• comment on a post Mossad Revealed as Agents of State-Sponsored Terror over 4 years ago

    the Israeli water flouridation plot.

  • on a comment on The Conciliator-in-Chief over 4 years ago

    so I've nothing to link you to.   Here's a law professor explaining noting how it was widely expected.

    http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2010/01/supremes-opressed-corporations-lack.html

    And here he is explaining why:

    http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=corporations_take_the_court 

    And I don't "back it."  Try to read more closely.  I just said it's consistent with precedents.  A bad decision nonetheless consistent with previous bad decisions.

  • on a comment on The Conciliator-in-Chief over 4 years ago

    Could have predicted how Citizens United would come out, just as anyone familiar with the case law under the Commerce Clause can predict that a mandate would with stand a challenge. 

    You, however, appear to know nothing about the Supreme Ccourt beyond the party affiliations of the various justices and are just blathering without any idea what you're talking about.

  • on a comment on The Conciliator-in-Chief over 4 years ago

    Because I called it a wingnut constitutional theory?   You're going to whine about that to avoid the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about? Pretty sad.

    Go read  Lochner v. New York, Wickard v. Filburn, U.S. v. Lopez, U.S. v. Morrison, and Gonzalezv. Raich.  Then maybe you'lll be able to comment on this subject without embarrassing yourself.

  • on a comment on The Conciliator-in-Chief over 4 years ago

    Because I called it a wingnut constitutional theory?   You're going to whine about that to avoid the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about? Pretty sad.

    Go read  Lochner v. New York, Wickard v. Filburn, U.S. v. Lopez, U.S. v. Morrison, and Gonzalezv. Raich.  Then maybe you'lll be able to comment on this subject without embarrassing yourself.

  • on a comment on The Conciliator-in-Chief over 4 years ago

    I'm not one of the Republican justices deciding what's constitutional.  But nor are you.  The difference between us is that I have a basic understanding of constitutional jurisprudence under the Commerce Clause while you are completely and embarrassingly ignorant on the topic.

    But by all means hitch your wagon to a fringe theory that would invalidate most federal legislation since the 1930s.  After all, who cares if it's completely stupid so long as it helps score some points against the administration?  Gotta keep focused on what's important.

  • on a comment on The Conciliator-in-Chief over 4 years ago

    This is a wingnut constitutional theory that hasn't been accepted by the judiciary since Lochner v. New York.  A mandate would easily pass muster as a valid regulation under the Commerce Clause.  People familiar with how this enumerated powers argument has actually fared in federal court aren't really impressed by invocations of the Scalia bogeyman.

    Interesting, however, to see "progressives" essentially adopting the argument that the New Deal was unconstitutional.

  • on a comment on The Conciliator-in-Chief over 4 years ago

    I am very interested in the theory of constitutional interpretation that would lead you to this conclusion.

  • on a comment on Obama's Failure of Leadership over 4 years ago

    I can understand the impulse to defend Obama when his critics are the likes of securities fraudster Jerome Armstrong and PUMAtard Tarheel47.

  • on a comment on Obama's Failure of Leadership over 4 years ago

    Obama does not want to include a PO in the present bill.  The question is why.  It's clearly not because he thinks it's a bad idea - he has made numerous statements in support of it.  So the answer presumably is that he doesn't think it had enough political support.  But part of his job is to advocate for policies he thinks are good so that they gain political support - i.e leadership.  He has not really done very much to advocate for the PO.  If he had, maybe if would have failed or maybe it would have succeeeded, but he didn't really even try and anger/disappointment about that seems completely justified to me.

  • lol wut.

  • Your talking points, while remarkable in their predictability, have not grown more persuasive over the months, as they strongly resemble something a none-too-bright college freshman might put in a half-assed essay for an intro history class.  But I do like how you've taken to random capitalization.  Let me try it; Reagan's signature achievement was Selling Weapons to Iran.  Damn, written like that it does seem impressive!

  • with you exhuming Reagan's corpse to have another go at him?

  • Thanks, BJ, for providing that brief moment of 1997 Usenet nostalgia.

  • And here I thought necrophilia was illegal in all states.

Diaries

Advertise Blogads