3rdnlng Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 http://www.theblaze.com/stories/controversial-painting-of-obama-trampling-constitution-resurfaces-artists-new-work-tells-enslaved-americans-to-wake-up/ Appropriate as the SCOTUS takes it up today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 We have nine members of the US Supreme Court. The media is focusing on five of them. Four of them are excused. Four of them are considered to be locked and loaded, and above and beyond question. And those are the four liberal justices. They are not expected to be open-minded. The media's not asking them to consider things outside their normal purview. But the four conservatives and the one moderate, Anthony Kennedy? The media is challenging them to be open-minded about this, to maybe see the way to voting against the way they are preternaturally inclined. So four justices are given a pass. The four liberal justices are considered, obviously, locked in stone (and properly so) and the pressure is being brought to bear on the other five. But beyond that, do you not find it troubling that in a case so blatantly unconstitutional, in a law that is so blatantly in violation of the United States Constitution, we have to rely on one or two justices to protect the republic? You would think that this wouldn't even be a question for all nine of them. "Coerced contracts" are against the law, much less the Constitution. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Boy, sure hitting the drama juice hard today I see... I should order a few prints and hang them next to the velvet Elvis. Not so much the Obama stuff... To each his own... But what is up with Jesus artwork? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Quote of The Day From Ben Stein: “Fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured.... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen.” . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 (edited) We have nine members of the US Supreme Court. The media is focusing on five of them. Four of them are excused. Four of them are considered to be locked and loaded, and above and beyond question. And those are the four liberal justices. They are not expected to be open-minded. The media's not asking them to consider things outside their normal purview. But the four conservatives and the one moderate, Anthony Kennedy? The media is challenging them to be open-minded about this, to maybe see the way to voting against the way they are preternaturally inclined. So four justices are given a pass. The four liberal justices are considered, obviously, locked in stone (and properly so) and the pressure is being brought to bear on the other five. But beyond that, do you not find it troubling that in a case so blatantly unconstitutional, in a law that is so blatantly in violation of the United States Constitution, we have to rely on one or two justices to protect the republic? You would think that this wouldn't even be a question for all nine of them. "Coerced contracts" are against the law, much less the Constitution. . Not surprising, since 4 of them don't believe the 2nd applies to citizens. Edited March 27, 2012 by Jim in Anchorage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 27, 2012 Author Share Posted March 27, 2012 (edited) Not surprising, since 4 of tham don't believe the 2nd applies to citizens. Edited March 27, 2012 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Lets get serious about border protection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 27, 2012 Author Share Posted March 27, 2012 Lets get serious about border protection. Do you have that much of a problem up there with Canadians? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Do you have that much of a problem up there with Canadians? I have no idea who they are. Kill em all, let God sort them out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 27, 2012 Author Share Posted March 27, 2012 I have no idea who they are. Kill em all, let God sort them out. Well answer me this. Do they have their necks covered with tatoos and no road clearance on their cars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Quote of The Day From Ben Stein: “Fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured.... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen.” . Well said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 So much for the chicanery in trying to call it a "tax" after-the-fact. This kills the argument that the individual mandate is constitutional because congress can tax its citizens, and it also doesn't allow SCOTUS to punt the issue to 2014, when it will be too late to do anything to stop Obamacare. As for the "regulating interstate commerce" deception, that should be relatively easy. It doesn't regulate, it creates commerce. Second of all, the exchanges are set-up by states for their citizens. There is no "interstate commerce" there. This should fall 9-0, maybe 8-1 (since Kagan helped craft Obamacare). The argument that this is a case of "historical significance" means little, because the "historical significance" of granting the Federal Government almost unlimited power to make its citizens do whatever they want is history SCOTUS would want to avoid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 From the comments Justices Kennedy and Roberts (considered the swing votes in the case) are reportedly making in oral arguments, it looks like the individual mandate section is done for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Quote of The Day From Ben Stein: “Fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured.... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen.” . wow, isnt that the truth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 From the comments Justices Kennedy and Roberts (considered the swing votes in the case) are reportedly making in oral arguments, it looks like the individual mandate section is done for. What is scary about this is that 4 judges are standing up for their political ideals, not the Constitution. That seems to be the bigger issue to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 What is scary about this is that 4 judges are standing up for their political ideals, not the Constitution. That seems to be the bigger issue to me. Yeah, that never happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 What is scary about this is that 4 judges are standing up for their political ideals, not the Constitution. That seems to be the bigger issue to me. I agree. They're supposed to be apolitical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 I agree. They're supposed to be apolitical. Am I the only one who sees the humor in this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 (edited) Am I the only one who sees the humor in this? I guess you making fun of my post drives the point home even more. Trouncing and twisting the Constitution is now such a everyday occurrence it's laughable that someone makes a issue of it. Edited March 27, 2012 by Dante Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 (edited) I guess you making fun of my post drives the point home even more. Trouncing and twisting the Constitution is now such a everyday occurrence it's laughable that someone makes a issue of it. Oh, don't worry, I don't like it either. And I don't disagree with you. It's just that the law is going to be struck down because of an extremely political move by a very smart justice. Edited March 27, 2012 by LeviF91 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts