Good morrow, gentles! Verily, have you Heard the News? A Reagan-appointed Fifth Circuit Judge has handed out homework to a government lawyer, because he is so mad that Obama never passed Con Law. Marburby v. Madison! NYT v. Sullivan! Lemon v. Kurtzman! THREE PRONGS! Did NoObAma cheat on that too? Is his Harvard Law degree a forgery perpetrated by his known-forger illegal drunk-driving uncle? Has Joe Arpaio looked into that yet? PROBABLY! See, Obama declined to be on his oratorical game for one second once yesterday, and said that it would be "unprecedented" for the Supreme Court to overturn a law passed by a strong, democratically elected majority, and then everyone fainted because he had "threatened" the Supreme Court with politics, by mentioning them. And then this wackadoo judge interrupted the government lawyer in a fucking NOTHER Affordable Care Act case, a DIFFERENT one, this one heard by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, and was all SHUT YER TRAP AND LISTEN MISSY, AND TURN ME IN THREE SINGLE-SPACED PAGES BY THURSDAY and he wasn't even kidding.
Yeah, but that stuff's all under the taxing power, not the commerce clause.
Had Congress decided to call the penalty a tax instead, there'd be no case. They chose to call it a penalty because tax is now a four-letter word among the braindead majority in this country. Fuck you very much, Ronald Reagan, and all your inbred political offspring.
As Ginsberg pointed out, nobody in the Court, including the challengers, was for a moment suggesting that an <em>actual</em> government takeover of healthcare would be in any way unconstitutional. It&#039;s precisely because that&#039;s not what ACA is that there&#039;s an argument to be had, which, as Ginsberg also pointed out, is actually entirely antithetical to the ideology the challengers advance.
That was the way that part of the argument seemed to be going. Stare decisis (wherein there&#039;s ample precedent that the Court considers whether a provision not deemed a tax by Congress has sufficient indicia of a tax to be considered such in a tax power analysis regardless of the name) don&#039;t mean shit cuz the Chief Justice is a lying cunt.
Courts aren&#039;t political? How do you interrupt an oral argument to request that an attorney respond to a public comment made by the President? Remind me again, how many armed divisions does the 5th Circuit command?
Say what you will, but the Affordable Care Act has been a real job creator. Jobs for lawyers. Jobs for judges. Jobs for pundits. Jobs for people how make Obama-as-Hitler posters. Even jobs as wonkette commenters. (Um, Becca ... we will get paid someday, right?)
And don&#039;t get me started about how John Roberts swore in &quot;President&quot; Obama without checking his ID. You need ID to get on a plane. You need ID cash a check. You need ID to exercise your constitutional right to vote. So you should need ID to be sworn in as POTUS. What a fuck-up.
Let me remedy that:
<blockquote>Albert, you made the best Bond movies. We miss you.</blockquote>
No, the Court specifically said that Congress exceeded its authority under the commerce clause when it passed the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990.
Tito?
They put up a fence.
Someone has been watching waaaaay too much Judge Judy. She just kind of makes up shit as she goes along too. Then screams at everyone.
Yeah, but that stuff&#039;s all under the taxing power, not the commerce clause.
Had Congress decided to call the penalty a tax instead, there&#039;d be no case. They chose to call it a penalty because tax is now a four-letter word among the braindead majority in this country. Fuck you very much, Ronald Reagan, and all your inbred political offspring.
As Ginsberg pointed out, nobody in the Court, including the challengers, was for a moment suggesting that an <em>actual</em> government takeover of healthcare would be in any way unconstitutional. It&#039;s precisely because that&#039;s not what ACA is that there&#039;s an argument to be had, which, as Ginsberg also pointed out, is actually entirely antithetical to the ideology the challengers advance.
In! Lagavulin, please. Talisker would also be acceptable, or Laphroiag but only if it&#039;s really old (had some of the 30-year-old once, yum!).
That was the way that part of the argument seemed to be going. Stare decisis (wherein there&#039;s ample precedent that the Court considers whether a provision not deemed a tax by Congress has sufficient indicia of a tax to be considered such in a tax power analysis regardless of the name) don&#039;t mean shit cuz the Chief Justice is a lying cunt.
Make sure it&#039;s at least 3 pages, single-spaced.
I don&#039;t think any amount of coffee is capable of robbing you of enough sanity to make this make sense.
Order in the court!
I&#039;ll have a turkey sandwich!
Courts aren&#039;t political? How do you interrupt an oral argument to request that an attorney respond to a public comment made by the President? Remind me again, how many armed divisions does the 5th Circuit command?
United States v. Lopez (1995)
You just brought logic to an ideology fight.
Say what you will, but the Affordable Care Act has been a real job creator. Jobs for lawyers. Jobs for judges. Jobs for pundits. Jobs for people how make Obama-as-Hitler posters. Even jobs as wonkette commenters. (Um, Becca ... we will get paid someday, right?)
And don&#039;t get me started about how John Roberts swore in &quot;President&quot; Obama without checking his ID. You need ID to get on a plane. You need ID cash a check. You need ID to exercise your constitutional right to vote. So you should need ID to be sworn in as POTUS. What a fuck-up.