“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Thursday, June 28, 2012

How Will the Court Rule?

What is wrong with this headline?


Why are we ruled by nine wizards in black robes?  How did 315,000,000 people allow themselves to get in this position where nine political hacks, lawyers, recipients of political favors, rule and master over us like ancient demons divining meanings of written works? No ancient king had such power. If we are free, why don’t we prove it?


Where is Mestigoit When we need him?



72 comments:

  1. Somebody woke up crabby this morning.

    Some humor before the shit storm: Krugman's 3 best GOP zingers

    You don't even have to read the text. Just look at the pictures.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nothing to see here. The old laptop has a sticky 11111111 key. Have to slap it hard. That should be 13. An evil number for an evil day.

    But the Krugman zingers are very funny.

    ReplyDelete
  3. .

    No ancient king had such power. If we are free, why don’t we prove it?

    A less than silent rant.

    What do you suggest as an alternative? Whatever it is, I'm confident I can offer an adequate rebuttal.

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. * No direct election of Senators.
      * Election of Supreme Court Judges by the same electors as the Senate for 6 year terms with a two term limit.
      * Any ruling by the supreme court can be overturned by a simple majority of one house and a 2/3 vote by the other.
      * Any ruling by the Supreme Court can be overruled by a simple majority of the states.

      Delete
  4. .

    What would be funny (ironic funny, not ha ha funny) would be if the Court ruled that since no one would be actually be affected by the individual mandate until 2014, that no one has the standing to bring forth a lawsuit at this time.

    Although everyone has indicated they want the final decision on healthcare now, standing is still a constitutional issue in its own right and will still need to be voted on.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  5. .

    JPMorgan Chase shares fall as NY Times says trading losses may be as much as $9B

    Jamie Dimon, the smartest man on Wall Street, says, "Not to worry."

    .

    ReplyDelete
  6. They're, also it seems, implicated in the TIBOR-fixing mess. But, it's going to be hard to punish them w/o Judges, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  7. LIBOR, not tibor. I have no idea what "tibor" is.

    ReplyDelete
  8. But, Capitalism doesn't need "Regulating." Nosirree, Bob.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Here's to freedom, innocence, and self-correcting markets.

    I feel another Steve Martin movie moment coming on.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The shorthand version of the Fast and Furious scandal goes something like this: ATF agents purposely allowed illegal guns to get into Mexico, then lost track of them, leading to horrific results. But a six-month investigation by Katherine Eban of Fortune magazine comes to a surprising conclusion: That so-called "gunwalking" strategy never existed. "Quite simply, there's a fundamental misconception at the heart of the Fast and Furious scandal," she writes.

    "Five law-enforcement agents directly involved in Fast and Furious tell Fortune that the ATF had no such tactic. They insist they never purposefully allowed guns to be illegally trafficked. Just the opposite: They say they seized weapons whenever they could but were hamstrung by prosecutors and weak laws, which stymied them at every turn." How the story morphed into its current version is the result of "distortions, errors, partial truths, and even some outright lies." Read the full Fortune piece here. At the National Review, Robert VerBruggen is skeptical about some of the conclusions.

    Leading to a "demand letter for long guns."

    Coming after your Second Amendment rights.

    /end sarcasm/

    ReplyDelete
  11. Can't game the omniscient markets.

    The notion that businesses exist solely to increase their stock prices and thus reward shareholders may be a "bedrock principal of our era," writes Jesse Eisinger at the Trade blog for ProPublica, but it also may be taking a serious toll on America's financial health. He sums up the argument of Cornell law professor Lynn Stout, who thinks the "shareholder dictatorship" philosophy makes businesses focus on stock prices and short-term gains at the expense of long-term development. It's also why CEOs get outrageous pay—their performance is usually measured in terms of stock moves.

    LINK

    The blame lies with economists and business professors who have pushed the idea, with generous enabling from the corporate governance do-gooder movement, Ms. Stout contends. Stocks, as a result, have become the playthings of hedge funds, warping corporate motivation and eroding stock market returns.


    I've been saying that for a long time. Now some gal PhD gets big bucks for writing an essay.

    ReplyDelete
  12. .

    Newell says he and his agents were hamstrung by the U.S. attorney's office. He said that prosecutors told him that in most of their straw purchaser cases, his agents' hands were tied. They did not have probable cause to arrest the straw buyers because the men purchased the guns legally and it was difficult to prove they were committing a crime by giving the gun to someone else.

    Newell says he never told his agents to "let guns walk." Instead, he said, he told them that they had to have sufficient evidence to satisfy the prosecutors that they had probable cause to seize the guns.

    His agents told a different story to a congressional committee. They testified that they were instructed by their supervisors not to move in and question the buyers but to let the guns go and see where they eventually ended up. They called their actions "gun-walking."

    What Newell didn't count on was that the agents working Fast and Furious on the ground were outraged by the operation. He said he wasn't aware of complaints of "gun-walking," or the mutiny brewing below him as the months went by and agents watched hundreds of guns enter the suspected cartel pipeline.

    In December 2010, after Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was gunned down near the Mexico border, several of the agents went to Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa). They said they had warned their direct supervisors that an agent or officer could be killed by one of the guns they were letting go...



    The Law Got in Our Way



    The first paragraph says it all and is indicative of the thinking within the Obama administration.

    If you are 'hamstrung' by existing law, ignore it.

    The fourth paragraph points out the arrogance of these guys and how divorced from reality some are.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  13. Replies
    1. .

      I said before that they should have tried to get this through as a tax. They denied it was one and then as a throwaway they dumped the issue into oral arguments.

      The irony of course is if they had tried to pass it through as a tax, the law would never have passed.

      What will also be interesting is what they did on the states' suit on the medicaid issue. If that happens to get shot down, Ruf's claim that this will help the uninsured will be pretty much neutered.

      .

      Delete
    2. Nah, all the Court did on the Medicaid issue was, in effect, put ALL of the Cost onto the Feds (it's Your law, you pay for it.)

      Some people that would have been passed onto Medicare will now have to go through the process of applying for insurance, and being reimbursed by the Feds.

      Delete
    3. That should have been "some people that would have been passed onto MEDICAID"

      Delete
    4. .

      We'll have to see.

      Based on the lead-up to the case, the tax issue came as a bit of a surprise. It will be interesting to see the analysis of the overall ruling which will likely come out over the next few days.

      Right now reactions are predictable. I guess I'll wait for a little more in-depth analysis (not only on the various aspects of the law but on the political ramifications in terms of paying for it and/or adjustments).

      .

      Delete
    5. .

      To the last point, from Scotusblog.com,


      Medicare holding may have broad implications

      By Kevin Russell

      While the Court’s upholding the mandate is deservedly taking front stage in the media coverage, the Court’s decision to strike down a part of the Medicaid expansion may ultimately have broader jurisdprudential consequence. That, at least, will be a subject of debate among lawyers and academics in the days and weeks to come. This is the first time (as far as I know) that the Court has actually found a Spending Clause condition unconstitutionally coercive. Whether it establishes principles that make many other programs vulnerable is a question that will require further analysis and debate. Lyle Dennisten will start that analysis in an post later today or tomorrow morning.

      .

      Delete
    6. .

      Along the same lines, I still don't know what the court said about the Commerce Clause. The law was upheld on the basis of the Fed's taxing authority but was anything said about the commerce clause? Did they ignore it, decide not to rule on it's validity in this case, or, as in the Medicaid issue above, decide that further expansion of the commerce clause as proposed in this case was taking it a step too far?

      .

      Delete
    7. As best I can ascertain, Q, they said the Commerce Clause won't stretch that far, but, screwit, it's a "Tax," anyway; and the gummint HAS the power to tax.

      Delete
    8. .

      Just looking at the academic aspects of the decision and implications for future cases.

      Perhaps SCOTUS is thinking there actually is a thing called federalism.

      .

      Delete
  14. The United States is no longer the only Industrialized Country in the World that doesn't make healthcare available to ALL of its citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The good news for the Pubs (aside from making more money in a greatly improved country) is that this could very likely cost Obama reelection.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The question that kept nagging at me all day yesterday was:

    Does Roberts want to go down in history as Chief Justice, and swing vote, (remember, this will always be remembered as the "Roberts Court") on the court that overruled 60 Senators, the House, and the President, and killed Healthcare?

    ReplyDelete
  17. This law is going to make a Lot of people a Lot of Money.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The political class is in total shock. Everyone has to rewrite their "post-game" analysis.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The "interwebs" have gone strangely silent.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Drudge doesn't even have a headline up yet.

    ReplyDelete
  21. This place is strangely silent as well.

    Great MD on Squawk Box this AM explaining some of Orszag's policy points about the replacement of "fee for service" model with "pay for performance" model as major instrument of cost control. He was very good.

    ReplyDelete
  22. The word, "Gobsmacked," comes to mind. :)

    ReplyDelete
  23. Told you it was 5 - 4.

    Great day for Rufus.

    Time to go on Food Stamps as well -

    June 28, 2012
    USDA suggests throwing a party to swell foodstamp rolls
    Rick Moran

    This Department of Agriculture pamphlet suggests "5 Fresh Ideas" on how to get people to sign up for food stamps.

    In this instance, they are targeting seniors:

    Throw a Great Party. Host social events where people mix and mingle. Make it fun by having activities, games, food, and entertainment, and provide information about SNAP. Putting SNAP information in a game format like BINGO, crossword puzzles, or even a "true/false" quiz is fun and helps get your message across in a memorable way. (H/T: Weasel Zippers)

    Recall that the federal government is also spending millions on advertising spots and PSA's to beat the bushes for dependents.

    It seems immoral to advocate for dependency on government. But that is the state of government in the early 2000's and will probably continue regardless of who is president.


    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/06/usda_suggests_throwing_a_party_to_swell_foodstamp_rolls.html#ixzz1z6WOsvUs

    .............

    Am I misremembering, or didn't the government argue it wasn't a tax?

    This all shows that court watching is really a fool's game.

    Who'd a thought?

    b

    ReplyDelete
  24. SARAH PALIN: 'Obama Lies, Freedom Dies'
    Brett LoGiurato | Jun. 28, 2012, 10:48 AM | 16,527 | 40

    OBAMA LIES FREEDOM DIES

    Sarah Palin just tweeted her reaction to the Supreme Court's Obamacare ruling.

    Sarah Palin Obamacare

    Twitter/@SarahPalinUSA

    What she's referring to: In 2009, Barack Obama said the mandate was "not a tax." The Supreme Court just upheld the mandate as a tax.

    On her Facebook page Monday, Palin wrote a post defending her claim that Obamacare creates a "death panel."

    "If the Supreme Court doesn’t strike down Obamacare entirely, then Congress must act to repeal IPAB and Obamacare before it is indeed 'too late,'" she wrote. "All of Obamacare must go one way or another."


    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/sarah-palins-reaction-to-obamacare-ruling-obama-lies-freedom-dies-2012-6#ixzz1z6YMxCk1

    b

    ReplyDelete
  25. Rufus has healthcare. This is a great day for the country (and, particularly, those 40 Million, or so, Citizens that don't have insurance.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And, especially, for those Millions of Sick Americans that can't get insurance, and as a result, treatment.

      Delete
    2. You mean those millions of lazy ass Americans who thought what the fuck about buying their own insurance and never thought about the responsibility to try and look after themselves till they got sick, don't you?

      b

      Delete
    3. Millions of sick Americans will be demanding their souls back.

      Delete
    4. No, I'm thinking of all those people that have found themselves "uninsurable" through no fault of their own (eg. a 26 yr old that developed a condition, and is now kicked off the parents' policy, Or a 45 yr old with a "condition" whose company goes out of business, leaving him/her without insurance, or insurability.)

      I'm sure you could think of many other examples.

      Delete
    5. Rufus - you know that was a gratuitous dig at the Jonescu argument from bob's link previous thread (a textbook example of theory taken to an absurd extreme, IMO.)

      Delete
    6. Yeah, Max, I was referring to Bob's comment, right above yours.

      Delete
  26. Oh all right -

    Goddamned sticking fucked up motherfucking asshole goddamned piece of shit fucking asshole court.

    On the other hand it's perfectly possible to get rid of the monstrosity in the political arena, if we will.

    Congrats there Ruf. Don't celebrate too much today.

    You might end up in the emergency room.

    b

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No celebrations, Bob; I'm just happy for the country.

      Delete
    2. I'm glad somebody is happy.

      You certainly held your position all the way through.

      b

      Delete
    3. The simple fact is, Bob, that neither of us will even know it passed. But, a lot of people that really, really need this will have their lives changed.

      Delete
  27. Now comes implementation. That is going to be a mess. Chaos, and bedlam.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is why I was conflicted about ObamaCare. Some reasonable (thoughtful) policy initiatives but too hard to implement. Possibly Better to leave insurance to the private sector and regulate the hell out of the industry. The difficult work that lies ahead is very likely beyond the collective ability of the current crop of political elites to handle.

      I'm getting a kick out of the spittled speeches but it is short-lived. I'm nervous about implementation.

      Delete
    2. The other thing I'm waiting for is all those "behavior" incentives. I pay out of my ass for catastrophic insurance and I've never been sick a day in my life.

      Delete
    3. Maybe somebody will think to pick up the phone, and call Mass. They seem to have got theirs up and running pretty quickly. :)

      Or, maybe Obama could hire Mitt Romney as "O'Careczar" - After the election, of course. :)

      Delete
  28. I'm so upset about this decision that I've decided to throw my Medal of Honor away.

    b

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://woundedtimes.blogspot.com/2012/06/supreme-court-says-you-can-lie-about.html

      b

      Delete
    2. Yeah, I wuz going to move to Mexico, or sumpin.

      Delete
  29. As I recall, Justice Roberts was touted as a hero to the conservative cause.

    A better, more reasonable judge could not be found in all the land.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Social Security is not a contract for future service nor an insurance program.

    If the fact that politicians may not tell the truth about what they do is either new or shocking to you, well, you're a fool.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I'm really interested in how the "polling" comes out in the next couple of weeks. Intrade gave Obama a slight bump up, but I have a hunch the polling will show just the opposite.


    But, then again, peoples is hard to figure out, sometimes.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Overlooked everywhere but Ace o Spades:

    Eric Holder releases new statement -

    "Fast and Furious was a Tax."

    ReplyDelete
  33. RDS - Roberts Derangement Syndrome - on its way into the history books.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Roberts, an America-hating commie, don'tchaknow.

      Delete
    2. Traitorous Teat-sucking Socialist.

      A Leftist Prince

      Delete
    3. :)

      I gotta admit, 5 - 4, with Roberts siding with the lefties was one outcome I didn't even consider. Just shows to go ya.

      Delete
  34. My Cable TV picked an interesting day to shoot craps. Probably ought to be thankful, I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Poor ol' Matt Drudge musta had a heart attack. Still hasn't posted the ruling.

    Giv'im some Obammiecare; Quick!

    ReplyDelete
  36. NOt sure which Drudge site you are referring, to, but he had it posted before most major sites, just after 9 a.m. cst. I dont agree with his decision, but I do like what he said about it: "it is not our job to forbid it." Right on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is there more than one?

      Drudge

      I get a big, red headline: The Nation Waits

      Delete
    2. its changed three times since this morning. Now it reads: TAKE YOUR MEDICINE!

      Delete
  37. I'm beginning to worry the Charlie Rangel vote may not hold up. Recounting around, he's only up by about 1,000 now.

    This country truly needs at least one humorous infectious smiling first class crook.

    Everybody should love Charlie, and wish him well.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  38. more proof that hobama is worse than gwb x 2

    gwb never forced/fined me to buy anything

    hobamacare will be a predator drone on all medical care and the patient care industry

    bet!

    may god bless us all


    also

    gwb tortured
    hobama just kills

    predator drones trump waterboarding

    ask libya/syria/somalia/africom etc

    shame!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete