The American Spectator : Let It Be (Political)

Text Size

Let It Be (Political)

By Ross Kaminsky on 3.30.12 @ 6:10AM

Obamacare, politics, and the modern Supreme Court.

And in my hour of darkness
She is standing right in front of me
Speaking words of wisdom, let it be

Democratic political strategist and organizer Robert Creamer claims that overturning Obamacare would make the Supreme Court the “most activist [and] partisan in modern history.”

Radical leftist MSNBC host Rachel Maddow says that the Obamacare decision “may as much be a referendum on the Supreme Court and whether or not the Roberts court is so conservatively politicized that it will make a decision to hurt the President, rather than sticking closely to precedent here.”

In short, supporters of President Obama and his de facto nationalization of the health insurance industry are setting the table to blame the impending destruction of Obamacare, or at least its core “individual mandate” provision, on politics.

The Court’s decision may indeed be political, but not in the way the left suggests.

The most reasonable claim of Court partisanship is against Elena Kagan who should have recused herself from this case due for involvement in the Obama administration’s legal defense strategy for the law, and for her e-mailed glee at the law’s passage. In any case, the idea that conservative judges appointed by prior presidents would rule based on partisan politics is liberal paranoia.

But if Democrats want to say the decision is partisan politics, I say — quoting another famous leftist — Let It Be.

Let the constitution at long last return to speaking words of wisdom to the “broken hearted people” of America suffering under the Obama regime’s many petty tyrannies.

The Obamacare Supreme Court decision will probably be a 5-4 vote, at least on the issue of the mandate that people, as a condition of living in America, must purchase health insurance or pay a penalty.

How can it be that four black-robed judges can say with a straight face that such a law is constitutional?

It can be because the Court, while to some degree living in its own cloistered world, is also a reflection of the trend of the nation, a trend that until the rise of the Tea Party movement was distinctly in a Wilsonian direction. Woodrow Wilson, our first fully “progressive” president, called the United States Constitution “political witchcraft” and said that its meaning should be “one thing in one age, another in another.” For Progressives, the rule book should be re-written whenever those who want to grow government find the game of politics not going their way.

Wilson, at least, was an intellectual; he understood what he was saying and why he was saying it. But his legacy became ever more anti-intellectual as it ran through FDR, LBJ, and Barack Obama, with a pinnacle of brain-dead anti-constitutionalism being reached in the person of Nancy Pelosi. When asked in 2009 by a reporter for CNS news “Where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?” Pelosi famously responded “Are you serious?” Her spokesman reiterated the then-Speaker of the House’s contempt for our Founding documents: “You can put this on the record. That is not a serious question. “

The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling will be political to the extent that Americans have too often voted for presidents and members of Congress — mostly, but not exclusively Democrats — whose relationship to the Constitution ranges from ignorance to contempt, their oaths of office soon forgotten as their words waft away in the self-important breeze of their colleagues’ hot air.

Thanks to Democrats’ massive overreach with Obamacare, Americans are being reminded that there is a Constitution, and that it matters as something more than an item on an 8th grade civics class exam — to be forgotten, like most politicians’ oaths, right after the test.

Is it not remarkable that there are polls being done (such as by Reason, The Hill, and Gallup) asking Americans whether they consider the Obamacare mandate to be constitutional? Is there not a hint of a new American awakening in the survey results, with the Reason poll finding twice as many Americans believing the mandate unconstitutional as believe it permissible? For those who cry, “But Reason is a libertarian organization; of course their poll reaches that result,” I point to Gallup’s even more dramatic results: 72 percent of those surveyed believed the mandate is unconstitutional, to only 20 percent who believe it is permitted under our Founding law. In the Gallup survey, even a majority of Democrats believe the mandate is unconstitutional.

Page: 1 2 3 >

About the Author

Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (281) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Darin| 3.30.12 @ 7:25AM

Why is there so little outcry about Justice Kagan not recusing herself? She argued in support of the law before she joined the Supreme Court. By definition, she has a significant conflict of interest. The media has screamed bloody murder in the past when conservative justices had conflicts of interest of far less substance.

Jack in Wi.| 3.30.12 @ 7:39AM

The Surpreme Court has been out of control since the 30's at least. I don't place a lot of hope in that direction. Any court that can mandate that a baby in the womb isn't human and that little or nothing can be done legislatively by either the federal government or the states to limit this horrible practice, is nothing but a tyranny. The whole question of Obamacare will probably come down to what Anthony Kennedy had for breakfast on the day the vote is taken.

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 11:00AM

Naming a Corporation a person with rights is another bit of tyranny of the ruling class, is it not?

Ross Kaminsky | 3.30.12 @ 11:22AM

Again, Purp, just for the sake of argument, if you and I ran the world by committee, would you agree to block all union participation in electoral politics if I agreed to block corporate participation?

(Of course both of these are violations of the First Amendment, but I just want to see if you're an honest misguided liberal or a dishonest misguided liberal.)

Drunken Sailor| 3.30.12 @ 1:22PM

Ross, it's the latter and don't be surprised if he doesn't have the cajones to anwer you on this point.

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 2:56PM

You are drunk as usual - and wrong. Boy do I have the cajones ... huge, spectacular even --- do you want some?

Drunken Sailor| 3.30.12 @ 3:13PM

Pass thanks, and I would suggest you see a doctor. Elephantitis of the testicals is dangerous.

That or your glasses need a new RX.

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 5:05PM

Spelled testicles, in case you spelling in school. Amazing how obsessed you are with my testicles.

Drunken Sailor| 3.30.12 @ 6:43PM

And it should be "in case you missed spelling in School". Guess you missed that in English class.

JmsA| 3.30.12 @ 7:28PM

Purp, cajones means trunks. Coj0nes is your intended meaning, I believe. Just thought you'd like to know.

spike59| 4.2.12 @ 7:50AM

what's NOT amazing is the fact that you chickened out of answering Ross...what's the matter, still waiting for someone on Kos or PuffHo to hand you the appropriate talking ponit?

Cynicon Implant| 3.30.12 @ 1:24PM

He's not going to answer you, Ross. Liberals aren't interested in balance and logic.

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 2:55PM

You are wrong on all accounts.

idalily| 3.31.12 @ 12:52AM

Then answer Ross's question. Oh, wait. That's right. You don't answer questions, do you?

What's the moral justification for taking my hard earned money against my consent and giving it to someone else? No, you still haven't answered that question.

Aside to Ross: give it up, dude. Purp CAN'T answer your question because he doesn't have answers. All he has are progressive cliches and talking points that he repeats like a parrot.

Dmac | 3.30.12 @ 2:49PM

Actually Ross,
There are sound arguments that both corporations, unions and the huge somes of money they use to buy influnece during an election, and thats what it really is, an attempt to buy influnece, deny the individual voter his right to free speech. Since neither unions nor corporations can register to vote any good lawyer should be able to argue the case and win it. Especially if our Congress were to ever pass a law saying campaing contributions fo any federal positions(House or Senate) can only be made by a REGISTERED voter that has a residence(preffrably a homestead) in the district of the candidate they are contributing to.
No Candidate should take money from outside his district and we should make that the law of the land. Only registered voters should be allowed to make a campaign contributuon and that should be the law as well. Anything else is buying or selling influence.

Ross Kaminsky | 3.30.12 @ 10:11PM

dmac,

separate from the various campaign finance issues, I would suggest to you that the problem is not really that pe0ple are trying to buy influence. It's that there is influence to buy. If government were limited to its constitutional authorities, there would be precious little worth lobbying for, other than outside the defense budget I guess.

idalily| 3.31.12 @ 12:53AM

THIS. Thank you, Ross, for such a concise and perfect explanation. Not that it will matter to progressives.

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 2:54PM

Since we have the right to redress our government for grievances, no I do not agree. That is not the same as saying an organization - Any organization is a person.

Drunken Sailor| 3.30.12 @ 3:21PM

So you agree that if a corporation should not be deemed a person than neither should a union?

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 5:06PM

Yes.

Drunken Sailor| 3.30.12 @ 6:44PM

Never thought I would say this but on that we agree. Now I have to go take a shower.

Bill| 4.2.12 @ 2:28PM

We have the right "to petition the government for redress of grievances," not to redress the government.

Bill| 4.2.12 @ 2:29PM

ANY organization is NOT a person. Corporations are persons; all other organizations consist of the people who run them.

Pete| 3.30.12 @ 8:41PM

I would make this agreement in a heart beat. This would have two great effects. It would strengthen all small businesses who compete with the crony corporations, and it would destroy the unions, because without the Democrats in their hip pocket, they could not even exists.

Stan REdmond| 3.31.12 @ 12:05AM

Unions are made of people too. Political parties are people too. Corporations are people too. They are all entitled to collectively redress grievences. Nowhere in the 1st amendment does it say "unless there are 2 or more people."

Bill| 4.3.12 @ 11:33AM

Yeah, but it DOES say that it's the right to petition THE GOVERNMENT that is the protected right.

W| 3.30.12 @ 11:39AM

Purp
Another display of your ignorance. Corporations have been considered "persons" under our laws by statute.

What is your point? You want to make some point about abortions and corporations? Can't wait to hear it.

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 1:19PM

The legal view of corporations as persons occurred in the late 1800's by the mistake of a Supreme Court Clerks. In the 1886 case Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific, the Supreme Court directed the lawyers that they were of the opinion that the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause guarantees constitutional protections to corporations in addition to natural persons. This was NOT a ruling, but has been treated as precedent. - Calvert, Clay (2006). "Freedom of Speech Extended to Corporations". In Finkelman, Paul. Encyclopedia of American civil liberties, Volume 1. CRC Press. p. 650. ISBN 978-0-415-94342-0.
That's where it all started and it has never been corrected. That doesn't make it law.

chuck| 3.30.12 @ 1:35PM

Don't you have an answer for Ross, oh gutless wonder?

W| 3.30.12 @ 2:51PM

Is this lefty street law, Purp? What law school did you graduate from?
P.S. Wikipidia is not a legal cite to the courts.

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 3:06PM

Well oh brilliant one, give us citations... I presume you have access to Lexus ?

Resist We Much! | 3.30.12 @ 6:27PM

Actually, it precedes Santa Clara. See Dartmouth Trustees.

From the Desk of Media Matters| 3.30.12 @ 11:53AM

Pierre-Jacqueline Putz-Femme Maddow-Moscow Schultz Pelosi,

Stop embarrassing us.

Stop discrediting us.

Even our other bottom rung MM mindless retarded parrots know a corporation cannot vote as a person can.

Even our other bottom rung MM mindlesss retarded parrots know a corporation is an organized group of persons who do not sacrifice their freedom of speech when they organize.

Even our other bottom rung MM mindless retarded parrots know you are a stupid lying idiot.

Stop discrediting us.

Stop embarrassing us.

- MM staff

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 1:20PM

Again - tired, lame, overused tactic.

chuck| 3.30.12 @ 1:34PM

Why didn't you answer Ross?

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 3:07PM

I did, I do ... so there.

Simon Templar| 3.30.12 @ 4:53PM

Perpetrator,

We are still waiting for your answer.............

Perhaps you would rather talk about your genitals, instead.

From the Desk of Media Matters| 3.30.12 @ 8:00PM

Pierre-Maddow Jacqueline-Moscow Femme-Schultz Putz-Pelosi,

Even our bottom rung MM mindless retarded parrots who don't want to be associated with you the stupid lying deviant perverted degenerate depraved idiot know the truth and reality will never get old.

Even our other bottom rung MM mindless retarded parrots are sick and tired of you the idiot with your lame overused stupid lies.

Even our other bottom rung MM mindless retarded parrots are sick and tired of you the idiot with your lame overused deviant perverted degenerate depraved nonsense.

Stop embarrassing us you stupid lying deviant perverted degenerate depraved idiot.

- MM staff

JoshInHB| 4.1.12 @ 4:02AM

Naming a Corporation a person with rights is another bit of tyranny of the ruling class, is it not?

I'm assuming that this is a veiled reference to the Citizens United ruling.

The first amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Doesn't mention persons at all.

Moe Blotz| 3.30.12 @ 7:39AM

Did you not follow the recusal suggestion debate in the media, including this forum? The Liberals and Progressives countered that ifinfact Justice Kagan should recuse, then Justice Thomas should as well. The NFM ran with that one and the conservative voices let it be.

old white guy| 3.30.12 @ 8:41AM

darin, you are right. it is a bloody joke that this intellectual midget, socialist pawn can have a vote on this. she is on record as having supported it before she was appointed. that should be enough to force her to recuse herself.

JP| 3.30.12 @ 9:00AM

The reason is simple - only the Senate can intervene. And the Senate is run by Harry Reid.

DTOM| 3.30.12 @ 12:11PM

Articles of Impeachment of SCJ Kagan in the House for her failure to recuse would be a perfect brushback pitch against a batter who has crowded plate so much, it's behind her. Let Harry Reid explain why the Democrats can't convict for such a blatant, obvious failure to follow her oath of office. If nothing else, the other SCJ's would think twice about losing their copies of the Constitution!

SCJ Ginsburg didn't do much to defend the Constitution and uphold her oath of office in Egypt either.

The House could clearly bring this conversation to head if it had the intestinal fortitude. When did the Boehner spine-ectomy occur?

Don't Tread On Me...

PS And if SC Thomas needs to recuse himself from all cases because of his wife's political activity, does that mean that Bill Clinton is the SecState, not Hillary?

Dmac | 3.30.12 @ 2:51PM

the nutless members of the Senate Judiciary Committe wouldn't try to impeach a judge if he raped a 4 year old on national TV.
The Senate Judiciary Committe is an abysmal failure as are it's members.

Mike Hawk| 3.30.12 @ 9:46AM

More than that, Kegan was solicitor general and helped prepare the lame defense the current SG stumbled and fumbled over so badly the last few days. She should have recused herself by any ethical standard, but who in the Liberal ranks believes in ethics these days. As for Justice Thomas, that was a gossamer straw man cover for the Libs to start with. He had no connection to the case to require recusal. The Liberals live in abject fear of Justice Thomas' intellect.

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 11:01AM

Intellect? That Uncle Tom with a white wife is riding high on all your ignorance.

W| 3.30.12 @ 11:46AM

Showing your racism, Purp. In addition to your usual ignorance.

DTOM| 3.30.12 @ 12:13PM

W - Right on.

Remember the rule is: "First guy to mention race in any argument is the racist!!!"

Imagine if the lefties could not mention race!
They'd lose 75% of their talking points.

Long live the rule!

Don't Tread On Me

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 1:22PM

So what? you need some new words.

Al Adab| 3.30.12 @ 5:52PM

DTOM is correct on the racist point. Are not those the racists who view every issue through that particular lens or prism?

Indy| 3.30.12 @ 12:41PM

"Uncle Tom" The Left claims to stand for diversity but when you don't support the stereotype, you are labeled. How tolerant you are, Purp, you just showed your true colors. You should read more Thomas Sowell, Walter E. Williams and Star Parker.

"These tempests obscure a larger truth about Thomas: that this year has also been, for him, a moment of triumph. In several of the most important areas of constitutional law, Thomas has emerged as an intellectual leader of the Supreme Court. Since the arrival of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., in 2005, and Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., in 2006, the Court has moved to the right when it comes to the free-speech rights of corporations, the rights of gun owners, and, potentially, the powers of the federal government; in each of these areas, the majority has followed where Thomas has been leading for a decade or more. Rarely has a Supreme Court Justice enjoyed such broad or significant vindication."

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 1:23PM

I just threw up in my mouth. He's a disgusting example of a Supreme Court Justice that is impartial and fair - he's not.

Indy| 3.30.12 @ 1:53PM

Impartial and fair, like the 4 liberals on the Court?

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 3:16PM

Oh, nah, nah .. so there.

Indy| 3.30.12 @ 2:16PM

Here’s your “impartial and fair” Justice or should we say cheerleader? Below is the excerpt from Attorney Althouse’s post

UPDATE 1: Paul Clement will attack the expansion of Medicaid. He's talking about whether it's "coercive," because if it is, it won't fit the Spending Power. Justice Kagan wants to know why a "big gift from the Federal Government" is coercion. "The Federal Government is here saying, we are giving you a boatload of money." Page 3. Just a big old boatload of money is coercive, Clement says confidently. But the actual bill has a "very big condition." Kagan interrupts, trying to make her point that a big boatload of money is not coercive. What if someone offered you a job and would pay you $10 million a year. Of course, you say yes, but you're not coerced are you? Clement lays down one of the cleverest teasers I have ever heard: "Well, I guess I would want to know where the money came from."

"Wow. Wow." says Kagan. Has a Supreme Court ever said "Wow. Wow" before? She can't believe you'd do anything other than snap up that money. "I'm offering you $10 million a year to come work for me, and you are saying that this is anything but a great choice?"

Clement springs his trap: "Sure, if I told you, actually, it came from my own bank account."

Kagan resists. Yes, it's tax money, but the tax money the federal government rakes in is from the taxpayers "acting as" U.S. citizens. It's not the state's money. Their money is the money that's collected from citizens "acting as" citizens of a particular state. Clement re-grounds us "in the real world." People only have so much money, and the more the feds drain out of the people, the less there is for the states to tap into. The point is this "boatload of money" isn't free money. It's money that was taken from the people of the state and then offered back to the state governments, who might have liked to take money directly from their citizens, available to be used for whatever purposes the states have in mind, and not the things the federal government tells them to do.

The rest of her work is interesting to read…
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2.....-this.html

MikeG| 3.30.12 @ 4:31PM

What was in your mouth Purpie?

Teaghan| 3.30.12 @ 1:28PM

Yup! How DARE Thomas stray from the democrat plantation! The GAUL of him to have worked his way up on his own and be a conservative!!! Oh the shame!

Stan REdmond| 3.31.12 @ 12:27AM

Well if anyone who supports and defends the constitution is an "Uncle Tom" then I guess I'm an Uncle Tom.

Bob K.| 3.30.12 @ 6:09PM

Why, before the hearing started, didn't one of the Lawyers representing the Appellants ask Kagan to disqualify herself. That is how it is done in the lower courts.

No guts -- no glory!

Alan Brooks| 3.31.12 @ 2:06AM

what is AS worried about? you'll gut Obamacare and possibly medicaid.

Alan Brooks| 3.31.12 @ 2:14AM

Purp.
let them run their rightwing statist next autumn, that's the what they want; if it has to be a statist, they want it to be their OWN.
Let them waste their time with corporations as persons, and conservatives who don't conserve.

Clint| 3.30.12 @ 7:42AM

Obama Orchestrated Obamacare, While Romney Orchestrated Romneycare.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To An Open Convention.

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.30.12 @ 8:30AM

Once again - PROOF - that even a Broken Clock is right, twice a day.

The 1st sentence.

Not the Stupid one.

Mike Hawk| 3.30.12 @ 10:36AM

The clock isn't just broken, it only has 11 hours showing on it's face.

Alan Brooks| 3.31.12 @ 2:18AM

Romney was governor of Taxachusetts. So Reaganism isn't dead, its just rotted beyond recognition?

"The Myth Must Go On."

Clint| 3.30.12 @ 8:38AM

Forhorn Leghorn Pennell, "I say, boy, pay attention when I’m talkin’ to ya, boy,"

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.30.12 @ 8:57AM

And I'm saying: If there are any Psychiatric Professors, out there, looking for the perfect Subject Matter for any Dissertation that you might be pondering? PLEASE. Look no further than our good friend, and horribly Brain Cell outmatched - Clint. You won't be disappointed.

Can you say - PUBLISHED?

Clint| 3.30.12 @ 9:20AM

Foghorn Leghorn Pennell,
" Now who’s, I say who’s responsible for this unwarranted attack on my person!"

Mike Hawk| 3.30.12 @ 9:53AM

You Paulistinians love to attack but can't take a criticism. Only Liberals are worse. BTW, I guess you are going to support Bob (with one 'o' Casey) again now that Sam Rohrer has been endorsed by Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain and Rick Santorum. Maybe you prefer Welsh, the RINO.

Clint| 3.31.12 @ 9:24AM

Asked & Answered Serial Sociopathic Smear Bund RINO-CINO Liar, Little Micky Hawklette.

I Never Voted For Junior Casey & Won't This Time Either.

Welsh Is An Asshole, Like You Hawk.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To An Open Convention.

spike59| 4.2.12 @ 7:53AM

...which DrEarmark, the Tinfoil Hat Tinhorn, will be watching from the sofa in the doublewide

Occam's Tool| 3.30.12 @ 11:24AM

TLP: the stupid psychopath is all too common in the literature. Clint is no different from those I had to medicate on Alabama's Death Row. Boring.

irish19| 3.30.12 @ 1:10PM

Hey OT, where you been hiding?

Clint| 3.31.12 @ 9:27AM

Tool Job's The Israel Firster Smear Bund RINO-CINO,Who Said He'll Vote For The RINO-CINO Frontman, Mittens Romney.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To An Open Convention.

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.30.12 @ 8:48AM

Actually, if we follow the "Thought Process" of the Left, couldn't Congress use the Commerce Clause to declare that: By the Supreme Court NOT Participating in an Activity - The Granting of Obamacare - it is, in fact - engaging in Commerce by stopping something COMMERCIAL from taking place.

Can they not then use their Power to Strip the Supreme Court of their Jurisdiction in this matter, and slap the Conservative Justices with a RICO Charge or Collusion?

I just wanted to get that out there, before Thomas Friedman, or always wrong - Krugman - did.

I said it, yesterday, and I'll say it, again: We've got 4 Supreme Court Justices who believe that Our Founding Fathers, and the Founding Documents that they Created for us, are GOD'S gift to, not only us, but to the whole world.

And, we've got 4 other Justices who think that THE WRONG GUYS won the Cold War.

And, 1 Guy who thinks that both sides are right. And both sides are wrong.

The Mayan Calender looks more and more Prescient, every day.

Doesn't it?

JP| 3.30.12 @ 9:12AM

Congress can say what it wants. But the Supreme Court is an equal to Congress. The Senate could try to remove the jurisdiction I suppose; but they chance has come and gone. Congress cannot do that ex post facto.

You do bring up an interesting point. A point made by a small minority of libertarian legal experts. They maintan that the "tradition" of judicial review is just that - a tradition. Justice Marshall's famous opinion (Marybury v Madison) set a precedent. But that precedent cannot be found anywhere in our Constitution. In other words, the Senate ultimately sets the jurisdiction for the Courts. And while the Senate must abide by the Courts rulings, it can always remove areas of our laws where the Courts can operate.

Gary B| 3.30.12 @ 9:28AM

Timothy, you're right. Half the court makes decisions that would outrage anyone with a basic sense of fairness, you know, like a six-grader.

The Supreme Court has turned itself into a three-ring circus and the stakes couldn't be higher.

Gary B| 3.30.12 @ 9:22AM

Mr. Kaminsky said, "How can it be that four black-robed judges can say with a straight face that such a law is constitutional?"

I say, "Are you kidding? It happens all the time."

It's frustrating in the extreme that the justices in particular and all judges in general take an oath to uphold the Constitution, yet we all sit, biting our nails, hoping beyond hope that they'll actually do that.

If there was ever a blatantly unconstitional law, the individual mandate is it, yet we're all gathered around taking odds on whether or not they'll actually strike it down. What the hell is that?

Time after time we work-a-day, law-abiding taxpayers sit, hoping and praying the Supreme Court won't twist logic and the English launguage beyond recognition and turn society upside down one more time.

And, isn't this judicial uncertainty what motivated Newt to say what he did about impeaching judges? Rogue judges are turning our society into a futuristic Orwellian hell before our very eyes yet Newt was the only one to even mention it.

Ross Kaminsky | 3.30.12 @ 10:07AM

Gary, I wasn't actually asking how it can happen. Obviously I know it happens all the time. It was intended as a bigger question: How did we get to a point where four out of nine judges on our highest court could support an obviously unconstitutional law? And then I proceed to talk about how we got there.

The Court routinely puts out terrible decisions, often 5-4, such as with Justice Kennedy's unforgivable ruling in Kelo. Perhaps he can redeem himself a bit in this case.

Gary B| 3.30.12 @ 10:24AM

I stand corrected. I was headed in the same direction: How the heck did we get here? And, of course, the greater question is... How do we get out of this? Newt had some ideas about it. If we're lucky, we Americans will become angry enough to run with them. In the meantime, we await game-changing decisions that appear to hinge on coin flipping. What a mess...

Ross Kaminsky | 3.30.12 @ 10:28AM

Gary, part of my point when I say let it be political is that this decision will remind voters that elections matter. Especially with Ginsburg being so old, there's a decent chance of a Court vacancy in the next presidential term. Wouldn't it be great to replace the most leftist member of the Court with a non-leftist???

Gary B| 3.30.12 @ 10:37AM

Yes, it sure would. Nominating justices to the court is one of the most far-reaching decisions a president can make. Too bad it's not brought up more often. An Obama second term would be an world class disaster in more ways than one can count, even without the unintended consequences.

Sue| 3.31.12 @ 12:23PM

Not related to the "court being liberal issue" but related to the very fact that everyone keeps arguing that young people need to be brought into the pool to make the pool operate: young people paying for elderly care and indigent care of those without insurance. Someone needs to stand up and say that the young people and all producers are already paying through the Medicare tax and taxes for Medicaid. Why the politicians and judges refuse to acknowledge this, I've completely in the dark. Why didn't they just propose to raise the medicare tax? That wouldn't give them control of a demand economy where the demand is going through the roof with 77M baby boomers drawing on Medicare.

Occam's Tool| 3.30.12 @ 11:26AM

Ross: Again, a good point why it needs to be a Republican President nominating people to the Supreme Court in the next term. Breyer, Kennedy, and Scalia are all in their 70s, Ginsberg is one foot in grave, one foot on banana peel.

If Romney is selected, to stay home is a vote for Obama. A vote for Obama is a vote to make the Supreme Court Leftist for the next 20 years.

DTOM| 3.30.12 @ 12:20PM

I won't refuse to vote for Romney. I didn't refuse to vote for either Bush, or for Bob Dole, or for McCain. 12 years of Bushes was pretty nauseating, admit it! 8 years of Clinton was even more nauseating. 3.5 years of Obama has been not nauseating, it has been metastasizing!

Yeah if I have to, I'll vote for Mr. RomneyCare, Mr. CapandTrade, Mr. I know a lot of race car owners and sports teams owners so I'm a regular guy. But don't think for a minute that I'm gonna like it.

You stupid establishment Republicans are destroying this country with your "go along, get along behavior!"

Yeah, I'm talkin' to you Paul Ryan!!

Yeah, I'm talkin' to you, Marco Rubio!!

Do NOT Tread On Me!!

Al Adab| 3.30.12 @ 2:28PM

O/T:
Here we have a bit of delicious irony. How might The Left, having used to court to implement its agenda for decades, respond should somehow this court reject their great socialist plan? Would they rail against the obstructionist Judges, or the old whit males, etc?

The Court most likely will fashion some sort of non-decision and perhaps invent new law as it does so. They could decide for example to leave it to the legislature to refine their intent. How the 25 or so states involved might react is another question. "May you live in interesting times". I yearn for calm and quiet. Alas.

David Harris| 4.15.12 @ 1:18AM

"Ginsberg is one foot in grave, one foot on banana peel."

And someone needs to nudge her

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.30.12 @ 9:26AM

"..........A more perfect Union".

Many of the guys who worked on our constitution had previously structured the "Articles of Confederation".

Those didn't work so well.

They tried again, with enough give to allow the constitution to evolve...through ammendments by a super majority of citizens.

Folks, we can no longer "delegate" our defense of freedom. Unless we are very fortunate, there is going to be a LOT of blood in our streets.
The vehicle we have today to avoid too much is our Tea Parties.
Get involved.

Gary B| 3.30.12 @ 9:30AM

Good advice...

Trinacria| 3.30.12 @ 8:45PM

Trouble is, we've already reached the point of no return - when the majority has no skin in the game, they can vote themselves favors that are paid for by the minority who do. Rome, fourth century AD; that's exactly where we are in the life cycle of this formerly great empire. All that's left is to manage the decline as painlessly as possible...

Dmac | 3.30.12 @ 10:10AM

I agree with Ken(Old Texan) and being that I am also a Texan I hope that Ken and I are not alone in what we are feeling, that our freedom and that of our children and grandchildren is at risk. Add to that the news today that homeland security has purchased 450 million rounds of 40 caliber hollow point rounds I think all of us should be concerned about the direction of the country.

Gary B| 3.30.12 @ 10:31AM

Yea, I read that, too. It looks like our rulers know they've backed working Americans into a corner and they're preparing to defend themselves.

Do you think the rules of engagement will be as generous to American dissenters as they are to citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan? The stakes are a lot higher for them, so, no, I don't think so.

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.30.12 @ 10:41AM

Dmac
The only reason there IS a Texas, is that the Mexican government broke the contract they had made with the Anglo settlers they had invited into the area to fight the Commanches.

Texans don't like it when the government breaks a contract...as in "constitution".

We STILL remember the Alamo, and with our stout Governor we just might choose not to comply...as a whole State.
Who was it who said..."make the law but who you gonna get to enforce it?"

The book you gotta' read: wwwamericaalonesaidno.com (completing "Texas Said NO!")

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.30.12 @ 10:46AM

OOPS! I missed the dot.
www.americaalonesaidno.com

Gary B| 3.30.12 @ 10:50AM

Ken, I believe our respective governors - the more courageous ones anyway - will be our last line of defense. If the governors of several states joined in opposition to the next outrage out of DC, they may actually back down. I'm not sure the DC ruling class is quite prepared to deal with that, especially if it's done sooner than later.

I was encouraged to see 26 states join in the Obamacare lawsuit. That's a start. Next up, protecting the border.

A good start will be tossing that Marxist liar out on his agitating ass in November.

irish19| 3.30.12 @ 1:18PM

"stout Governor "
Did you just call Rick Perry fat?

Dmac | 3.30.12 @ 3:00PM

We are already over due for the Govenors to have a Continental Congress. I can't help but wonder what they are waiting for? Perhaps it's like waiting for your local municipality to put up the stop sign at the intersection numerous deaths have already occured at. People will have to die before it gets their attention I guess. I wonder if the hsoe were on the other foot, how many Congressman or Senators, or even Govenors would have to die to get the attention of our leaders that bad things are on the horizon and they need to listen to "We the People".
I strongly belive that the border/oil and gas producing states should offer their papers of secession to the government. If Texas, Louisiana, Oklahome and New Mexico were to say we are leaving the United States could not survive economically. Nor could the citizens of the other states afford to pay to heat their homes with the oil or natural gas for what we would charge them.
I don't want to see the union dissolve, but i'd rather take my chances in a new country than live with the tyrrany the United States government is putting down on us. I certainly don't want to see the government tread on my childrens freedom and they are seriously infringing on thier right to life, liberyt and the pursuit of happiness with the debt that is being dumped on them.

Skippy| 3.30.12 @ 5:44PM

No, he said the Governor enjoys Guinness.

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 11:05AM

And the Occupy movement - I'll take the kids over the old fogies - they will create a bigger shift over the time the old ones don't have.

Mike Hawk| 3.30.12 @ 3:46PM

You are coming in late to the game, young skull full of mush. All us old farts were young once Purp. Even you will be an Old Fart one day. Trouble is wisdom will not come with age for you. You will remain stupid.

Miles Glorious| 3.30.12 @ 9:43AM

I am afraid we will soon be asked to cross the line.

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 11:05AM

Good Luck fighting the young people. They can outlast you.

From the Desk of Media Matters| 3.30.12 @ 12:08PM

Pierre Femme Maddow Pelosi,

Stop discrediting us you embarrassment to humanity.

Even our other bottom rung MM mindless retarded parrots know the occupiers are as much stupid lying idiots as you and will starve to death when they are held personally accountable.

Even our other bottom rung MM mindless retarded parrots know the least lazy of the stupid lying idiot occupiers will be not survive those who in self defense protect their property.

Because of the stupid lying idiocy of stupid lying idiots such as you even our other bottom rung MM mindless retarded parrots now know or are figuring out there is no such thing as any individual rights separate from property rights - that if an individual's property is not unalienable then neither is that individual's unalienable life or liberty or pursuit of happiness even when that pursuit leads to the sexually deviant perverted degenerate depravities you so enjoy.

Stop embarrassing humanity itself you stupid lying deviant perverted degenerate depraved idiot.

- MM staff

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 1:24PM

Old, lame, tired mechanism. Get a life.

Skippy| 3.30.12 @ 5:45PM

As soon as you punks learn how to shoot, call me.

spike59| 4.2.12 @ 7:56AM

if it isn't on Nintendo, they are lost

Mike Hawk| 3.30.12 @ 12:22PM

All us old farts were young once Purp. Even you will be an Old Fart one day. Trouble is wisdom will not come with age for you. You will remain stupid.

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 1:27PM

I'm far above and beyond where you are Mike. Why is it that you think I am young? Some people are born wise, others achieve wisdom over time. Apparently you are neither. Alienating the young is not a very wise move, since they will rule one day.

Teaghan| 3.30.12 @ 1:34PM

The fact that you are old and none the wiser makes you even more sad.

chuck| 3.30.12 @ 1:42PM

Old, bitter, and stupid.

Pathetic.

Mike Hawk| 3.30.12 @ 3:49PM

I think you are full of crap. As Mark Levin says, some are wise, some are otherwise. You have accrued no wisdom and you blather like a young skull full of mush. Thus the conclusion you are. Your naivete gives you away.

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 5:08PM

Can't you say anything other than put downs? It's quite unattractive - perhaps why you have no date Saturday night.

Skippy| 3.30.12 @ 5:46PM

Saturday night's date is March 31st.

Moe Blotz| 3.30.12 @ 6:07PM

Maybe Purp has not grown up yet, in spite of being older than you may think he is. If you are not liberal when you are young, you have no heart. If you are not conservative when you are older, you have no brain.

idalily| 3.31.12 @ 12:59AM

Purp, you are such a hypocrite. You accuse others of "put-downs" yet you just called a SCOTUS Justice an "Uncle Tom." Not only are you a hypocrite, you are also racist.

spike59| 4.2.12 @ 7:57AM

Purp is a hypocrite, a racist, a moron, and a Progressive...but i repeat myself

Dmac | 3.30.12 @ 3:12PM

The young people you speak of don't have the numbers you moron. By far the largest portion of the population is 50 or older. That older group is also the group that grew up hunting and fishing and we damn well know how to shoot. We know how to skin your gutless ass as well and leave you for the buzzards.
But lets be real purp. I hear some of what you are saying, and occasaionally I agree with some of it.
I agree that the greed on Wall Street is way out of hand, that our capitalism is too greed driven. Here's where you and I seem to differ though, you talk like it's only the Republicans that are corrupt and on the take. Well here's a flash, both parties are corrupt and on the take.
So lets say we were to have a nice little revolution and take both parties down.
Where do we start once that's done? Do we go socialist as you propse, or de we remain capitalist but with some restraint and regulation?
Socialism only works when you have no disastors, no hurricanes, no droughts, no crop failures. Once on eof those things occur in a socialist society you have to take money away from one of your sacred cows to overcome the disaster. Then what? socialist economies are too weak to make the money back so you have to borrow. Since you have no way to make more money you end up borrowing again to pay the interest and you end up in a nver ending cirlce of debt that you can not repay.
Who did you borrow the money from? The capitalist.
Thats why socialism fails, it does not have the economic strength to overcome a crisis. It is also depressing to the human phsychi. Humans have to have minds that are always moving forward, being creative, and socialism kills creativity.

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 5:12PM

For now - in 20 years, most of them will be dead.
Why the obsession with socialism? I never said I was for socialism, you make up arguments as you go. In a capitalist society you have to pay taxes for whatever you as a country decide to have. That's common sense. So what? The right always argues the extreme view of Socialism and Capitalism and neither is good enough by themselves - but the right-wing doesn't do nuance, does it. It's black or it's white. nothing in between - and that's where you lose.

Skippy| 3.30.12 @ 5:48PM

For instructions on losing, try fighting with old guys.
You'll learn quick!

Dmac | 3.30.12 @ 6:43PM

Okay Perp, you're right, we pay taxes for what we want, but a lot of what some people want isn't for the federal government to do, and whgen the federal government steps in and say's we'll take from others to pay for your stuff, thats socialism. We have way too much socialism going on. None of us should be subsidizing housing with our tax dollars the way we do. If you can't afford a home then move in with a family member. We darn sure shouldn't pay to support anyone who drops out of school.

Lee Ghume| 3.30.12 @ 9:30PM

Age and treachery will win out over youth and enthusiasm every time.

Trinacria| 3.30.12 @ 8:49PM

Really? Have you seen these scraggly, dope-smoking, granola eating, sandal wearing, effeminate mopes? Trust me, sport; I like my chances.

Von Mises Jr.| 3.30.12 @ 9:52AM

Paul Kengor's column today struggles to define socialist v. liberal v. progressive. This story by Ross illustrates that deception by the left.

Dr. Sowell writes in his new book "The Sowell Reader" that "Judicial Activism" has been morphed to mean the direct opposite. Initially it meant that the Judicial Branch interfered with the powers of the other Branches or in some form overstepped its jurisdiction.
Today, when a socialist/liberal/progressive talks of "Judicial Activism," it simply means how many times Judges overrule in their cases (good or bad).
So the Congress and Executive Branches now assault the Constitution and "Rule of Law," and if the Court reprimands them, it is called "activism." But it is actually activism if they do not uphold the Constitution and "Rule of Law."
Sorry commies, but we're on to you.

1ConservativeUSA| 3.30.12 @ 9:53AM

Well done, Mr. Kaminsky.

Ross Kaminsky | 3.30.12 @ 10:03AM

Thank you very much. Glad you liked it.

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.30.12 @ 10:19AM

Broken Clock.

Ross Kaminsky | 3.30.12 @ 10:29AM

Twice a day is about two times a day better than you seem to do, Timothy. By the way, where are your articles published?

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.30.12 @ 10:56AM

Ross, Tim is published right here. Timothy gave you a compliment. I shall too. Good article!

Now...if you want to compare publishing credits, have you ever written and had published a #1 bestselling full length book? I have.

I appreciate Tim's published thoughts here. I certainly don't agree with him on a lot of things, but he also saves me a lot of typing.

(Oh...and Jesus still loves you)

Ross Kaminsky | 3.30.12 @ 11:02AM

Ken, can you please send me a link to your book? rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com

I certainly didn't see Tim giving me a compliment. The other commenter did, and Tim scoffed.

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.31.12 @ 10:40AM

No Scoff. Jab. I gave you a little jab. A poke in the ribs, among friends.

Verily, Methinks thou doth protest, too much.

In other words: Stop being a baby.

And, like Ken says, I'm Published right here, like you. Except, I have LOTS of Columns, all over this site, 5 days a week, while you only get one, and it's usually just another re-hash of a Love Letter to Romney, that you wrote the week before, and the week before that, and the week before that.

Now, THAT was a Scoff.

Trinacria| 3.30.12 @ 8:53PM

Yeah, but did you ever get a gold star? I did (Oakmont elementary school-wide spelling bee). I don't mean to brag or anything, but I'm kind of a big deal...

1ConservativeUSA| 3.30.12 @ 10:05AM

Despite the Obama Congress bastardly and cowardly passing Obamacare, despite what the Supreme Court now decides, this country's direction will always be decided by We The People.

Do not forget the November 2010 elections. After Obama's Congress acted, We The People spoke to repudiate it. We The People understood we were not being represented, so we changed the representatives.

So, the only real question remains, as it will always remain: What kind of country do We The People want? We'll see on November 6, 2012.

In the meantime folks, please, let's be good to one another. It starts by being better to yourself and your family.

benny havens| 3.30.12 @ 10:18AM

Another program from another progressive socialist who has convinced a large group of supporters that they are going to get something for nothing. This word merchant parades around the country and claims to the brain dead crowd “I am the one that will make it easy for you”. Vote for me and I will send you a check. Vote for me and you will get universal healthcare for free. Vote for me and I will pay for your college education. Vote for me and the sky won’t fall and the sea won’t rise.

What he didn’t bank on was that there were enough people that could see through his rhetoric and said, wait a minute. We’re not going to have this crap shoved down our throats. Let’s take him to court.

Maybe Obama, Reid and Pelosi should have read what was in it. The fact that they didn’t may be what unravels it.

Mimi| 3.30.12 @ 10:21AM

No justice who accepted an appointment to serve on the Supreme Court should be ignorant of the Law of the Land...They are NOW top DOGS in understanding the true intent of the founders words as written in our Constitution...in a class beyond the word CLASS.
Many say this Bill is a badly written one, certainly not read by many....YET it was voted on! Even the SCOTUS doesn't want to read it line by line.
The darn thing has held the NATION in captivity just about long enough!.....Hopefully it will be checked off as a NO-GO!
Any Justice who votes for this....ANY....leaves the indelible mark of them being in DISGUST as we go forward in our HISTORY !
This should be a 9-0.....unaminous decision !
The sick and poor will be provided for as always...we just need a 3 page understandable , document...Not a new bible of YOU DO'S...and YOU DON'TS for the LEFTY"S!

Mimi| 3.30.12 @ 10:23AM

FROM the LEFT'S....OOPS!

Bill| 4.2.12 @ 2:43PM

Yes, their job on the Court is to read law. That's what lawyers do. When Justice Scalia bitches about reading the 2700 pages of Obamacare and jokingly refers to the Cruel and Unusual Punishment prohibition of the 8th Amendment, he's being a jerk. His job is to read the f**king law, not to complain about it.

Is a 2700-page law something to complain about? Damn right it is: by its very nature, it's an infringement on our liberty being so intricate and so detailed. But if Congress is going to pass it, they ought to have read it before they passed it, and the Supreme Court justices ought to damn well read it before they interpret it. It would take a lot of damn gall for them to claim it's unconstitutional if they haven't read it.

If they don't want to read law, I don't blame them, but they shouldn't be judges, because that's what judges do.

Bill| 3.30.12 @ 10:26AM

The Supreme Court would be the most activist in history if it overturned Obamacare as unconstitutional?

You mean Obamacare, the law that was passed on an entirely partisan basis, without one Republican vote in favor, and which "creates commerce in order to regulate it?"

That Obamacare?

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 10:58AM

And conservatives what a non-activist Court - Really? As long as they do what YOU want, you're just fine with it.
Remember, when the pendulum swings and there is a Liberal Court, how you felt today - cause you won't like it then. And, you will have no basis for arguing "Activist, activist, activist" ...

JP| 3.30.12 @ 11:29AM

We've had an activist liberal court since at least 1937. Not sure what your point is.

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 1:29PM

So I guess you're okay with the whole idea of activism, then? If you're okay with conservatives being activist, then you must accept liberals as such then, right?

Al Adab| 3.30.12 @ 5:49PM

Don't forget the existing precedent where the Court overturned FDRs National Recovery Act.

Skippy| 3.30.12 @ 6:00PM

Liberal activism is banging drums in the Wis. Statehouse.
Conservative activism is banging your head against the sidewalk in front of your house.

Bill| 4.2.12 @ 2:32PM

When the pendulum swings and there is a liberal Court, the Court will be just like it was in the 1940s, 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s. I lived through nearly all of that, so I think I'll be pretty well-prepared.

Bill| 4.2.12 @ 2:33PM

Besides, the Court has been an activist court, expanding government power since 1802 and Marbury v. Madison.

Bill| 4.2.12 @ 2:34PM

I'd be satisfied if the Court could follow the Bork rationale for judicial interpretation, and bring back such things as ripeness, mootness, political questions, and the like.

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 10:52AM

It is important that the non-political branch of the government does not make decisions politically. The American people need to be able to trust that judgments made by the Supreme Court of the Land are based on law, are impartial, and do not feed the political frenzy, especially in an election year. Anything less is contrary to the Founders of the Constitution's intent. Original intent should be the guiding principle for the Justices along with stare decisis, or precedent.
Unfortunately, this un-American Court has already shown itself to flaunt the Constitution with the overreach in Citizens United decision and in Bush v. Gore. A corporation is NOT a person, and only an idiot would think so, and grant rights to a non-human. Why not your favorite rock having rights?
In Bush v. Gore the Supreme Court stepped in where there clearly was NO Constitutional basis upon which to do so. It IS Constitutionally instructed how to decide the President and Vice President if there is no clear winners declarable. They ignored the Constitution then, for Citizens United again, and now they will ignore the Constitution now.
Isn't it interesting for all you that will argue with me that 74% of Americans believe the Court will decide the Obamacare issue based on politics, not law. What does that say about the trust we place in these individuals not to overturn what the ELECTED officials, representing a free people, have decided for the good of the people?
If they are really concerned about the reach of government, they should review what they did in Bush v Gore and Citizens United and be shamed into inaction, deferring to the Elected Officials of the People... Let Congress and the President overturn what Congress and the President have passed, based on what the people want by who they elect. THAT is our American system.

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.30.12 @ 11:02AM

Sorry Purp.
We still haven't figured out how to fix stupid here.

Do something constructive. Play your video game.

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 11:28AM

That's all you can say? Someone that doesn't agree with you is stupid?
I present an argument in defense of the Founders and the Constitution, and you call it stupid?
What kind of American are you? Be gone, we need thoughtful, serious people to dialog, not the sanctimonius Republicant elite

Calvin| 3.30.12 @ 12:14PM

You're not worth a serious conversation. Get over it.

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 1:31PM

It's beyond your comprehension too, is that it? Your little mind and tiny intellect simply cannot refute the argument?
Go back to Fixed News and hear what you like to hear. Don't tread near anyone that might make you think.

Dmac | 3.30.12 @ 3:17PM

Purp,
I could use the same argument you do about the courts refusal on how it acted in Bush vs Gore with how the court has more than once declined to see legitimate eveidence and hear legitimate arguements that Obama in not eliglbe to President of the United States.

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 5:17PM

They do have a jurisdiction over the eligibility of a man to be President, and should/could have ruled on that - but they should have declined to mess with the Bush v Gore election - pure and simple. There is nowhere in the Constitution giving the Supreme Court any jurisdiction over a Presidential election - not even a close approximation. Not so for Congress, who has authority when there is a snafu in a Presidential election - whatever it may be. The 20th Amendment, the 23rd Amendment, Article I and Article II all speak to the power of Congress over elections some way - not so the Supreme Court.

Skippy| 3.30.12 @ 6:01PM

Still drives you nuts, eh?
I love it!

Dmac | 3.30.12 @ 6:47PM

Then by the same logic the courts have no right to challenge congressional districts set by state legislatures, and recently one federal court agreed with that.
Also EVERY American who is registered should have their vote counted, included and most especially our men and women in the armed forces. Why is it that Democrats and liberals despise counting the votes of our service men and women? What a disgusting group of people who would deny our service men and women their most basic right, the right to vote in a democracy they protect.

Calvin| 3.30.12 @ 4:23PM

You deserve to be mocked only. You make no arguments. You repeat the liberal talking points we could get from any of our pet trolls.

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 5:17PM

Actually, no I don't - but you don't know enough to know.

From the Desk of Media Matters| 3.30.12 @ 8:14PM

Pierre-Stupid Putz-Liar Pelosi-Idiot,

MM staff has suspected since the 2010 midterms the inevitable - that the utter emotional nonsense of liberalism that avoids logic and reality as if they were morality itself would catch up to us all in 2012.

MM staff suspects even though you are the most stupid and the biggest liar of all our bottom rung MM mindless retarded parrot idiots you have come to realize this yourself.

MM staff is forced to consider there is no other explanation for why you are becoming completely unglued in front of our opponents in such an unseemly fashion and discrediting yourself and us exponentially more than both our opponents and us could have ever anticipated.

Stop embarrassing us you pathetic despicable miserable excuse for a even a liberal.

- MM staff

spike59| 4.2.12 @ 8:01AM

actually, you DO...but you don't have enough brains to realize it, or the intellectual honesty to admit it

StuPurppid| 4.1.12 @ 11:46AM

That's all you got? Everyone agrees that you are stupid and this is your argument?
You present nothing but emotional prattling nonsense that is an offense against the Founders and the Constitution, and you mention Supreme Court decisions as examples yet omit Roe v. Wade as one?
Ww know what kind of idiot you are. Don't leave, we want stupid, lying idiots to reveal the truth and reality of the thoughts of the typical liberal progressive democrat.

Ross Kaminsky | 3.30.12 @ 11:06AM

Purp,

So let's be clear here:

You would like unions to be give money to political campaigns, but would not like corporations to be able to?

Who works at corporations? Just robots? Of course corporations deserve free speech rights just as much as any other organization does.

The idea that Citizens United represents "overreach" is utterly ridiculous. What was overreach was permitting any of McCain-Feingold.

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 11:35AM

I said Corporations designated as persons is idiotic. the PEOPLE who work for corporations have their own personal rights and the right to donate to whomever they want.
Who said anything about Unions? But they shouldn't be treated any differently - they aren't people either.
Money is not free speech - that is absolutely stupid.
Money is destroying our Republic - if you don't see that, YOU'RE an idiot.
You should see it plain and clear - Newt Gingrich could only campaign as long as Daddy Warbucks, Adelson, supplied the cash. He was history in this campaign long ago. Santorum is the next to go. And, Romney is winning by carpet bombing with money, not because he's the popular choice. And, that is all because of money.
This isn't a conservative or liberal position - it should be everyone's concern. We don't need the best politicians money can buy - we should want the best politicians and statesmen, period. This is isn't the NBA or Major League Baseball for cripe's sake - these people affect all our lives. We need the best people, not beholden to benefactors.

Ross Kaminsky | 3.30.12 @ 11:45AM

What's wrong with Adelson/Newt, as long as you knew where Newt's money was coming from?

Money is indeed free speech, as long as source of money is disclosed.

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 12:00PM

No, it's not. Those that have money have an advantage over those that do not. If this country was founded on anything, it was that we are all created equal - one person, one vote - and money changes that dynamic.
One billionaire can pour enough money into a campaign now to have his say. And why does he have more rights to have his say? - because by whatever means he has money.
Money is simply the remaking of the Aristocracy that the Founders railed against. It is written in the Constitution that we shall have no titles, as in Europe of the time. Yet, now we entitle the rich to have the same power and access that the Aristocracy of old used to have.
Money needs to get out of politics so the people can have their freedom and power back and the politicians are beholden to the voters, NOT the billionaires and corporate treasuries - or the Union treasuries either.

Ross Kaminsky | 3.30.12 @ 12:41PM

And people who are tall have basketball advantages over people who are short. So what?

By the way, you do know that there are campaign contribution limits, right, and that Citizens United did NOT permit corporations to make unlimited donations to campaigns? They can work outside campaigns, but not with them.

It's a stupid consequence of the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold law.

If you want to get money out of politics, then remove from politicians the ability to choose winners and losers in the marketplace.

Why do you think that so much is spent on politics? The answer is because government is too big and too powerful.

Furthermore, saying you want to stop money in politics is like throwing a rock into the middle of a river and thinking you're going to stop the water.

W| 3.30.12 @ 1:19PM

The lobbying money is primarily for favorable tax laws and regulations. The tax code provides credits, deductions, definitions of income,etc. that are vital to a business and individuals. If we have a flat tax or a national sales tax there would be no goodies for the politicians to hand out and no reason for most lobbyists.
As for campaign contributions there should be no limit to contributions provided there is full disclosure of all contributors.

LiveFreeOrDie| 3.30.12 @ 1:25PM

Hate to admit it but an argument can be made the vast money spent on elections is no good. I doubt the founders ever considered that campaign funds would run into the billions. Campaign funds were intended to pay for expenses not pay for candidates. In the age of mass communication why not give every candidate a web page on whitehouse.gov and be done with it? I don't support curbing free speech but to put it plainly, the current system, sucks.

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 1:53PM

Money is not a God-given talent, characteristic or demeanor - that's the difference. You might as well have said "Blondes have more fun" ... that's hardly an argument.
You say - "Furthermore, saying you want to stop money in politics is like throwing a rock into the middle of a river and thinking you're going to stop the water." - and, yet Democracies around the world even in the G20 have nothing comparable to American political campaigns in time or money spent. Why is that? And they are democracies just as we are.
As I said, Monied people have become the new Aristocracy, and the Founders would be aghast. If you have money, laws bend to you, politicians and officials bend to you, and yet the Bible does say "money is the root of all evil"-so it is certainly anti-Christian how much of our society rests on the worship of, abuse of and search for money.
It is not impossible to remove money from the system. "“The one prevailing evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.”" ... A Republic is NOT a democracy.

Ross Kaminsky | 3.30.12 @ 2:04PM

Much of Europe has large public financing of elections. Much of Europe limits the total amount of money a candidate or campaign is allowed to spend. That's a huge difference.

More info here:
http://www.loc.gov/law/help/ca.....ummary.php

Dmac | 3.30.12 @ 4:25PM

I a right wing conservative to the core, but I agree, we need to get money out of our election process.
Only registered voters should be allowed to donate to any campaign and those running for office should only be allowed to accept contribututions from registered voters within their district.
Wake up people, why the hell do you think we have a Congress that spends so much time in Washington passing laws that do nothing but make their corporate frineds rich and making all of us schmucks lawbreakers? How do we get from a Constitution and Bill of Rights to so many laws that you couldn't fit all the paper they are written on in the capitol?
I agree with Rick Perry, Congress should meet for 3 months, then go home. Everytime they pass a law they make someone or something a violator of the law, except themselves of course because nothing they do applies to them.

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 5:19PM

Limitation of money in elections would be good here too, Ross.

Skippy| 3.30.12 @ 6:03PM

Why would I contribute if my speech(money)were limited?

Dmac | 3.30.12 @ 6:49PM

why would you want to deny a person oflessor means the same amount of freedom of speech because he has less money? The right to free speech is equal to all under the law. What your talking about Skippy is buying speech, there's a difference. By your logic Soros, Gates and the other billionaires would be able to buy all the rights to speech.

skip| 3.31.12 @ 2:02PM

To clarify:

Equality under the law is justified and documented in our Constitution written by James Madison who stated:

"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention;
have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property;
and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death."

Equality under the law means every one individual has the right to one vote and free speech along with the right to security of his life and his liberty and his personal property

- unless equality under the law and security of his life means an individual is aborted after self-evidently being created equal.

- unless equality under the law and security of his liberty means an individual freely speaks his mind through the use of his own personal property.

- unless equality under the law and security of his personal property means an individual is taxed more of his personal property than other individuals.

So, in a hypothetical village of 10,001 individuals,
all employed at one corporation owned by a billionaire,
all 10,000 hypothetically earning the same $50,000 personal revenue annually while paying $5000 in taxes,
or $50 million total in taxes (5000 x 10000),
except the billionaire who is earning $150 million annually while paying $50 million in taxes by himself,

the billionaire who under equality of the law has the same one vote as the other 10,000 individuals who can outvote the billionaire 10,000 to 1 on any ballot,

the billionaire who under equality of the law cannot freely speak through the use of his own personal property to improve the 10,000 to 1 odds against him,

the billionaire who under equality of the law must pay the same amount in taxes as the 10,000 pay - combined - who can outvote him 10,000 to 1.

No wonder the author of our equality under the law wrote that a democracy is turbulent and contentious during the short lifespan they exist before suffering a violent death.

I hold as self-evident that all liberals are emotionally prattling idiots under the reason and experience of truth and reality.

nathan| 4.2.12 @ 1:57PM

Minor point or not so minor, the quote is and most people get this wrong, it's not the "money is the root of all evil" it's "the LOVE of money . . . "

Note also if you will that the Founders and the secessionist movement (revolution is not precise, they had no interest in changing the government in London just getting away from it) they initiated was different from so many in that it was not led by the poor and impoverished. It was in fact led by the monied class. Go to Mount Vernon, Montpelier, and Monticello to see just how horribly down and out the Founders were. And they were the rule, not the exception. Like Ben Franklin was living on the street, right? Or John Adams. To be sure some were impoverished by the secession of 1776 but they had to have something to lose and for the most part the leaders did.

And no, we are not a democracy. Where pray tell did you get that idea? What exactly did Ben Franklin say outside Independence Hall to that charming lady? "A democracy if you can keep it?" No. An aristocracy? Don't think so. How about "REPUBLIC". And no the two are not synonyms and cannot be used interchangeably and Madison called democracy the vilest form of governemnt on earth and it gets tiresome to keep reminding everyone here about this. "Conservatives" really sort of should know stuff like this, but how can people who listen to Rush five days a week "the doctor of democracy" ever pick this up?

Now folks go back and learn the basics about the Founders and the this country. Because you know you can't really hold intelligent discussions here without it. Honestly.

Minor Points Honestly Or Not ?| 4.2.12 @ 3:17PM

Honestly it can really be held that folks can't read your post and definitively determine whether you are arguing for or against conservatives and conservatism.

Honestly it can really be held that this confusion held by folks is due to posts such as:

"You all do understand right that there is no such thing as a "presidential deficit"

"They don't exist and never have"

"There is no Obama deficit"

"The current president according to the constitution bears no responsibility for these deficits since he signs budgets that are presented to him after the House passes the spending bills and the Senate approves them"

nathan 3/26 @ 12:04pm

Class is in session. Teach the folks the basics of where you stand on the conservative - liberal continuum.

JP| 3.30.12 @ 1:55PM

So, I take it that the UAW does not enjoy the same property rights as an individual homeowner.

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 5:20PM

What are you talking about? What Amendment to the Constitution is this?

Ross Kaminsky | 3.30.12 @ 11:15AM

Purp,

Please give us (in as few words as possible) your explanation of why a federal individual mandate is constitutional.

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 11:46AM

Precedent. I'm sure you will argue, but this is a few words only:
Selective Service Registration - an individual mandate
Militia, individuals mandated to buy a gun/ammo
IRS - pay taxes - individual mandate
Abolition of Alcohol - individual mandate of no alcohol allowed
Freedom of Slaves - individual mandate on owners - no slaves allowed.
Auto Insurance - individual mandate by States
Romneycare - individual mandate of health insurance by the State.
They are all mandates by the Federal government to provide a better society for our people - except the last 2 - the crucibles of ideas that can later be extended to the Federal level when proven successful. Well? Haven't they proven successful?

JP| 3.30.12 @ 12:33PM

"They are all mandates by the Federal government to provide a better society for our people -"

Here is another question: Are there any limits to federal powers? If so, what are they?

Ross Kaminsky | 3.30.12 @ 12:47PM

I am against Selective Service. However, national defense is explicitly given in the Constitution as a responsibility of the federal government.

Who is mandated to buy a gun?

Income taxes were originally unconstitutional. It took an amendment to the Constitution to put it in place. In any case, it is not a requirement that an American buy a particular product or service. It is to fund the government. (Discussion about what government does that it shouldn't is for another day.)

Prohibition is obviously not a mandate to buy a product or service.

Ending slavery is obviously not a mandate to buy a product or service.

Auto insurance mandate is (1) at the state level, and (2) only a mandate if you want to drive your own car. It is not a requirement of citizenship or residency alone.

Romneycare is a fair comparison, and that mandate is a bad idea, and we can already see its negative impact on health care in Massachusetts -- which is precisely why the Founders set up our nation as a federal system, so states could learn from other states' mistakes.

So, none of these are mandates by the federal government to purchase a product or service as a condition of residency/citizenship.

And you are entirely incorrect to suggest that something permissible at a state level is then permissible at the federal level if you like the outcome. Romneycare has not been successful, but even if it had that does not trump the key question of constitutionality at the federal level.

Liberals always ignore that question, of course, because you have no sense of fundamental principle. You're purely utilitarian.

W| 3.30.12 @ 1:21PM

State governments are considered to have broad powers whereas the federal government is to have only the powers specified by the federal constitution.

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 2:15PM

You asked about why a Federal Mandate is Constitutional, and I gave you the answer - precedent. And, then I gave you several examples - whether they still exist or you agree with them is immaterial.
You could put Social Security and Medicare in their as well, since they compel you to purchase a product or service, since you brought that up.
Oh, and the militia -
"First Militia Act of 1792
The first Act, passed May 2, 1792, provided for the authority of the President to call out the militias of the several states, "whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe." The law also authorized the President to call the militias into Federal service "whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act". This provision likely referred to uprisings such as Shays' Rebellion or the Whiskey Rebellion in opposition to the judicial collection of debts and taxes.
> Second Militia Act of 1792
The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company overseen by the state. Militia members were to arm themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.[4] Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall." The men conscripted into the militia were MANDATED to have firearms. I suppose they could steal them, but I presume they had to purchase them. So you see, even the Founding Generation understood that a mandate is Constitutional. Argue with them, not me.
Romneycare HAS been successful - Just ask the residents if they want to give it up. They don't. What else is your measure of success? The people rule.
Why do you have be abusive and derogatory? I have given you ample evidence of examples of Federal Mandates throughout history - some for purposes of commerce, some not ... even 1 from the Founding Generation itself. You are wrong, but you want to be right - that just doesn't make it so.
Surely, you can debate better than this?

JP| 3.30.12 @ 3:15PM

You're citing laws, lamebrain. None of which force an individual into purchasing a product or risk being slapped in jail. You're logic ridiculous.

In your scheme, since Congress can write laws compelling people to obey some statute, Congress can make any law it sees fit, irregardless of the Bill of Rights.

I will ask again, "Does the federal government have the right to do whatever it pleases?" Are there any limits? For instance, could Congress, in the name of health and the general welfare, make a law mandating a quota of 2 children per woman?

Could Congress make a law, in the name of health and the general welfare, that mandates annual check-ups for all adults? Could it force every adult be within a certain weight range, and assigned fines or forced hospitalization for those who do not comply?

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 5:23PM

Actually, some of my examples are or were Amendments to the Constitution - you know that thing we all argue over?
The slippery slope argument is easy enough to stop. There is plenty of evidence of universal, national or whatever you call it healthcare around the world without those problems. Some even are market-based (Switzerland for example). It's not really that hard to do.

Skippy| 3.30.12 @ 6:06PM

I will accept your argument for an insurance mandate as soon as you accept mine that all citizens should be armed as well as any soldier.
Just like the historical precedent you cited makes clear.
Now why can't I buy a machine gun?

JP| 3.31.12 @ 10:11AM

It's been 18 hours and you've still haven't answered my questions. What are the limits to the federal government? Can Congress craft a law that can force its citizens to go to mandatory check-ups? Can it make laws that mandate strict weight laws for individuals, which punish non-compliance by forcing the citizens into hospitals and issuing fines? Can HHS mandate mandatory STD and HIV testing for the sole reason of labeling citizens' risk factors? Can HHS mandate strict quotas on how many children women can bare?

Resist We Much! | 3.30.12 @ 6:36PM

"You could put Social Security and Medicare in their as well, since they compel you to purchase a product or service, since you brought that up."

No, my dear, you are compelled to pay taxes, which are then spent on Social Security and Medicare.

Isn't it ironic, you little corporation-hater, you, that to make your argument true, Aetna would have to become part of the government and premiums would have to be a form of taxation.

As for the Militia Act of 1792, that is another that has been debunked. No one was required to enter into a third-party contract for the provision of a government-approved good or service. Everyone had guns (that was before the Prog Era when guns became a bad thing). They didn't have to go out and buy new ones.

Do yourself a favour and read my article:

Obamacare: Do Not Resuscitate

http://predicthistunpredictpas.....itate.html

You will learn the law and understand why the individual mandate is unconstitutional, why Wickard and Raich are inapplicable, and why it fails the Lopez Test.....

......or you could just continue to do a splendid job of being the idiot of American Spectator.

Bill| 4.2.12 @ 3:12PM

Requiring a militia man to show up for muster with a firearm is a pretty far cry from mandating that he purchase one. He could have inherited his firearm, he could borrow one from a friend, he could have made his own. He didn't have to buy one, he just had to have one.

Watching libs bring the ownership of firearms reminds me of how they reacted to the Morton Grove municipal ordinance.

Bill| 4.2.12 @ 3:15PM

Not Morton Grove, instead Kennesaw, Georgia.

The Freak| 3.30.12 @ 2:20PM

Purp,

Your "precedents" are supported by explicit constitutional authority.

Selective service registration: Preamble, Article I Section 8, Clauses 12-14.
IRS: Article I, Section 8, Clause 1; also Amendment XVI.
Abolition of Alcohol: Amendment XVIII (Repealed with Amendment XXI).
Freedom of Slaves: Amendment XIII.

States, of course, can do anything they want consistent with their own constitutions and subject to the limits imposed by the Federal constitution (primarily Amendments I-X as incorporated by the XIV Amendment).

So, your "precedents" show no authority for the health individual mandate. They are grounded in entirely explicit Federal constitutional authority. The fact that the Federal constitution gives congress the power to "raise and support armies" (for instance) says nothing about congress' power to make you buy health insurance.

If you really think courts should follow precedent, then how do you reconcile your position with United States v. Lopez and its progeny? And to take it one step further, if the federal mandate were to be upheld, wouldn't this require a partial reversal of Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida (some states, e.g. the Commonwealth of Virginia, expressly prohibit individual mandates)?

So, Purp, where does this authority come from? How does it square with proper (jurisprudential) precedent? Can you answer Ross' original question on the basis of law and fact?

Freak.

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 5:28PM

By your reckoning, we should not have a Transcontinental Railroad or Interstate Highway system (compelling states to comply with Federal need for right of way). There was no Constitutional basis for George Washington to put down the Whiskey Rebellion in the 1790's and yet the Founding generation allowed it. Now, if they can see the common good as trumping the words in the Constitution - who are we simpletons to argue. Consensus has overridden the Constitution many, many times. That is precedent too.
Remember, the Bill of Rights only enumerates some of our rights, not all of them. These were the most important and so sacred to the Founders they enshrined them in the B of R. But that is not the limit to our rights, just because it isn't written in the Constitution.

The Freak| 3.30.12 @ 7:19PM

Hi Purp,

We can do this ad nauseam. The Whiskey tax was licit under Article 1 Section 8 and Washington had the power to enforce it under Article 2 section 1 and to utilize the militia under Article 2 section 2.

But that's not the point. If you want an example of a shameful overreach of Federal power (and the executive in particular), you can point to the Louisiana purchase.

So what? You haven't answered the fundamental question.

Unless you have. Are you suggesting that anything can be done in pursuit of the "common good" and that "consensus" should trump our written laws? I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but that is the suggestion in the text you wrote.

I would find such a position terrifying.

The problem is, once you stray from the law, you enter onto dangerous terrain. Limits are placed on government to prevent a tyranny of the majority. That such tyrannies have been allowed in the past is no excuse to allow them now or in the future. Rules exist for a reason.

Popularity, or an assessment of the "goodness" of an outcome is subjective. As a minority (I am an immigrant of Hispanic extraction) I shudder to think what an unbridled "consensus" or "common good" argument could bring; our history is replete with frightful examples and you know them as well as I do. How are they different from the case at hand? Just because, in hindsight, we regret the outcome?

Prior errors should not be a license to make more. Rules need to bind those in authority too, not just the governed.

But maybe that's not what you said above, and you should feel free to clarify. If you didn't mean that the Federal government can do anything it wants merely because it's popular, it's the consensus of the governed, or it's considered a good outcome, by all means answer the question: where (in law and in fact) does the power to impose a health care mandate come from?

As an aside, here's a read you may enjoy: Pennington, Kenneth The Prince and the Law, 1200-1600: Sovereignty and Rights in the Western Legal Tradition. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993.

Freak.

JP| 3.30.12 @ 11:26AM

Purp,
In Bush v Gore there was ample evidence that the State Supreme Court of Florida wasn't following its own election laws; thus, they invited a federal lawsuit on behalf of the Bush campaign. It was the liberal justices in Florida and not the SCOTUS that was at fault. All the SCOTUS did was to over-rule an unjust opinion made by a corrupt state court.

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 11:52AM

Doesn't matter, it was a State matter and the Conservatives violated their own principles by stepping into a State matter. If they really thought Florida was incapable of deciding or violated some legality - they should have thrown the decision of the election to the Congress, which IS empowered to pick the President and VP BY the Constitution - they did not, and so we have an Activist Conservative Court. This is just what you all harangue about over and over - but because you liked the result, you're okay with it? You liked having GW Bush as President? Really? In any case, the Supreme Court had no business deciding who was President. All they should have decided was the incapability of Florida to decide, and given the responsibility to Congress, as IS prescribed in the US Constitution, per the Founders. How Un-American and hypocritical can Scalia and the rest can they get, these Supreme Bubbleheads?

JP| 3.30.12 @ 12:35PM

So, the state governments can disenfranchise the voters and the voters have no say so? States can trample on the Bill of Rights and it must remain a "state matter?"

And no, Congress isn't empowered to pick a President during an election year. Are you really that ignorant?

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 2:23PM

Check the 20th Amendment to the Constitution - it covers the matter or Presidential and Vice Presidential selection by Congress pretty well, although the exact problem in Florida was not foreseen. There is NO comparable provision, not even remotely close for the Supreme Court to assume that jurisdiction. THAT is what the Supreme Court should have relied upon - the Law - not their political persuasion. They did not, nor act wisely, and won't now for the Affordable Care Act, since they are as politicized as any Court has ever been. They should be impeached for malfeasance and we start again.

JP| 3.30.12 @ 3:20PM

The 20th Amendment does not apply to the 2000 elections. And the SCOTUS didn't pick the winner. It simply negated an illegal act by the Florida Supreme Court. Read the majority opinion. Official recounts were done, and Bush came out on top.

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 5:32PM

Of course it doesn't - it was written long before. But point to one place in the Constitution, just one, where the Supreme Court has any jurisdiction over a Presidential Election. Because the Presidential Election rested on their decision is why they should not have interceded.
Article I and II of the Constitution and Amendments 20 and 23 specifically give Congress the jurisdiction over Presidential elections in question. Not the specific problem in Florida, but only Congress was granted the power, in any shape or form to intercede in a disputed Presidential election. Any, independent recounts have said Gore won ... so it will always remain in dispute - because they didn't follow the Constitution.

Ross Kaminsky | 3.30.12 @ 2:07PM

Purp,

Have you not noticed that every recount said that Bush won?

I realize it's slightly off the topic of the Court's action, but nobody who has paid attention actually thinks that the Court changed the outcome from what the voters really voted.

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 2:27PM

Au Contraire - http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181.
I'm sure you can cite others the other direction - in any case it will always be contentious since they didn't follow the law, they took jurisdiction away from the duly elected branches of government and the people - and THAT IS TYRANNY !
As it turned out, nobody liked GW Bush, and we might have done better with Gore, but who knows now?

Ross Kaminsky | 3.30.12 @ 4:40PM

From the source of right-wing propaganda, the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11.....2VOTE.html

JP| 3.30.12 @ 11:28AM

"A corporation is NOT a person, and only an idiot would think so, and grant rights to a non-human. Why not your favorite rock having rights?"

By your logic a church is not a human. And only an idiot would demand that the 1st Amendment also cover churches as well as people.

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 11:38AM

Huh? You think a corporation, a legal entity on paper only, invented out of thin air - is a person? What? A church has no rights either - what's your point?

JP| 3.30.12 @ 12:26PM

Here's a review of HS civics. The Constitution protects property; stocks, which make up corporations are property; buying and selling stocks are financial transactions. Therefore, in order to protect shareholders there are laws that cover the shareholders. Corporations are made up of humans. Real people derive benefits from corporations (ie retired California teachers own a large portion of Exxon). The Constitution protects not only the property rights of the teachers, but also thier political interests. It matters not if the platform is contracts, torts, or political. They do not lose thier rights by virtue of owning stocks -which is what you are proposing.

BTW, publically traded corporations predate our own Constitution.

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 2:31PM

Corporations were never meant by the Founders to be permanent - they were given a legal charter to perform a specific function and then they were dissolved. If we stayed with what the Founders wanted, nothing of what you say would mean a thing. I understand the utilitarian nature of a corporation - they have their place now - but they are not what the Founders wanted,and giving them, or any organization, the rights of persons is ridiculous. Freedom is for people, the Bill of Rights is for people, not made up legal entities.

JP| 3.30.12 @ 3:22PM

Please either cite the Federalist Papers or the Constitution. You're making this up. You clearly do not understnad property right.

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 5:39PM

You're talking State Charters, not Federal charters. Do your own homework.

Resist We Much!| 3.30.12 @ 6:42PM

Corporations are incorporated in states. The Federal government doesn't get involved.

W| 3.30.12 @ 11:49AM

Purp,
Do you believe the NAACP should have the right of free speech to publish what it chooses?

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 11:54AM

No - they are not the press. The Press, yes, any organization, no. They are bound by the rules that allow the organization to exist and the charter given them by government. They are not protected by the Constitution any more than a Union or a Corporation should be. Anything less is not what the Founders intended.
You disagree with that position?

W| 3.30.12 @ 12:03PM

That is news to labor unions, civil rights organizations, and others organizations.So only the "press" is covered by the first amendment? Who cares about your opinion, cite a law to support your idiotic ramblings. You may have to do some research outside of the Daily Kos and HuffPo.
As a favor, I will save you time. You are wrong, as usual, and I am not wasting any more time today with an idiot like you.

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 2:41PM

You asked about free speech only, not the First Amendment. Don't you read what you write? Before you go off spouting derogatory remarks, get your own head screwed on properly please.
I 'm surprised you could not cite countering opinion, so you give up simply by calling me an idiot? Is that the right-wing's way of surrendering? Okay, so you can't argue the point. I get it.
BTW - I hardly ever view DailyKos - not much to interest me. HuffPost headlines I will check, but again not much interest.
Don't be such a wimp - point me to where it says I'm wrong.

W| 3.30.12 @ 3:00PM

Ok, Purp, you believe that the free speech clause of the First Amendment does not apply to the NAACP, UAW, SEIU, AFL-CIO, etc because they are not the "press." I thought it was clear to a street lawyer like you that were were not talking about the free exercise of religion and establishment of religion in the First Am. So then the government can censor and prohibit unions, corporations, NAACP, etc from expressing their opinions?
You cannot be this dense. Or are you just lonely and want to waste everyone's time? Seriously, you cannot be this ignorant.

Purp| 3.31.12 @ 1:12PM

This entire matter concerned Money as Free Speech. It is not, but even if it is, it is killing our Republic, being bought by the highest bidder. Our country is in trouble and you want to make debate points?
If you knew the answer, why'd you ask the question? That makes no sense, except you wanting to lay a trap to prove your superiority in legal jargon. Was that it? You feel better now?

W| 3.31.12 @ 3:12PM

Purp,
Not a trap, although your are very easy to trap, like most lefties.

Cannot believe you do not know the meaning of the first amendment and free speech. Since you do not know the most basic right of free speech it confirms why your political comments are in left field, and your prefer the nanny state to tell you what to think, say, wear, eat, etc.

Not a question of legal jargon, you just do not, as a lefty, understand and/or appredciate individual rights.

I do not feel better, I feel sorry for you. I suggest you read the constitution, read the books by Judge Anderew Napolitano explaining the constitution. There are others, but that is the one I am now reading.

These are not debate points. Our country is in trouble because people like you surrender your rights to totalitarians like Obama and Sebellius, and you are led by them to focus your anger on citizens expressing their opinions.

We can express our opinions individually and through organizations, like labor unions and corporations and PACS. The expression of ideas is not the problem, it is the people who want to restrict the expression of ideas.

You have to use money to put out ads on TV or newspapers, that is why money is the free speech issue. If your restrict money you restrict the ability to express your ideas, unless you believe standing on a sidewalk giving a speech to ten persons is effective.

Wake up, Purp, educate yourself. You are being used by the nanny state.

Ross Kaminsky | 3.30.12 @ 2:08PM

Purp,

You should have worked for Stalin, or at least for Big Brother.

Don't you understand that we have free speech rights as human beings, and that the Bill of Rights was reinforcing that idea, but that our rights don't come from pieces of paper?

We don't need a "charter" to have free speech rights.

Unbelievable...and frightening, the things you believe. And you have no recognition how close you are to supporting outright tyranny.

Mike Hawk| 3.30.12 @ 2:23PM

Purp believes rights come from government and not God. Purp is likely an agnostic or an atheist. Maybe just empty.

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 2:35PM

People are not organizations, they join organizations. Organizations are not people, without people they would cease to exist. How is that tyrannical?

JP| 3.30.12 @ 3:28PM

I understand your logic. Since organizations are not people, said organizations do not have rights. Therefore, if Congress needs to close the defecit it go could to say, Apple Computer, and seize its cash and other assets. It would all be legal. Of course, ALGORE may not agree (he is a longtime board member for Apple). And the next time a Republican is President, he can seize the assets of the AFL-CIO, and dissolve the organization on the grounds that organizations do not have rights and the federal government can do as it wishes.

Thanks for the education.

Ross Kaminsky | 3.30.12 @ 10:15PM

Purp: Individual freedom to contribute to a campaign combined with First Amendment freedom of association equals rights of organizations to contribute to a campaign.

Purp| 3.31.12 @ 1:15PM

So tell me, since the impact of money is killing our Republic, being bought by the highest bidder - our country is in trouble and you want to make debate points?
We can argue all day, but if money continues to be equated with speech, this country is doomed to being owned by the millionaire/billionaire class. As a Republican, you may be fine with it now, but when they control everything - you will do what they say or else - and that IS tyranny.

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 2:45PM

Never said any of the things you are saying. Human beings are not organizations, unions or corporations - and you call me dense? Of course humans have rights without a Constitution (altho without the Magna Carta and subsequent documents affirming so, that point is debatable whether in practice that is true) or any piece of paper. The Bill of Rights was not the only rights we have, just those the Founders agreed to enumerated and include in the Constitution.
How is that Stalinesque?

JP| 3.30.12 @ 3:31PM

Who determines what the "press" is? Does one get a Press license? Can 5 people buy a printing press and call themselves journalists and turn out newspapers?

wukong| 3.30.12 @ 4:18PM

Purp,

You must be as dense as a brick where Bush v. Gore is concerned. The problem that the SCOTUS had to solve was Gore's disregard of the Equal Protection Clause. You cannot simply "farm" a few favorable voter locations as the popular vote is statewide. Would you venture to tell us why Gore did not want an ouiji board chad check in Bay County?

Anthony| 3.30.12 @ 11:08AM

Actually Ross, for years I've thought that the song that truly fits the current Alice-in-Wonderland world of the American left is "Sympathy for the Devil" by the Stones.
Every cop is a criminal...... and all the sinners saints.
As heads is tails, ......just call me Lucifer.
Yes, for decades, the morons on the left, like Madcow and E.J. Dion, have turned the arguments completely on their heads, and not just with Obozocare.
Their perspective is classic myoptic leftism, and those Justices who are origionalists on the Constitution, deemed to be rogue or dishonest.
Those that seek radical change are deemed to have feality to the Constitution, and those who seek origional intent are seen as usurpers.
The fact that the Solicitor General made a total hash of the argument for this blatantly unconstitutional POS law, is proof positive of the intellectual bankruptcy of the left's argument.
This decison is a tipping point for America. The decision is already tainted by Kagen's participation. Her conflict is classic text book, yet there she sat. A blackmark on the Court, for time and memorial.
If the Court upholds Obozocare, then it is clear that the Executive, most of the Legislative, and the Judical branches of our government are corrupt.
We Americans will have to made radical changes in order to remedy our corrupted institutions.
I pray that the nine justices of the S.C. take a deep breath and step back from the abyss.
I pray that they understand that if they uphold this legislation, they have nailed the penultimate nail in America's coffin.
What comes from their lawlessness, will be on their hands.

Ross Kaminsky | 3.30.12 @ 11:15AM

In 2006, National Review did a list of 50 "conservative" rock songs. Sympathy for the Devil was #3.
http://www.nationalreview.com/.....n-j-miller

Anthony| 3.30.12 @ 12:05PM

Thanks for the reference. I don't believe for one minute that the Stones were actually bemoaning the rise of the immoral moral relativism of the left. I shouted out who killed the Kennedy's
when afterall, it was you and me.
Classic leftist moral relativism.

kwan| 3.30.12 @ 11:09AM

The main reason the left is anti-Constitutional is that the Constitution restrains a wannabe Joseph Stalin and his political party from turning the country into the Soviet Union. The leftist demagogues tell us that they must circumvent the Constitution in order to address "social justice". Yet the communist tyrannies that took over various countries in the 20th century showed little concern for "social justice" once they were in power. Their main concern was how to subjugate their populations and maintain power.

Bill| 3.30.12 @ 11:24AM

Overturn Obamacare.

Bob| 3.30.12 @ 11:29AM

They had a sleeper agent in the Court. Of course they'll blame politics if they couldn't defend it even with one of their own practically giving them one vote.

H Abdullah Shabazz| 3.30.12 @ 11:34AM

40 years of legal abortion
55 million dead the greatest mss muerder in history

So good ridance to the United States Supreme Court, and the 9 blowhards that sit on it.

And ditto to our ridiculous failed Constitution, that our vaunted military caste is sworn to defend, on land, sea, in the air, and when they cash out at age 43.

Al Adab| 3.30.12 @ 3:43PM

Question friend:
If 6 million is a holocaust, what is 55 million?

This idolotry, this worship of the goddess Choice, was never enacted by law, byt by the Court. What delicious irony should this Court eviscerate the cornerstone of the welfare state agenda.

Mimi| 3.30.12 @ 11:43AM

The final blow to Obama-care came when Bishop Dolan , now the esteemed Cardinal spoke out likened to an Alarm Liberty Bell in behalf for Religious FREEDOM! The Supremes saw they would be spending ALL their time on case after case , tieing up the courts! The final straw!
The last three days captivated us...we instinctly understand the robbing of the NATIONS liberty...ALL IS AT STAKE !

cicero| 3.30.12 @ 11:49AM

As I have said before on this site, the court system in this country has done more damage to the culture and fabric of the U.S. than any other institution or movement. It has colluded with the Progressive Movement to render the America of the founders unrecognizable. If the people realized what the judiciary has become, and how unaccountable it is, maybe they would take more of an interest in local and state judicial elections. This is critical, as it is from the ranks of the state judiciary, for the most part, that the Fed, judiciary is chosen. As they have little fear of dismissal, they have become arrogant. I do not know if there is an answer to this.
Ross, I would like to take exception to one of the non-topic statements in your piece. You, like many others, repeat the claim that we are in a mild recovery. This is usually based on the "improving" labor numbers. However, you must be aware that, when the House refused to extend unemployment compensation last December, many who had been receividng benefits for 2 years or more were dropped from the roles. They were immediately reclassified as no longer unemployed. This did not majically render them employed, it just made the statistics look better, as they were no longer counted.
The economy is in a holding pattern, waiting to see if the voting public will buy into 4 more years of this. If they do, there will be very little change. If they give the Senate to the Republicans, and make a change in the White House, the Republicans had better do something dramatic. Otherwise, there will be a new Conservative Party formed to replace it. If they keep the status quo, the econoomy will limp along, and the middle class will bear the brunt of the decline.

Ross Kaminsky | 3.30.12 @ 2:11PM

Cicero,

We are in a mild recovery. What else would you call it? It's not a strong recovery, but clearly we are off the bottom in every important economic statistic.

Labor stats are not the only thing that matter, though clearly they're exceptionally important politically.

As someone who trades in financial markets every day and watches this stuff more closely than most people do, I am confident that (at least for now), my characterization is accurate.

It is a far weaker recovery than we should be seeing, and that's because of Democrat policies and laws.

LiveFreeOrDie| 3.30.12 @ 2:53PM

I can't agree there is a recovery. If anything, the downward spiral has slowed. While it's not the only indicator, we must get to break-even in the labor market before the case for a recovery can be made.

Al Adab| 3.30.12 @ 3:40PM

Depends gentlemen on the definition we use. Economy has shown anemic growht over the last year or so, but has yet to reach the level of activity or employment the country enjoyed prior to the '08 collapse.

That would be the standard for when "recovery" has occurred. Frankly however, I believe th

The Left and this administration want this level of economy to represent the new norm or baseline. They accept European unemployment numbers, gas prices and tax levels as legitimate. As noted elsewhere, the outcome based (ends justify the means) attitude permeates their thinking and actions.

LiveFreeOrDie| 3.30.12 @ 5:21PM

Until new jobs created is > or = to new workers entering the market, there can be no recovery. Housing prices are down for the ninth month in a row. Down 4% on average compared to last year and down 34% compared to 2006. 50 billion dollar trade deficit. I'd like to write more but I'm all out of time. My main point is anemic growth, backed by new debt does not a recovery make.

Warrior | 3.31.12 @ 1:18AM

Ross,

You are applying faulty logic. Since the stimulus was never removed from the baseline, the continued pumping of over trillion dollars of borrowed money annually is giving false economic indications. If this money was removed, the true depression we are in and have been in would be unmasked. Sooner or later, reality will have to set in.

oldfart| 3.30.12 @ 11:50AM

The Affordable Care Act looks like it was written by a bunch of 1st year law students from a Soviet University in Moscow sometime in the 1920's. If you read between the lines of some of the ‘left leaning’ justices it seems obvious that were making half hearted attempts to defend what they know to be a terrible law.
The fact that there is no ‘limiting’ clause indicates that this law would be used as the foundation for wild swings in every direction by future generations. Including the undoing of what good might come out of this effort.
The fact that this law even came out Congress in the present form only goes to show that our elected representative always want to take the easy way out. The majority are a bunch of LAZY, GUTLESS bums.
Ms. Botox may have been right on the money that even she did not know what was on those 2700 pages when it went up for signature.

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 12:03PM

Terribly written, I will agree. We should have Medicare for all and be done with it. Medicare is cheaper overall, and covers everyone that is on it. Raise the Medicare tax to cover the expense, but the system is already there, it works and everyone on it would not give it up. Just ask 'em.
Medicare for all is the best way to go.

Mike Hawk| 3.30.12 @ 12:19PM

Snorting the Chloroform with P-A again I see.

Indy| 3.30.12 @ 12:54PM

Medicare is subsidized by those of us with private insurance policies, it does not work and will go bankrupt, read the Medicare Trustee report, or at least the actuarial opinion. An excerpt -

"Without major changes in health care delivery systems, the prices paid by Medicare for health services are very likely to fall increasingly short of the costs of providing these services. By the end of the long-range projection period, Medicare prices for hospital, skilled nursing facility, home health, hospice, ambulatory surgical center, diagnostic laboratory, and many other services would be less than half of their level under the prior law. Medicare prices would be considerably below the current relative level of Medicaid prices, which have already led to access problems for Medicaid enrollees, and far below the levels paid by private health insurance. Well before that point, Congress would have to intervene to prevent the withdrawal of providers from the Medicare market and the severe problems with beneficiary access to care that would result. Overriding the productivity adjustments, as Congress has done repeatedly in the case of physician payment rates, would lead to far higher costs for Medicare in the long range than those projected under current law....

For these reasons, the financial projections shown in this report for Medicare do not represent a reasonable expectation for actual program operations in either the short range (as a result of the unsustainable reductions in physician payment rates) or the long range (because of the strong likelihood that the statutory reductions in price updates for most categories of Medicare provider services will not be viable)."

Indy| 3.30.12 @ 1:01PM

Above, I meant to add, private and employer insurance policies subsidize medicare. The rise in premiums continues, ObamaCare did nothing to address costs, that was not its purpose, only to expand access, doctor shortages, here we come and that is on top of rising costs...all part of the plan to collapse the system so that the only option is a single payer plan.

Raising taxes to cover expenses, really? The average paid in over a lifetime is $150K v. $400K paid out, so your proposal is to raise taxes which will have to be massive, that will do nothing to address the rise in costs which is the root problem,.

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 2:49PM

the problem isn't Medicare - it is the high cost of medical care, period. Any insurance program will go broke - private or otherwise when we cannot even afford the premiums - which I might add have doubled over the last 10 -15 years.

JP| 3.30.12 @ 3:29PM

medical care was affordable before either Medicaire or Medicaid.

Al Adab| 3.30.12 @ 4:54PM

Don't we every day forgo things we cannot afford? we buy a Ford and not a Rolls. Why is a doctor visit any different?

Jack London| 3.30.12 @ 5:07PM

Because you can die?

Al Adab| 3.30.12 @ 5:44PM

...and that makes your doctor visit my concern that I should pay for it?

Jack London| 3.30.12 @ 6:20PM

That's how insurance works. It's also how a decent and productive society works, but I understand you'd rather sacrifice those to your bunker mentality.

From the Desk of Media Matters| 3.30.12 @ 8:25PM

Pierre-Jacqueline Femme-Pansy Schultz-Maddow Moscow-Pelosi,

Even our other bottom rung MM mindless retarded parrots know the reason medical insurance became so expensive to begin with was unconstitutional government control interfering with natural free market capitalist forces and that solving this problem with even more unconstitutional government control interfering even more with natural free market capitalist forces is so retarded only a delusional idiot in denial of truth and reality would ever argue for it.

Stop discrediting the human race.

- MM staff

Trinacria| 3.30.12 @ 9:22PM

Frankly, jack, I have no problem with that. The law prohibits me from harming you (as it should); however, it cannot compel me to help you. Help yourself, sport; it's your responsibility. If you refuse to take responsibility for yourself, that's your right - but your right to refuse to help yourself does not imply an obligation for others to do so.

And spare me the "but some people simply can't help themselves" argument. The argument is founded on the premise that we shouldn't allow people to die because they can't afford care. Reality check - Medicare and Medicaid patients die every day because the government has decided that the specific care required to sustain life is cost prohibitive (trust me, I literally witness this every day). It is stunning how the same folks who retreat to the compassion argument line up to support a "fix" that relies on rationing of care and death panels. Like all arguments that proceed from flawed premises, yours fails to pass the test of reason.

Trinacria| 3.30.12 @ 9:29PM

P.S. My bunker mentality has served me quite well, Jack. Perhaps you should give it try - you might be surprised how gratifying it is to look out for one's own interests (rather than waiting for some benevolent protector to do so).

JP| 3.31.12 @ 10:15AM

Fifty years ago most people didn't need insurance -that was before Medicaid. Some people had it, most people didn't Almost all medical procedures could be paid either out-of-pocket, or with a payment plan. The problem isn't insurance, but costs. And the inflation of medical costs can be associated the amount of involvement of the federal government into the health care markets. As late as the late 1980s most people could still self insure. The turning point came with 1986 health care reform act.

Jack London| 3.31.12 @ 4:28PM

What do you think say a triple bypass operation should cost? How has government interfered here? Also in drug prices? Are you aware that our government is not allowed to set price controls on drugs? Do you think that most people could pay for modern cancer treatments out of pocket?

I don't think you have the first clue here. Every time there is an attempt to address costs from things like our gross overtreatment you idiots scream 'death panels'.

As for the 1986 act, I presume you mean EMTALA, the unfunded emergency care act. Once we have a universal mandate, or single payer, we can do away with EMTALA. Thankfully, as a country we will never go back to a time when people were dumped out of hospitals – no matter how much you may wich it so.

From the Desk of Media Matters| 3.31.12 @ 5:07PM

Jacqueline-Pierre Pansy-Femme Maddow-Schultz Pelosi-Moscow,

Even our other bottom rung MM mindless retarded parrots know the reason medical insurance became so expensive to begin with was UNCONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT CONTROL interfering with natural free market capitalist forces through THOUSANDS OF COSTLY REGULATIONS ACTING AS MANDATES in the first place and that solving this problem with even more UNCONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT CONTROL interfering exponentially more with natural free market capitalist forces through even exponentially more THOUSANDS OF COSTLY REGULATIONS ACTING AS MANDATES is so retarded only a delusional stupid lying idiot in denial of truth and reality would ever argue for more of it while simultaneously being so retarded as to delusionally stupidly lie by denying the truth and reality that medical insurance became so expensive to begin with was UNCONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT CONTROL THROUGH THOUSANDS OF COSTLY REGULATIONS ACTING AS MANDATES in the first place.

Stop being a discredit to humanity itself.

- MM staff

gearjammer| 3.30.12 @ 12:09PM

" Obamacare, a tough sell ", we have the Obama lawyer on mic stumbling and bumbling-more adds saying " four justices found this babble persuasive " ? Give $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$to groups running these adds. We are finally running some tough adds, creative adds-see the latest from Crossroads. We are finall not the party of country club clucks with kick me signs on our backs. Give $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ so we can have our planes and bombers to fight back with in the media air war. Don't complicate things help our side buy bombs and bullets.

Tim| 3.30.12 @ 12:36PM

You can't force people to buy medical Insurance

You can outlaw gas cars but you can't force someone to buyan electric car...ie, they can choose to walk.

Over turning the case is a no brainer and anyone with a basic 101 understanding of the constitution
knows that and is why the Obama lawyer stumbled like an idiot before the high court.

A more practicle president would have focused on making sure know one could be denied coverage
eleminating the pre existing clause and left it at that.

But it wasn't about fixing anything it was about controlling society.

Hense why it will and why it should be over turned.

Bill| 4.3.12 @ 11:38AM

Obamacare says if you don't buy health insurance, you have to pay a penalty to the government. If they can say that, they can say that you have to buy an electric car or pay a penalty.

Karl Jay| 3.30.12 @ 1:14PM

Mr. Kaminsky...very good essay. Also enjoyed the considerable banter, even including that of Purp. Purp's comments are a clear indication of the success of the progressives in our so-called education system...a persistent defense of that which cannot be defended.

In closing, the partially exposed workings of the SC should have been a revelation to many, particularly as the defenders of the Affordable Health Care Act stumbled, bumbled and generally had their heads handed to them. But now that the theater is over, we who love and have defended the Constitution fret that despite the strong clues over the last few days that a terrible outcome is still possible.

Ross Kaminsky | 3.30.12 @ 1:22PM

Karl,

I like Purp, too, for the reason you express.

He is a perfect representation of how far the citizenry has drifted from understanding of or respect for the Constitution.

With the left it's all about outcome, and never about fundamental principle. This is why "Progressives" from Wilson on have hated the Constitution.

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 2:53PM

Interestingly, the right wing violates those very principles it seems to hold so dear ... You see the speck in my eye, but not the log in your own. And, I'm sure you feel the same in reverse. But I really wish you'd all stop the ad hominem attacks on my education, understanding and morality - it really is just a sign of you having no argument or low self-esteem projected upon me. It serves no real purpose and I expected more from thoughtful people.

JP| 3.30.12 @ 3:41PM

Purp,
Here's a question, can HHS mandate upon force of law that all citizens get tested for HIV/AIDS and STDs in order to establsih a healthier society? Can it then use that data to internally label each citizen as a high or low risk to society and its general welfare?

Mike Hawk| 3.30.12 @ 4:29PM

You are not only naive, but pompous, arrogant and self centered. You are free to be critical but feel slighted to have someone call you out on it. You are a jerk.

Ross Kaminsky | 3.30.12 @ 4:43PM

Nothing about my comment about your approach was ad hominem. Your repeated statements regarding how you would stifle free speech or support the Obamacare mandate show the lack of understanding of or respect for the Constitution which I suggest characterize your views on these issues.

Pete| 3.30.12 @ 8:45PM

You waste your time responding to the troll purp. He is a Media Matters volunteer.

Mike Hawk| 3.31.12 @ 10:07AM

A paid volunteer.

MikeG| 3.31.12 @ 10:41PM

An overpaid volunteer.

cicero| 3.30.12 @ 3:11PM

Ross: While I agree that the employment numbers are only indication of an uptic in the economy, I disagree with you that the current stock market is a better one. At the present time, the stock market is driven more by speculation than value. The major corporation are still envesting only minimal amounts in new structures in preparation for the real turnaround. They are still sitting on hoards of cash. They seem to be of the opinion that another 4 years of the same will not be an inducement for expansion.
I hope I am wrong and you are right, but I don't think so. The majority of the market activity is still program driven rather than based on reasoned analysis. You have computers trading with one another based on bets on movement trends that have little to do with economics. We shall see . . .

Ross Kaminsky | 3.30.12 @ 10:19PM

cicero,

I disagree with your narrow point about the stock market but would suggest that most companies which are public are larger than the average "small business" and so can create productivity gains and economies of scale, and can deal with regulatory burdens, better than small businesses.

Therefore they have been able to grow profits in a way that smaller companies can't.

And since big companies typically aren't net hirers of workers -- i.e. small business is the primary engine of new employment -- a rising stock market does not need to correlate with better employment. But that does not mean that the stock market does not say something real about those stocks.

Of course stock prices can diverge from "rational" prices, and can do so for extended periods of time. But the determination of rational is usually made in hindsight (by most people.)

Thom| 3.30.12 @ 4:28PM

Using Marxist logic on the "Commerce Clause", if a Republican Congress voted in a law and a Republican President signed requiring every able mind and bodied adult own at least one rifle, shotgun and pistol suitable for combat use in accordance with current military requirements and sufficient ammo to support said weapons with at least one "fire unit" quantity or pay a "penalty", this nation's morgues could not handle the load and we could not bury the dead Marxist fast enough to avoid a humanitarian crisis resulting from the mass cases of "stroke".

I guarantee Forrest Gump could make the case that a couple hundred million adults having to meet those requirements would impact both “interstate” and "intrastate" commerce. The revenue flowing to “government” for just this one mandate would be enormous under current tax policies. Given the elevated levels of firearms purchases since November 2008 for some inexplicable reason the same logic would also mandate that the government has to step into the market since our permanent privileged "poor" class can't afford modern combat capable weapons and certainly not the $10.00 a gallon equivalent prices we see today for ammo vs. before November 2008. Using King Obama's reasoning the government would in effect have to subsidize the mandated purchase of tens of millions of "poor" adults who spend all their money on contraceptives, hoodies, political contributions to Unions and the firm of "Farrakhan, Jackson, Obama and Sharpton",
etc ...

Of course you couldn't find 60 non-Marxist votes in the Senate for such a mandate so the Republican King would just have to decree it under his War Powers, "let it be written; let it be done".

This is what MOB Rule Democracy looks like. Even some Dem-O-crats understand this would blow the lid off of Pandora’s Box and there would be no friendly persuasion that could put it back in place.

Oldefarte| 3.30.12 @ 5:26PM

I'm simply amazed that someone of Ross' young age [much less than mine, since he recently editoralized concerning his interactions with his young children about Zombies etc] can possibly know and write about things that I've lived/experienced within the/my last 45 years. Of course the legal courts are politicalized and always have been so. I mean the need/requirement to establish minorities of race/sex on the SCOTUS.....give me a break! What pre-tel does that have to with legal knowledge and competence? The courts system is possibly the least useful and competent of the three branches of government, and the universal application on the populace of their instant decisions is a testament of that fact. A POTUS' actions/decisions can be negated by a representated congress and maybe vice-versa; but the court system has been politized purposefully for decades now. Why......because it's more instant and quicker, that's why! Racial and sexual minorities have saught out and used the court system for their benefit for quite some time sucessfully, with the rest of society paying the price for same. It's called POLITICS, and Ross' beautiful editorial of today is testament to that fact. Again, bravo....outstanding [and thank you]!!!!!

Ross Kaminsky | 3.30.12 @ 10:20PM

Thanks very much, sir.

By the way, what do you make of the fact that the Court has 6 Catholics and 3 Jews on it, and no Protestants?

Oldefarte| 3.31.12 @ 11:42AM

Ross, I really don't give a youknowhat! All I care about is that the SCOTUS etc have as many conservative, constitutionally attuned legal experts as possible [which they do not now IMHO, as as the last two nominations/sitting juedges are a JOKE and are completely attribitable to POLITICAL CORRECTNESS 101]!! PS, you're welcome, but I was only blogging THE TRUTH concerning your excellent writings.....please keep 'em coming]!!!!!

POST American| 3.31.12 @ 12:45AM

---------------------BOTTOM LINE---------------------

------------THE REPUBLIC HAS FALLEN------------

martin j smith| 3.31.12 @ 9:05AM

SCOTUS at very least since FDR has been politicized and now Obama everything is either in his favor you get the wining of Extreme Right Wing Politics. Or ERWP. The idea that the this Legislation( which no one read, and a majority opposes) as Un Constitutional does not occur to Obama and his fellow travelers.

On the other hand--if Obama Care is upheld the voters--those --the majority who oppose Obama Care will the SCOTUS with extreme scorn at best.

Cincinnatius| 3.31.12 @ 1:38PM

I think that the reasons for all of our problems (the Nation's) can be laid squarely at the feet of the unionized school systems, the federal department of education (farce), and the resultant loss of educational standards of America's children. They have NOT been taught civics, history, math, science, or much else of any use. What they have been taught has been watered down (dumbed down) to the point that they can't apply it to real world situations and the really big part, the emphasis has been on "feeling good", not logical thought, i.e., the folks can no longer connect the dots. They can't fathom that choices have consequences. The fact that they can learn the future by studying history is lost on them as well. While I agree with the author that the attitude of the folks is starting to veer slightly towards "right law", it will take several generations to reclaim any significant portion of what we have lost as a nation.

Tpmmy James| 4.1.12 @ 1:17PM

That's "linchpin," not "lynchpin."

Kingofthenet| 4.1.12 @ 9:47PM

If this law gets shot down, Republicans OWN Health Care, and you WILL get Single Payer(Govt) you will have won the battle and lost the WAR completely.

Timely Renewed | 4.2.12 @ 5:51PM

A decision overturning Obamacare would be most welcome. However, such a decision would still leave in place the previous 75 years of Supreme Court decisions which Mr. Kaminsky references, decisions which have allowed the national government to grow far beyond its original constitutional bounds. These decisions provide the Left with many other ways to take control of our national healthcare and otherwise continue the expansion of federal power.

If we want to be permanently free from the federal leviathan we must reverse these New Deal Supreme Court decisions and return to the original constitutional limits on federal power. To do this we must turn to the method the framers created to accommodate the political policy adjustments which they knew might be needed. That method is amendment. Given how entrenched those New Deal decisions are, the only sure path to roll back the ever-increasing growth of the federal leviathan is constitutional amendments restating and re-affirming those original limits. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com

Latest Headlines

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|28 comments

Enough With the Bipartisanship

Matt Purple|26 comments

The United States of El Norte

Larry Thornberry|19 comments

Vodka = Vodka = Vodka

Daniel J. Flynn|21 comments

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer

Tornado Chasers

Claire Healey|13 comments

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|5 comments

The Chinese Waltz

George H. Wittman|1 comment

The Spectacle Blog

The Restricted Engine

Yogi Love | 6:00AM

Muslim, Er, Youth Riots in Sweden

Aaron Goldstein | 12:41AM

Good Luck Quin

Aaron Goldstein | 12:13AM

One of The London Soldier Beheading Suspects British Born

Aaron Goldstein | 5.23.13

Lois Lerner Now on Administrative Leave

Kaylin Bugos | 5.23.13

Crisis Looms, and Kevin Williamson Can Hardly Wait

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.23.13

Dismantling Networks, Preventing Footholds

Ross Kaminsky | 5.23.13

Bill Would Ban All Abortions After 20 Weeks

Jordan Gonzalez | 5.23.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

The American Spectator

Special Report

Let It Be (Political)

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (281) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Darin| 3.30.12 @ 7:25AM

Jack in Wi.| 3.30.12 @ 7:39AM

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 11:00AM

Ross Kaminsky | 3.30.12 @ 11:22AM

Drunken Sailor| 3.30.12 @ 1:22PM

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 2:56PM

Drunken Sailor| 3.30.12 @ 3:13PM

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 5:05PM

Drunken Sailor| 3.30.12 @ 6:43PM

JmsA| 3.30.12 @ 7:28PM

spike59| 4.2.12 @ 7:50AM

Cynicon Implant| 3.30.12 @ 1:24PM

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 2:55PM

idalily| 3.31.12 @ 12:52AM

Dmac | 3.30.12 @ 2:49PM

Ross Kaminsky | 3.30.12 @ 10:11PM

idalily| 3.31.12 @ 12:53AM

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 2:54PM

Drunken Sailor| 3.30.12 @ 3:21PM

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 5:06PM

Drunken Sailor| 3.30.12 @ 6:44PM

Bill| 4.2.12 @ 2:28PM

Bill| 4.2.12 @ 2:29PM

Pete| 3.30.12 @ 8:41PM

Stan REdmond| 3.31.12 @ 12:05AM

Bill| 4.3.12 @ 11:33AM

W| 3.30.12 @ 11:39AM

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 1:19PM

chuck| 3.30.12 @ 1:35PM

W| 3.30.12 @ 2:51PM

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 3:06PM

Resist We Much! | 3.30.12 @ 6:27PM

From the Desk of Media Matters| 3.30.12 @ 11:53AM

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 1:20PM

chuck| 3.30.12 @ 1:34PM

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 3:07PM

Simon Templar| 3.30.12 @ 4:53PM

From the Desk of Media Matters| 3.30.12 @ 8:00PM

JoshInHB| 4.1.12 @ 4:02AM

Moe Blotz| 3.30.12 @ 7:39AM

old white guy| 3.30.12 @ 8:41AM

JP| 3.30.12 @ 9:00AM

DTOM| 3.30.12 @ 12:11PM

Dmac | 3.30.12 @ 2:51PM

Mike Hawk| 3.30.12 @ 9:46AM

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 11:01AM

W| 3.30.12 @ 11:46AM

DTOM| 3.30.12 @ 12:13PM

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 1:22PM

Al Adab| 3.30.12 @ 5:52PM

Indy| 3.30.12 @ 12:41PM

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 1:23PM

Indy| 3.30.12 @ 1:53PM

Purp| 3.30.12 @ 3:16PM

Indy| 3.30.12 @ 2:16PM

MikeG| 3.30.12 @ 4:31PM

Teaghan| 3.30.12 @ 1:28PM

Stan REdmond| 3.31.12 @ 12:27AM

Bob K.| 3.30.12 @ 6:09PM

Alan Brooks| 3.31.12 @ 2:06AM

Alan Brooks| 3.31.12 @ 2:14AM

Clint| 3.30.12 @ 7:42AM

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.30.12 @ 8:30AM

Mike Hawk| 3.30.12 @ 10:36AM

Alan Brooks| 3.31.12 @ 2:18AM

Clint| 3.30.12 @ 8:38AM

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.30.12 @ 8:57AM

Clint| 3.30.12 @ 9:20AM

Mike Hawk| 3.30.12 @ 9:53AM

Clint| 3.31.12 @ 9:24AM

spike59| 4.2.12 @ 7:53AM

Occam's Tool| 3.30.12 @ 11:24AM

irish19| 3.30.12 @ 1:10PM

Clint| 3.31.12 @ 9:27AM

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.30.12 @ 8:48AM