the wrong things today. One group wants to fix the system we have, and the other group wants to convince people the system we have is broken. What we have can't be fixed and everybody already knows it's broken.

The political group that comes out of this crisis with power will be the first one to focus credibly on building something better. Of course, the longer the crises goes on and the worse things get, the lower the bar for "better" becomes.


Blogger Tom Kratman June 26, 2015 2:15 AM  

There are at least a couple of variables to that, Bob. Contemplate, oh, say, the Black Panther Party rebelling and taking over Chicago, with broad popular support. Whatever the wisdom of not just letting them have the pustule, I don't see any reason we couldn't, under the constitution, suppress rebellion, per article one, section nine, which could involve disarming of the local populace, while they're in the area of rebellion, anyway. Could be something as simple as, "All armed men, women, and children will be shot on sight; buildings known to contain arms (or not known to be disarmed) will be shelled at a distance," which is a de facto disarmament. Similarly, although the constitution makes no particular distinction between citizens and non-citizens for certain constitutional rights and safeguards, it seems to me fairly clear that non-citizens are not "the people" whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So, in the case of a place that has become occupied - or been surrendered to; take your pic - third world non-citizen immigrants, in the case of their rebellion - yes, it's coming some day - surely we can disarm them.

I think the place where the military mutinies is when it's clear that there's an official push on to disarm law abiding citizens, with no justification other than that the government says to. The danger zone is the gray zone, like New Orleans, where the government, or some agency of the government, says to and there's a colorable claim that it's right and proper to do so, in the short term, as a matter of public safety. Do that enough, and you can eventually desensitize the troops to unconstitutional behavior.

No, I don't have a solution. Saying that there are no permissible restrictions in anybody's RKBA is possibly one of the more certain ways to turn the troops against the constitution, in extremis, since, after all, "survival cancels programming."

Blogger rho June 26, 2015 3:44 AM  

The decision was as expected, but the rationale was interesting for its straightforwardness. The Supreme Court acted as a copy editor for the U.S. Congress.

(Suddenly I miss Moldbug. This kind of "because we said so" legislating is quite in line with neoreactionaries' fondest dreams, which means they'll hate it for obscure but fascinating reasons.)

Scalia's dissent was great reading. His complaints were technical, but lawyers love technical, so they were the legal equivalent of an atomic wedgie. I doubt he was surprised, though. The ACA was intended to be paradigm changing, and the Supreme Court isn't going to put itself out on a limb in today's environment. In a weird way, the SCOTUS decision largely defers to Congress, albeit in the most ham-fisted way.

(If I'm not crazy, I remember the talk either pre- or post-passage of the ACA that the tax credits were intended as a carrot-or-stick for States to establish exchanges. It turned out that exchanges weren't all that easy to do, and the Feds proved it by bungling Healthcare.gov.)

Incidentally, today I learned about the "running of the interns" for SCOTUS decisions. The Google Image search for that is hilariously ofay. The first news agency that manages to land an unpaid Jamaican intern will clean up.

Anonymous Jourdan June 26, 2015 4:38 AM  

LegallySpeaking -.Superb analysis and posts. Spot on. I urge everyone interested in this issue to read them, twice.

LS, I especially agree with your take on Scalia's view of his role. I attended law school at a time when Scalia was read 90pc of the time in dissent, with professors who mocked him. It was nevertheless clear that despite this Scalia was not only convincing a good number of the future lawyers and judges in the room, he was convincing the best men in the room. (The women were with few exceptions not interested in anything but the majority opinion.)

Now, as you say, he obviously feels even this service is irrelevant.

It's little noticed outside legal circles, but he rarely concludes by noting that he "respectfully dissents.". Now he simply writes "I dissent," a formulation of contempt that was noteworthy and newsworthy a few decades ago, but not now.

Anonymous Whitey McWhite June 26, 2015 9:22 AM  

LegallySpeaking: "As a lawyer, reading Roberts's last Obamacare decision was put him the category of Taney. Now he's in the realm of Blackmun."

And yet his judicial philosophy, at least in his confirmation hearing, was that he would be just a baseball umpire, "calling balls and strikes".

How much he has "grown in office"!

Anonymous civilServant June 26, 2015 8:24 PM  

They hasty training exercises such as Jade Helm and the clomsy execution of these drills suggests the serious degradation of the Federal Power Base as tired and offended John Wayne and GI Joe types leave the military to be replaced by far inferior diverse and perverse soldiery.
I suspect that at this point The United States is no longer a Superpower, and that the degradation of morale amongst the remainder of the Federales is miserable and lacking in any will. Also with the appointment of female Admirals and black commanders I suspect the entire Federale Force is now similar to a minor Third World Status as far as quality of command and control as well.


May I comment on this?

Anonymous DNW June 26, 2015 8:25 PM  

124. JaimeInTexas June 25, 2015 9:31 PM

DNW A couple of days ago aI tried to find that aTaylor quote. Thanks!!!"




You are welcome Jaime.

Don't mess with Texas!

Give my regards to Friendswood.

Blogger automatthew June 26, 2015 8:55 PM  

civilServant, you were never officially banned, that I recall. Rather, there was a thread where the rule about answering direct questions was invoked.

I emailed Vox for confirmation, but until then, I think you should go ahead. I won't be deleting your comments.

Blogger VD June 26, 2015 9:03 PM  

Go ahead.

Anonymous civilServant June 26, 2015 10:40 PM  

Thank you.

While the situation is indeed proceeding as Joshua sees it and standing units are degrading there is still much strength left. The trend is very strongly towards robotics and drones and cyber warfare which are centrally directed and controlled with minimal personnel thus the lowered levels of regular force command and control effectiveness on the ground are a moot issue. Tremendous force may be applied to numbers of groups and individuals in virtually any location with only moderate notice and with minimal ground troop involvement. Select ground units when employed are highly motivated and highly effective primarily because of vastly superior situation awareness. This developing "military" is strongly oriented towards countering and eliminating what you call 4th generation warfare rather than what you call 3rd generation warfare. It is highly funded and that funding is increasing. As to how broadly it can be applied I cannot say except that point target engagement and not broad conflict appears to be envisioned.

As to whether we may be considered a super power in my opinion we no longer can mount an effectve Desert Shield/Storm equivilant but as force is relative we certainly still have no competitor. China is an issue but its absolute strength will be unknown until we engage them. If and when.

Likely this is no particular surprise or new information to most of you but Joshua's comment seemed to require a specific response.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 27, 2015 2:31 AM  

There is, however, an alternative explanation that casts Roberts in a different light.

Once upon a time someone I was arguing with, when I insisted that the chief justice always gets to choose who writes and opinion, counter-insisted that the chief justice could only do so if he was in the majority. Dweeb failed to understand that the Chief Justice can always vote to join the majority, if his side is going to lose anyway, and then gets to say who writes the opinion.

(H/T Matt P) Okay, fast forward to this Obamacare case. The voting is junior to senior. So it gets to Stevens, who votes to uphold. At this point Roberts knows he's lost, no ifs, ands, or buts; the thing is going to be upheld. The only questions for Roberts are: "Do I vote against, on principle, and let Ginsburg write an opinion that will be an albatross around our necks forever, or do I vote against my principles, which is to say, to uphold, and deliver an opinion that - especially with the scathing dissent I know Scalia will write - can be overturned at some future date or can be ignored as a very weak decision, as far as precedent goes?"

Does that mean it was a win for the good guys? Fuck no. But it wasn't as bad a loss as it could have been and would have been if he hadn't switched his vote / voted as he did.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts