Results 133 to 144 of 176
Thread: Oral Arguments
-
03-31-2012, 09:28 AM #133
I never said it was Rush's theory...just that he has come around to the likelihood of this solution. Scalia is an embarrassment to the whole process. Maybe later I will plagiarize a funny piece I read about the similarities to his comments and the right-wing talking points used during the last two years to caste ACA as some big government overreach.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
-
Re: Oral Arguments
I guess you didn't read the transcript. He wasn't coming around to the likelihood, he was reading that blog saying it was some guys reasoning for a 6-3 vote and the court cares how it's viewed not about the consitutionality of the law
RUSH: I'm not saying this is going to happen, by the way. The fact that it's so widely being predicted now, if it becomes conventional wisdom it could very well be like most conventional wisdom, and that is wrong. There's a very, very left-wing blog called the SCOTUS blog, and the guy there is predicting 6-3 for the whole thing being found constitutional, 6-3. A lot of others have looked at his reasoning, "Yeah, you know what, I like that reasoning, it makes perfect sense to me. I think I'll sign on to that." If it happens, and if it happens the way the theory explains it, we don't have a court looking at the law anymore. We have a fully politicized third branch of government.
-
Re: Oral Arguments
Ginsburgh too. They both had to plead Verilli's case for him. They acutally interrupted him
saying, you meant this don't you and he said yes.
That's not good before the judges.
Scalia was right. Nobody has read it. OBY hasn't even read it. Only the ones the wrote
it.
Galen - not even you have time to read it.
-
03-31-2012, 07:38 PM #136
Re: Oral Arguments
I agree that the liberal judges were certainly trying to help Verrilli out. I don't condone that but I also don't see it as negative as Scalia throwing around negative conservative propaganda such a complaining about a 2700 page law and mocking it. Clearly he has hostility towards the law and while making the argument for Verilli is also out of line, propagandizing the court hearings really diminishes the reputation of the court.
The "Roberts Court" is in danger of leaving a poor legacy.
-
04-01-2012, 01:19 AM #137Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
Justices shouldn't be deciding such stuff.
That's not a knock on Scalia. That's a huge thumbs up towards judicial restraint and a representative democracy.
Scalia understands the importance of allowing the people, via their representatives and not via the judiciary, to determine the constitutionality of laws.
-
Re: Oral Arguments
Yes indeed, and that liberal Bryer himself said the same thing as Scalia.
"I haven't read it, I promise."
So Galen has to condemn his comments too. :)
http://cnsnews.com/video/national/ju...word-i-promise
-
04-02-2012, 05:22 PM #139Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
Re: Oral Arguments
Maybe Kagen has been blabbing .....
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74743.html
-
-
04-02-2012, 05:35 PM #141Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
-
04-02-2012, 06:39 PM #142
Re: Oral Arguments
Toobin who became a conservative sweetheart for a day when he reported Day 2 of the hearings as a "trainwreck" checks in with his view of the activist nature of this particular court and the problems it will incur if it goes down the legislative path.
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/commen...co_talk_toobin
-
04-02-2012, 06:53 PM #143Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
Re: Oral Arguments
Liberals, it would seem, have taken the tactic of taking the words "judicial activism", and are trying to make them their own.
Desperate.
Just because Congress passes a law doesn't make it constitutional. And if a law is thrown out on those very grounds, then SCOTUS did their job they manner in which it was intended in the very document they are trying to uphold.
But since when do liberals care about that pesky document that they see as a hindrance and not something to be respected.
-
Re: Oral Arguments
But the Supremes over-turned an election and now they're about to overturn the law, they say.
Pelosi says they wrote the law in a way that was constittutional. Fortunately, most of the
country thinks she's from California and not Baltimore.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08uk99L8oqQ
OBY says they wouldn't dare over-turn it. The mandate has to stay in for it to work
he says. Here he takes a shot at the SC. He'd better watch it. He just might piss em
off like the Florida Supreme Court did during Bush v Gore. They gave them ample
time to go into all the counties, not just the ones with the most DEMs.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8310WP20120402
TODAYS LIBERALS ARE THE COMMIES OF 1916.Last edited by AirFlacco; 04-02-2012 at 07:30 PM.
Bookmarks