dayman

I would say there is validity to this point and it was well stated. For the most part there is an understanding here, and part of that includes that the intensity/rivalry that inherently develops be considered in context outside of this terrible place..while within the walls it's another story

The most famous line in American judicial history is from that case where he says it is their role to "say what the law is" b/c if you are to apply it to a set of facts, you must be able to The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and they say what it is. Perhaps you do not like the court doing this and would prefer Jefferson's argument? That he should say? Which would of course give Obama the power to say...and the NLRB issues would be long over...

Ya they look like their regular chums

If I recall correctly you are/were recently in law school ... so believe you know well and how SCOTUS came about having that power ... a power they've had for ages

just thought I would point this out in case someone didn't remember/know and feels the need to flip over or avoid the channel...

Na, my opinion is that whatever the wisdom of the decision, it means what it means. The administrations position seems to be, we'll claim it only applies to this case to keep running the board until another decision comes. When that happens, they won't have a position to take other than the decision. 3rd brought it up in comparison to Mississippi just deciding not to adhere to federal law. It be similar if they ignored federal law they didn't like while/before it was being litigated/appealed...but once it reaches SCOTUS or is denied further review to continue ignoring it would be different than that example.

While an interesting post, it's hard to look at the last GOP primary and be convinced. I mean you can say that a theoretical party has always been against X so they haven't moved on that issue, but if they were against X expanding and trying to shrink it a bit before and now they're making X their number 1 issue and trying to completely destroy it...then they moved on X. BTW X here wasn't meant to represent any real issue so don't read into it...

lol that's not going to work out if they get another unfavorable ruling en banc and certainly not a SCOTUS order...and either way as per this moment they're done with authority over the Noel issue

In a few cases SCOTUS disagrees with itself..but this wouldn't be one of them. Mississippi is part of the republic and represented, then can participate as other states do by voting and debating and furthering their point of view and casting their states electoral votes for executive branch candidates etc etc....in the end if they lose the argument/election/debate and something is passed that negatively effects them that they think is not constitutional they can take it to the courts and ultimately as high as SCOTUS where it will be decided one way or the other and then that is the end of it. There is no next step in our Republic where they grant themselves the power to interpret the constitution as they see fit and go rouge picking and choosing federal law they like and dislike.

Well, SCOTUS would disagree.

They don't need a law to state the obvious though. This law does not state the obvious, it declares that they will decide what federal actions are within the constitution themselves and act accordingly. That's the issue...

Any reasoned analysis of what our military actually is, reveals it to in fact be a giant socialist institution well beyond it's surface level purpose (which is of course, necessary and important as I have acknowledged)

What? “If the Mississippi State Legislature votes by simple majority to neutralize any federal statute, mandate or executive order on the grounds of its lack of proper constitutionality, then the state and its citizens shall not recognize or be obligated to live under the statute, mandate or executive order,” the bill reads. I mean maybe there's an intelligent argument that can be made, if so I would like to hear it. How is this within the framework of American law as has been practiced for centuries to have the Mississippi house interpret the federal constitution and then ignore federal statutes on the basis of their interpretation?

the far, extreme, despicable, unbearable right wing war on simon is in full force

And if you read through, you will see that I'm not simply talking about receiving a pay check for a days work ya idiot Something explicitly acknowledged in my strain of posts here. Thanks for reading.

In the sense that I have described it over the course of the last few posts, yes. A bad one. Probably more accurate to just stick to calling it a huge socialist bloc of American society that no socialist hating American ever rags on.

If you accept it's a welfare cycle/jobs complex, which is impossible to deny, then it's worth pointing out it's a bad one.

First off I'm not defending the welfare state, I saying it's everything, and the biggest component is the military. And yet there's a strain of rhetoric that ignores this despite being pissed as all hell about everythign else. Obviously there is no debate we need it, and there really is no debate we have way more than we need. The most common actual reason the military is funded as it is, is jobs...behind the scenes of course we dare not acknowledge this publicly. It IS a socialist/welfare institution and it's the larges thing we have going that fits that description. And assuming this is something we are doing...we might consider that it's a terribly inefficient way to go about that. http://www.peri.umas...ending_2011.pdf ABSTRACT This study focuses on the employment effects of military spending versus alternative domestic spending priorities, in particular investments in clean energy, health care and education. We first present some simple alternative spending scenarios, namely devoting $1 billion to the military versus the same amount of money spent on clean energy, health care, and education, as well as for tax cuts which produce increased levels of personal consumption. Our conclusion in assessing such relative employment impacts is straightforward: $1 billion spent on each of the domestic spending priorities will create substantially more jobs within the U.S. economy than would the same $1 billion spent on the military. We then examine the pay level of jobs created through these alternative spending priorities and assess the overall welfare impacts of the alternative employment outcomes. We show that investments in clean energy, health care and education create a much larger number of jobs across all pay ranges, including midrange jobs (paying between $32,000 and $64,000) and high-paying jobs (paying over $64,000). Channeling funds into clean energy, health care and education in an effective way will therefore create significantly greater opportunities for decent employment throughout the U.S. economy than spending the same amount of funds with the military. People pissed about the economy and takers and channeling that to bash all manner of domestic programs while ignoring the military and in fact being "patriotic" and loving when politicians accuse a rival of gutting the service...aught to do some deeper thinking...it's a lot easier to get worked up over a bum on teh street getting a free meal...but let us be real here. It's quite funny to hear about the military service members who are conservative rant about socialism supporting their GOP hawks who increase funding into the socialist complex they work in. And while the GOP in general drives it that's not to let the opportunistic "me too" democrats off the hook btw...

Oh no doubt, don't get me wrong when I say "American military" later on calling the largest socialist institution I mean it in an all encompassing way...from the contractor right down to the family.

And btw I'm not suggesting there aren't people on welfare that are scum, or that all people on welfare are scum, but the general attitude that there is a mass horde of lazy takers on welfare and not working and that's the reason we have financial problems...it's stupidity. And from a political standpoint, this stupidity has created more passion and momentum than is worthy of it and hampered reasoned debate.

What I'm saying is the American military is probably the largest and most well funded socialist institution on planet earth today. Yes there there are people who pay into a program and take much more out, they too are taking, a lot. Then there are people who are poor, and get checks in the mail, also takers. This isn't to argue there is no distinction that you can draw, it's to argue that particularly when you look at the amount of money these different categories of people cost, it's a distinction with no practical difference. Unless you are on a moral crusade and just standing on your high horse looking down at some while not minding others and claiming it's only about fiscal issues...which by the way is an excellent way to gain a certain kind of political support, then it's just dumb to talk about takers in the way most people do today. If you want to make it about takers..., then the reality is...looks at all those who "take" from the dole and how much...when you ultimately do you may be less uppity about it and more practical about how and what is needed and what/how different things are possible moving forward as opposed to mindless yelling about the lazy people who refuse to work and supposedly zap the entire wealth of this nation... It's really just a round about way of saying what everybody knows and says all the time...if you want to talk about takers you have to talk about medicare and military and you really should talk about them first if you are serious about "takers zapping the wealth of our nation"

Just for the sake of discussion b/c this is a little interesting to me...so long as it is in some way linked to a job, even if it's the establishment of what can fairly be described as an extensive gov't funded socialist bubble....then it somehow has a special status relative to your conservative views?

If you want to throw around "taker" then you have to name a lot of people, as Rob did. I just was pointing out while he listed many, he left out the 2 biggest groups. Medicare participants, and the military (both the complex and the personnel)

And not pile on the military b/c I don't care to do so but if you all insist it's crazy to even speak of that...it's really not if you are consistent about identifying "takers." I mean bases are their own little bubble, independent law enforcement, grocery stores, big-box stores, school system, child care, housing and health care....all run by the government. Obviously in the past this was important people were drafted, pay was low, and many most bases were no where near civilization and/or overseas....but today these factors remain a huge part of retention for personnel certainly those with dependents. Today of course the situation is a bit different, volunteer services and higher pay (CBO estimates military pay averages 75% percentile compared to civilian jobs w/ comparable skill sets)...and other CBO studies show that a simple a cash allowance could easily get military personnel the same level of groceries for instance at way lower cost than running a government grocery store (but every time this is brought up you can bet a free-market fiscal hawk conservatives beat it down to support our troops)...etc etc...I mean YES THESE ARE EARNED BENEFITS but it's still subsidized by the taxpayer it's still "taking" and it is a somewhat "socialist institution" so to speak. It is ultimately, more money out than in...they do work as medicare people pay in...but it's still more out than in...and if you compare it to the private sector than can be no mistake about that... (also...this is not an original point credit to mike lofgren)