Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Let's Play Two! On To Holder | Main | Zimmerman Back In Court Today »

June 29, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2aa69e2016767f83d98970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Morning After:

Comments

peter

OT, Lynne Stewart, who bragged she could do the time standing on her head, has had her sentence of ten years affirmed by the Second Circuit.

Warning-- her picture is at the LUN

Clarice

I think Barnett is a real hero. He pressed this issue when it was considered an outlier position in the legal community and it is now the law of the land. He persuaded me from the first moment I read his arguments at Volokh.

Jack is Back

OT: Not only did Italy beat Germany like a drum in the Euro 2012 soccer championship semi's but it looks like they teamed up with Spain to mug Merkel into submission.

Salvador Dali is in charge of the Euro

Jane

I propose a false choice, but I'd still like an opinion.

If you had to choose between overturning Obamacare - as completely shamefully unconstitutional or ousting Obama from office in the November election, which would you choose.

Certainly getting rid of Obamacare does alot, and leaving it on the books does bad stuff; it's just a terrible bill that will lead us to socialism.

OTOH

A 2nd term of Obama with a republican house and senate might be survivable - nothing would get done of course, and the debt would continue to go thru the roof and Obama would act like a king, but potentially he could be reigned in.

So if going into yesterday you had to choose one, which one would you choose?

sailor

I choose ousting O, Jane. One reason is I simply cannot stand looking at him or hearing him.

peter

Jane, that is a good question. The problem though, is that the left always comes up with new Obamas. No one heard of him ten years ago. No one heard of Clinton in 1982. Look at the destruction these two wrought.

And Obamacare doesn't lead us to socialism. It is socialism. It is designed to put capitalism into a death spiral.

Clarice

I'd want O out. He already was scheming to go around a court case holding Obamacare unconstitutional just as he overrode the Ct on Az by refusing to continue working with state authorities. He is lawless,

MarkO

Jane, I decry the false choices, blah, blah, and blah. Of course, I want both.

I think more than anything else, I'm left with the Roberts perfidy. Obamacare can be repealed and replaced; John Roberts cannot.

PDinDetroit

As Obama Goes, So Shall ObamaCare...

Patriot4Freedom

Does anyone else find themself wondering just how to interpret/decipher the darker, long-term implications of yesterday's opinion?

I must confess that I torn. I love the bright line drawn to limit the extent of Commerce Clause power available to Congress. However, I am unsure whether Chief Justice Roberts has done a terrible disservice to the nation, or somehow, as Krauthammer believes, finessed an accomodation that both preserves our freedom and spells doom, eventually, for this abomination of legisaltion.

Thanks to ALL of the JOM'ers for the many insightful comments, observations, and thoughts expressed !

Porchlight

I want Obama defeated, preferably by a landslide, so that he is disgraced and humiliated and we may never see his like again - at least for as long as possible.

stan

Clarice is right to cite Tetlock. All the predictions were wrong. But she loses the scent when looking to the future. All the pundits telling us this morning that all will be well should also go look at Tetlock. I suspect that Roberts will end up looking too clever by half when all is said and done. The mandate and tax dodge may well come back to bite him and us.

Patriot4Freedom

Oops... "I must confess that I *am* torn."

As for Jane's question: I will always choose ridding the nation of a despot first. We can always overturn the despot's laws once they are gone.

PDinDetroit

This needs to be called what it really is: A FINE NOT A TAX.

peter

A couple of points not raised elsewhere at the LUN.
One other-- every other Supreme court case is known by the name of the parties. This one was known either as the healthcare decision or the Obamacare decision. Odd.

Porchlight

Agree, Patriot4Freedom, the views and commentary at JOM are invaluable.

jimmyk

Does anyone else find themself wondering just how to interpret/decipher the darker, long-term implications of yesterday's opinion?

I see it as a partial victory at best. It a draws a line for the Commerce Clause, but seems to affirm a virtually unlimited power to tax for any purpose. So the battlefield is changed, but we will need a more conservative court to decide that the Taxing and Spending Clause is limited.

Extraneus

He is lawless

What's the difference? The law is meaningless. Just a thing for lawyers and judges to play with. The more vague and meaningless they make it, the more money they can charge for their expert services.

The fact that no one predicted this outcome is strong evidence for the above.

The government can now fine us for not doing what they tell us to do. They don't have to call the fine a "tax," since Roberts will do that for them in order to validate their authority to tell us what to do and penalize us for disobedience.

Forget Obamacare or Obama or the Commerce Clause. The government can force us to eat broccoli or pay a fine.

Captain Hate

Ousting BOzo. He's already acting delusional with his refusal to abide by the SC's ruling on Arizona and that would only increase. Working additional to override his vetoes is too much effort expended in what needs to be a focused effort to roll back all the garbage that will be required to get the country working again. Plus he'll have the EPA and DOE working overtime in releasing mindless requirements and restrictions (you do know that the Keystone pipeline approval was omitted by the Senate, no?). Plus who knows what loons he'd propose for the Supreme Court.

AliceH

I confess, today I find myself reading more articles like "Retire to Panama's Gold Coast" than articles like "Conservatives' Consolation Prize".

MarkO

Roberts’ decision reminded me far too much of those judges I’ve seen over time whose egos require them to decide a case based on something other than the points fully addressed and fully argued by the parties. These judges want to appear to be much smarter than the people who are living the problems of the litigation. In doing what he did, he robbed us of a precedent that the Commerce Clause cannot be used for further power grabs. We had the opportunity to draw a line in the sand. There is no line, only agreement that there could be one, had Roberts not given in to his inner wonderfulness.

Is he going to be our Earl Warren?

DublinDave

Why didn't you guys hold Eric holder in contempt yesterday?

Loose your nerve,heh heh heh?

Melinda Romanoff

MarkO-

As I have know slept on it,I believe this ruling encircless the Commerce Clause, limits Necessary and Proper, and, upon first contact, limits Congress' authority to tax under Article I, for the first time.

That's a big can opener and the worms have spilled.

Lets go fishing!

GMAX

Its just an internet poll but MSN has a poll up asking if the case was correctly decided. My reading on the information carried on MSN website is reliably skewed left, and I assumed their readership was too. The poll currently is running almost 2 to 1 for wrongly decided with only 8% undecided. 60% to 32%.

There were several pundits who claimed anyone who thought the loss on the decision was going to turn into a political victory were, well I believe the word used was "deluded". I know its just an internet poll so its not a random sample, but if its even close to being right the earthquake in November will mean fundamental change can come to the US for the first time in my lifetime.

Now work like we are two touchdowns behind.

Captain Hate

I don't suppose the MFM will do any reporting of the racial attacks, including N bombs, on Clarence Thomas on the lefty blogs. They're really there; not some made up crap by lowlife liars about imaginary spitting incidents that the quislings in the press diligently reported as fact. They're there on sites which the MFM drones doubtlessly have bookmarked.

Melinda Romanoff

Oh, and today's market reaction is all about the euro games. Nothing domestic other than quarter end window dressing.

And Goldman has put out a recommendation to go long EU sovereign mid-curve debt, so now you know what they really think about their customers.

MarkO

Fishing sounds good. Voting the rascals out also sounds good. Continued exegesis of Roberts’ opinion, motive, and future decisions sounds positively dreadful.

centralcal

Captain there is no reason to "suppose." The MFM are part and parcel of the left and I am certain love those blogs.

It was nauseating to see Jake Tapper on Twitter yesterday answering questions about ACA and nary a negative in any of his responses.

MarkO

Yes. The serious, dedicated, declared racists in America are on the left.

jimmyk

Mel, how does it limit the power to tax?

marlene

Jane,my choice is defeat in November.

GMAX

When David Gregory is providing some insight to Democrats, well perhaps this is not a difficult concept to grasp:

On Morning Joe in the 7:15 hour David Gregory was asked by Harold Ford if Democrats will now be running on Obamacare. To those who have cheering the loudest over Obamacare being upheld, he answer was astounding:

He said congressional candidates in tough districts will not want to run on it and even the White House will may not want to own this issue, although they do.

Own it they do, and its going to a very large club in the Republican bag. Do thank San Fran Nan and Harry Reid wont ya?

Melinda Romanoff

Fair enough, but I'm back to the Godfather of Soul this AM.

Allow me my fog of uneducated, coffee dancing.

Porchlight

Why didn't you guys hold Eric holder in contempt yesterday?

The vote was 255-67. In contempt.

Do you not follow the news?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/politics/fast-and-furious-holder-contempt-citation-battle.html

Captain Hate

cc, don't get me started on Tapper.

Davod

"A 2nd term of Obama with a republican house and senate might be survivable - nothing would get done of course, and the debt would continue to go thru the roof and Obama would act like a king, but potentially he could be reigned in."

Survivable? Obama has shown he will get around Congressional authority. I am not sure, but didn't this start within days of the inauguration with the change to student loans. I didn't see any uproar then and he has continued.

How will Congress stop him. I do not see anyone impeaching Obama.

Captain Hate

Mel, I was listening to some early James Brown recently. His band was sooooo tight and the music so slick.

GMAX

There are 191 Democrats in the House of Representatives, I believe. 21 of them voted to hold the Attorney General in contempt, despite it being an election year and him being a member of their own party.

For those not good at math, that is almost 11% of the entire caucus.

WHOOPS.

Melinda Romanoff

Cold Heat.

Boom!

DublinDave

Why didn't you guys hold Eric holder in contempt yesterday?
The vote was 255-67. In contempt.
Do you not follow the news?


Bullshit!You guys didn't hold the vote yesterday.

There's no way out of this,the house said they were going to hold the AG in contempt they're going to have to.Freakin cowards....hold the freakin vote you freakin cowards!!!!

GMAX

Porch did you see the NBC/Marist poll on NH yesterday? We were discussing your angst on the state a couple of days ago I seem to remember. I posted something on it last evening, but you may have missed it in the hubbub...

Melinda Romanoff

"voted to hold the Attorney General in CRIMINAL contempt"-

FIFY.

AliceH

GMAX - it was 17, not 21, Democrats that sided with Republicans in voting to hold Holder in contempt. (I keep seeing that 21 D citation - where does it come from?)

centralcal

Mel - there were two contempt votes yesterday, criminal AND civil - and both passed with Dem votes.

GMAX

The Tea Party points to the cheap seats and calls the shot:

I have got four little words for you: This is not over,” Keli Carender, national grass-roots coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots, told the crowd gathered outside the court. “If you thought that November 2010 was historic, you just wait for November 2012.”

No Mel, the 21 Democrats voted for civil contempt charges. 17 did vote for criminal contempt and Holder is now at great personal risk of going to jail, which I personally hope is keeping the turd awake at night. It should because January 21 a new US Attorney will be put in place.

Captain Hate

For those not good at math, that is almost 11% of the entire caucus.

That's still a pretty piss poor number who are on record as being opposed to complicity in cover ups for murders of large number of foreigners and two United States agents. Party and racial matters be damned; murder is murder. Plus the narrative where Brian Terry and other agents were shooting beanbags compared to live ammo adds another level of willful complicity which has been ignored.

centralcal

Here you go AliceH, from The Hill:

That second resolution could lead to a lengthy court battle if Issa pursues civil action against Holder.

The House approved the civil resolution in a 258-95 vote that saw 21 Democrats vote with Republicans, and just 70 Democrats skip the vote.

Janet

I agree with Extraneus's 8:50 too.

AliceH

Never mind. The 21 D's figure comes from number of Dems who voted with Repubs "for a separate resolution authorizing a lawsuit that would ask a judge to order the Justice Department to comply with its subpoena" (NYT).

So - 17 Ds join the vote for Criminal Contempt, and 21 Ds join the vote to essentially override the use of Executive Privilege to refuse turning over the requested documents.

Melinda Romanoff

Thanks, c-cal.

I'm still working on dancing out of my coffee fog.

Jane

Clarice,

Great Pieces!

Melinda Romanoff

Crap, and GMax, I missed your 2nd paragraph.

Sorry.

BTW, Did you read the JP story in today's WSJ? There's a big, glaring lie in it.

rse

Did you see that the Obama campaign is selling still a BFD t-shirts?

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/06/obama-spikes-the-t-shirt/

henry

Coffee fog, good.
Godfather of soul, great.
Roberts opinion, meh.

GMAX

2 B to 9 B, Mel? I said that about a week ago.

Appalled

I read the comments today with a little bit of anger. It is up to the voters to reject Obamacare and the concept of government run healthcare, not the courts. Roberts shrunk from calling a very large law unconstitutional on a technicality, and by doing so, refused to let the politicians off the hook for their actions.

Roberts is not a traitor. It's not like he has a patriotic duty to agree with the GOP platform. He's just a judge applying the idea of judicial restraint, which provides if a democracy passes something, you try to find a way to sustain it, within the bounds of the constitution.

If you're mad, show it in the voting booth and anywhere else you are so inclined. But be mad at Pelosi and Reid and Obama, and your Democratic representative. Don't waste your time with the Supreme Court on this one.

Note -- I do hope we see the same sort of jusdicial restraint when the court tackles something like California's Prop 8.

Melinda Romanoff

Gmax-

In all my trading experience, I have never, ever seen a risk officer pull a trader for a 1% loss.

Danube of Thought

Minus 15 at Raz today.

Leads Romney by 1.

GMAX

11% of a dwindling caucus who single largest faction is mau mauing the entire thing?

To me that is a big fing deal. Rick has told you separately he has 30+ at risk House Democrats. I can almost guarandamnty you all 21 are on his list.

Remember Pelosi has said on several occasions they are going to win back the House. NFW, the caucus is going to shrink.

Jack is Back

Jane,

Ouster or overturn. He goes and if you have the numbers you have a chance to fix or repeal.

GMAX,

Looks like most of those Dems are in strong NRA or hunting constituencies (bitter clingers). NRA announced early on they were going to score the vote. If you are a Dem with a strong NRA record you don't want this mark on you. Also, there are lot of realignment districts that could be toss-ups now.

If DuDa is truly Irish he is an embarrassment to a fine intelligent culture. Behan you're not except in the amount of booze you consume and even there probably a slacker.

/Thinks Croke Park is where Paddies go to die

rse

Appalled-hardly anyone but the lawyers sees it the way you and I and most of the lawyers here see it. I had dinner with friends last night. One has an insurance agency and they were devastated by yesterday's decision. We talked about how much of an issue this will suddenly be for doctors who see their livelihood at risk. At least at the levels they are accustomed to. They won't be quiet.

Jane & Janet-I have jumped into Amitai Etzioni's communitarian cesspool after recognizing at as the crux of what it will really mean to be College & Career Ready. In case your Tea Parties are in need of that aspect of Agenda 21.

Melinda Romanoff

JiB-

Or closer to McSorley's than The Stag's Head.

sailor

GMAX, I read that Holder is at Disney World. So, I guess he is not worried about going to jail. O, with his recent victory, will protect him forever.

GMAX

I personally dont think Banks should have trading desks at all, which I consider to be gambling operations for the most part. Banks should lend medium to long term, and finance the lending from deposits, and FHLB and FRB borrowing plus a very healthy dose of equity. But when Glass Steagall went, the traders flooded in.

GMAX

I will settle for Holder having to get a pardon from the last days of Nixon Part 2. The scarlet letter will follow him around for the rest of his miserable existence then.

Melinda Romanoff

Actually, the desks were there under Glass-Steagall, it was the expanded Tier 1 pool from buying insurance companies that allowed them to really lever up. They serve a function, but shouldn't be the steering wheel of bank profits.

But that's just my opinion.

Jim Ryan

PD,

Correctamundo! It is a fine, a penalty, and therefore not a tax. When volunteering for the GOP this season I'm not going to call it a tax.

One could pussy-foot around the issue: "Undecided? Well, the Supreme Court has declared the Obamacare mandate a tax and, if it's a tax, it is certainly the biggest tax increase in history. So, what do you think about that? You should vote for Romney."

I could say that without lying. But if I said, "It's a tax," I'd be fibbing.

Porchlight

Gmax, thanks, I did see you'd posted that NH poll but I got overtaken by the thread. This is much more in line with what I would have expected to see by now. Thanks for reminding me and thanks too for your steady optimism.

Appalled, I tend to agree with you. It is probably best for the country in the long run if this law goes out the way it comes in - via the legislature. Had the SCOTUS saved us, many would never believe just how bad it is, since its most pernicious provisions have not yet kicked in. If Romney is elected it will be with a clear mandate to repeal.

Threadkiller

"H.RES.711 -- Resolved, That Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, shall be found to be in contempt of Congress for failure to comply with a congressional subpoena. (Engrossed in House [Passed House] - EH)

HRES 711 EH

H. Res. 711

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

June 28, 2012.

Resolved, That Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, shall be found to be in contempt of Congress for failure to comply with a congressional subpoena.

Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 192 and 194, the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall certify the report of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, detailing the refusal of Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, to produce documents to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform as directed by subpoena, to the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, to the end that Mr. Holder be proceeded against in the manner and form provided by law.

Resolved, That the Speaker of the House shall otherwise take all appropriate action to enforce the subpoena."

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.+Res.+711:

Jack is Back

Clarice,

Terrific encapsulation of the rope-a-dope Roberts pulled off. To bad others don't see what a fine caddy he is the way he tee's the ball up perfectly for everyone to hit:)

Now where have I read that "Pieces" before?

matt

get on the good foot, mel.....

Appalled

rse:

Part of that reaction comes from the idea that the political system is incapable of action, so we need the Supreme Court to solve our problems for us. While I prefer that to a longing for a Mussolini or a Franco or a Tito to solve our problems, it seems like much the same kind of desire.

Government is not a game of rock, paper, scissors. Exercise yer free speech and exercise yer right to vote, but don't go blaming the courts.

Danube of Thought

"seems to affirm a virtually unlimited power to tax for any purpose"

I think that power has always been present.

Melinda Romanoff

matt-

I have no good feet anymore. Think Micklelson.

pagar

"I find myself reading more articles like"

Alice H, IMO, you may be better off. Panama has a lot going for it. Let me know if you want more info. _____56 using gmail.

Porchlight

Exercise yer free speech and exercise yer right to vote, but don't go blaming the courts.

No, just blame people like Appalled who helped vote in this monstrosity. ;)

But seriously. The country made a huge mistake electing Obama and yet nearly half of adults haven't figured that out yet despite the economy. There needs to be a more thorough understanding in order for the lesson to be fully learned. Pain is on the way, and no one can blame Bush for the horrid mess that is Obamacare. Obama and the Dems own it 100% now.

Ignatz

Like Mel, having slept on it I'm considerably more willing to give Roberts' the benefit of the doubt.This article by Sean Trende at RCP also helped.
Roberts did limit the commerce clause and did decide the necessary and proper question correctly and limited the amount of extortion toward the states the Feds can engage in. Having limited the commerce clause the mandate could no longer be criminalized or carry any penalty except a fine or tax if one didn't comply.
The question he was then presented with was strike down the whole thing or uphold it narrowly on taxation grounds and while I would prefer Madison's interpretation of the general welfare taxation power the fact is it hasn't held sway for a long time.
So, I believe Roberts considered it best to trade those three limitations for letting the political process decide the fate of Barrycare.I would prefer the whole thing be struck down but that itself is not without risks which I believe was one of Roberts' motivations. We believe we know Barry will not win in Nov but what if he does and retakes congress then or in 2014. Roberts' might at that point be looking at a new and improved Barrycare with a couple of new pinko justices and the commerce clause and necessary and proper unbound, and the states at the total mercy of the Feds.
I believe he thought it imperative to rule now, when he had a majority on those important issues, and I believe that is why he did the gymnastics of making it a non tax for one purpose and a tax for another. It's the only explanation I can come up with since if it were a tax it would have had to ripen for purposes of the Anti Injunction act a couple years down the road when that nightmare scenario of Barry in command might have appeared.
I think the strongest legal course was that of the dissent but I do think I understand what Roberts' did a little better, especially from a member of the Federalists.

Janet

The scarlet letter will follow him around for the rest of his miserable existence then.

No it won't....that is the problem. Does Sandy Berger have a "scarlet letter"?

Melinda Romanoff

Ig-

You need Jim Ryan's cherry from 11:33 last night. A very nice observation.

On to Al Green.

Porchlight

Thanks, Ignatz. That is very clearly expressed. You might also find the Randy Barnett piece that TM linked in the post to be useful.

Danube of Thought

What happened yesterday should forever be borne in mind by anyone who thinks you can predict an appellate outcome by the questions from the bench.

It also drives home forcefully the fact that not only can you not tell how a constitutional issue will be decided by reading the constitution, you can't tell by reading the case law, either.

The Court can do whatever it wants to do. No one should think that's a good thing.

Ignatz

Well, I'm sure I just restated what clarice wrote only more poorly since I haven't read her Pieces yet, and to be perfectly honest bgates made a similar reversal yesterday much earlier than I did, so the only claim I can make is to once again being slow on the uptake.
But, having seen the light I think I'll reward myself with a pre war model 70 Winchester in about four hours. As long as no other chump bids the price up. :)

Jim Ryan

To Jack and other 3D-Chess Theory espousers (not sure I'm one yet):

Should anyone who believes Roberts in fact is playing 3D chess support his impeachment? A justice is supposed to call 'em as he sees 'em, not play politics.

If I subscribe to the view that Roberts's decision is brilliant and cunning, I'm faced with having to support his impeachment. No?

Melinda Romanoff

Ig-

Jim Ryan wrote it up here.

Jim Ryan

Oh, by the way, all this is moot. The Dems don't have the dough for this. We're headed for a fiscal re-enforced concrete wall and impact comes long before Obamacare ruins this country.

Have a nice day.

rse

This passage is in honor of Jane and Janet and Tea Partiers everywhere. It's from a chapter called: Beyond Radical Individualism: The Role of Community and Power.

The paradigm evolved here sees a great deal of the explanation of human achievements--and what holds them back--on the collective level of historical and societal forces. Individuals do play a role, but within the context of their collectivities. These are pivotal even for those individuals who challenge their collectivities and work together to change their We-ness.

So to all the JOMers who challenge their collectivities, our thanks. I guess Holder and the Wise Latina think they are protecting theirs.

Our especial thanks though go out to everyone who seeks to "change their We-ness."

Well done. I cannot believe this is what is coming in under Positive School Climate and the actual definition of College and Career Ready.

Melinda Romanoff

Ig-

Set up the cans, I'll bring the lead.

[wipes chin]

rse

OK Melinda. Please fix what I did.

Jack is Back

Jim Ryan,

You mean finally having a justice decide to put the brakes on the very liberal use of the Commerce Clause is playing politics? It was the FDR court after 1937 through the Warren court and event the Rehnquist court that played politics by expanding the illegitimate use of the Commerce Clause.

I think this was an extremely well thought out decision by Roberts opposed to the 2,700 page tax raising statue posing as ObamaCare. Pelosi and Reid are too damn stupid to understand that their Congress got rolled.

Melinda Romanoff

First time for everything!

Clarice

Mickey Kaus agrees the danged thing can be repealed thru the same door it came in on--the reconciliation process since it is now officially a "tax".http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/29/yglesias-1-lizza-frum-0/

Ignatz

--It also drives home forcefully the fact that not only can you not tell how a constitutional issue will be decided by reading the constitution, you can't tell by reading the case law, either.

The Court can do whatever it wants to do. No one should think that's a good thing.--

The thing is, unlike yesterday I did recall a punitive measure being a tax this morning. In the case of excess benefits being paid to a director of a non profit, if he fails to pay the 25% tax on his excess benefits he is assessed a 200% tax on them. Now clearly it could be considered a fine or penalty but I have never disputed its classification as a tax before so I'm not so sure Roberts' hasn't followed the case law here, even if very narrowly.
The one place he really made sausage was having it both ways as first not a tax and then as one.

Jim Ryan

Jack, no, I mean by declaring the thing a tax - when he knows darn well it isn't - in order to sink Zero and Obamacare. It's that component of the 3D chess theory that would be impeachable.

How do you prove "he knew darn well it wasn't a tax"? Because he said it wasn't a tax in his opinion. He also said it was a tax in his opinion. Thin gruel, I know. But if you believe that this is what Roberts was doing, then you have to accept he abrogated his duty.

Jack is Back

Clarice,

The fact that David Frum doesn't think so makes more doable and probable than 10 seconds ago. Can't we revoke his visa or something?

Melinda Romanoff

Jim-

Or he flipped them a mobius coin. Just as in physics, mathematically speaking, the electron can have known mas, or known position, but not both at the same time.

Impeach over a definition? Wasn't that tried before, in a sense?

Melinda Romanoff

"mass"

Ooops.

Ignatz

Mel,
Thanks for directing me back to Jim's comment last night.
I agree with his #1 and #2 but don't see how in #3 a citizen challenging the tax would win in court since Roberts just wrote the decision saying the tax was A-OK and within Congress's power.
And I don't think Roberts tortured reasoning regarding the tax-not-a-tax issue rises to the level of impeachment. If tortured logic were impeachable we wouldn't have any judges anywhere......hmmm, let me think about this.

centralcal

Hhhmmm:

Kathryn Jean Lopez ‏@kathrynlopez
hhs has some mysterious affordable care act announcement coming at 1:30 today.

Extraneus

Having limited the commerce clause the mandate could no longer be criminalized or carry any penalty except a fine or tax if one didn't comply.

What happens if you don't pay the fine or "tax"?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Amazon

  • Lee Child, Kindle short story
  • Lee Child
  • Gary Taubes

Traffic

Wilson/Plame