IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE FOLLOWING, YOU DON'T BELONG HERE, SO KINDLY GET OUT AND STAY OUT.
We welcome Conversation
But without Vituperation.
If your aim is Vilification ––
Other forms of Denigration ––
Unfounded Accusation --
Determined Obfuscation ––
Alienation with Self-Justification ––
We WILL use COMMENT ERADICATION.
Gratuitous Displays of Extraneous Knowledge Offered Not To Shed Light Or Enhance the Discussion, But For The Primary Purpose Of Giving An Impression Of Superiority are obnoxiously SELF-AGGRANDIZING, and therefore, Subject to Removal at the Discretion of the Censor-in-Residence.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Bella Koss-Blabber saidReplyDelete
June 25, 2015, 05:12 pm
House Bill Would Force the Supreme Court to Enroll in ObamaCare
By Mark Hensch 0 The Gill
A House Republican on Thursday proposed forcing the Supreme Court justices and their staff to enroll in ObamaCare.
Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas) said that his SCOTUScare Act would make all nine justices and their employees join the national healthcare law’s exchanges.
“As the Supreme Court continues to ignore the letter of the law, it’s important that these six individuals understand the full impact of their decisions on the American people,” he said.
“That’s why I introduced the SCOTUScare Act to require the Supreme Court and all of its employees to sign up for ObamaCare,” Babin said.
Babin’s potential legislation would only let the federal government provide healthcare to the Supreme Court and its staff via ObamaCare exchanges.
“By eliminating their exemption from ObamaCare, they will see firsthand what the American people are forced to live with,” he added.
His move follows the Supreme Court’s ruling Thursday morning that upheld the subsidies under ObamaCare that are provided by the government to offset the cost of buying insurance.
The 6-3 decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, said consumers purchasing health insurance from the federal exchange in roughly 34 states could continue to do so.
The ruling in King v. Burwell has spurred anger on the right, with conservatives questioning the logic of the decision.
“They deserve an Olympic medal for the legal gymnastics,” Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee, told The Hill.
Roberts argued in his decision that eliminating subsidies would have pulled state healthcare markets into a death spiral. That chain of effects, he added, was not consistent with ObamaCare’s intent.
“The argument that the phrase ‘established by the State’ would be superfluous if Congress meant to extend tax credits to both State and Federal Exchanges is unpersuasive,” he wrote.
Justice Antonin Scalia strongly criticized that interpretation in his dissent.
“We should start by calling this law SCOTUScare,” he wrote, lambasting Roberts for the ObamaCare decision in 2012 declaring the law’s mandate that people buy insurance constitutional.
President Obama celebrated the Supreme Court’s ruling in a statement from the Rose Garden.
“After multiple challenges before the Supreme Court, the Affordable Care Act is here to stay,” he said.
Government is not the answer. It's the problem.ReplyDelete
The TOWN CRIER saidReplyDelete
Late Breaking News!
Grim beheading in France as two attackers storm factory (Wires)
Second attack: At least 19 people have been killed in an attack on a beachfront hotel on the Tunisian coast, Tunisia's interior minister says, according to the state-run TAP news agency. At least one attacker has been killed in an ongoing security operation, TAP reports.
Love Her Or Hate Her, Ann Coulter Warned Us About John Roberts 10 Years Ago
by Stephen Kruiser
June 25, 2015
After conservatives took another gut punch from black-robed Obamacare cheerleader Chief Justice John Roberts, many of us were left wondering just what in the heck is wrong with this guy? After all, these Republican appointees to the Supreme Court are supposed to be on our side, right? They can’t all be David Souter.
It turns out that Ann Coulter sniffed another Souter-esque betrayal in the offing ten years ago:
“After pretending to consider various women and minorities for the Supreme Court these past few weeks, President Bush decided to disappoint all the groups he had just ginned up and nominate a white male.
“So all we know about him for sure is that he can’t dance and he probably doesn’t know who Jay-Z is. Other than that, he is a blank slate. Tabula rasa. Big zippo. Nada. Oh, yeah … We also know he’s argued cases before the Supreme Court. Big deal; so has Larry Flynt’s attorney.
“But unfortunately, other than that that, we don’t know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever.”
I know it is all the rage in this era of hypersensitive feelings for some conservatives, and almost all moderate Republicans, to bristle at everything Coulter says, and be dismissive of her because she has a knack for tossing out an outrageous headline-grabbing comment. Here’s the thing about her: she’s right a lot of the time.
Sure, I’ve got to deduct a lot of points for her flip-flop to become a Romney champion in 2012 but a lot of people were drunk on wishful thinking then (present company excluded). Other than that, she makes a lot of sense.
So maybe pay just a little more attention to her from now on.
And pray that Antonin Scalia lives to be 148.
Why did you put that ugly picture of blueberries on straw at the top?ReplyDelete
LIFTED from ALWAYS ON WATCH:
On Obamacare, John Roberts Helps Overthrow the Constitution
By George F. Will
June 25 at 5:26 PM
Conservatives are dismayed about the Supreme Court’s complicity in rewriting the Affordable Care Act — its ratification of the IRS’s disregard of the statute’s plain and purposeful language. But they have contributed to this outcome. Their decades of populist praise of judicial deference to the political branches has borne this sour fruit.
The court says the ACA’s stipulation that subsidies are to be administered by the IRS using exchanges “established by the State” should not be construed to mean what it says. Otherwise the law will not reach as far as it will if federal exchanges can administer subsidies in states that choose not to establish exchanges. The ACA’s legislative history, however, demonstrates that the subsidies were deliberately restricted to distribution through states’ exchanges in order to pressure the states into establishing their own exchanges.
The most durable damage from Thursday’s decision is not the perpetuation of the ACA, which can be undone by what created it — legislative action. The paramount injury is the court’s embrace of a duty to ratify and even facilitate lawless discretion exercised by administrative agencies and the executive branch generally.
LIFTED DIRECTLY from ALWAYS ON WATCH:
The court’s decision flowed from many decisions by which the judiciary has written rules that favor the government in cases of statutory construction. The decision also resulted from Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s embrace of the doctrine that courts, owing vast deference to the purposes of the political branches, are obligated to do whatever is required to make a law efficient, regardless of how the law is written.
What Roberts does by way of, to be polite, creative construing (Justice Antonin Scalia, dissenting, calls it “somersaults of statutory interpretation”) is legislating, not judging.
Roberts writes, almost laconically, that the ACA “contains more than a few examples of inartful drafting.” That is his artful way of treating “inartful” as a synonym for “inconvenient” or even “self-defeating.”
Rolling up the sleeves of his black robe and buckling down to the business of redrafting the ACA, Roberts invents a corollary to “Chevron deference.”
Named for a 1984 case, "Chevron" deference has become central to the way today’s regulatory state functions. It says that agencies charged with administering statutes are entitled to deference when they interpret ambiguous statutory language.
While purporting not to apply Chevron, Roberts expands it to empower all of the executive branch to ignore or rewrite congressional language that is not at all ambiguous but is inconvenient for the smooth operation of something Congress created.
Exercising judicial discretion in the name of deference, Roberts enlarges executive discretion. He does so by validating what the IRS did when it ignored the ACA’s text in order to disburse billions of dollars of subsidies through federal exchanges not established by the states.
Chevron deference does for executive agencies what the “rational basis” test, another judicial invention, does for legislative discretion.
Since the New Deal, courts have permitted almost any legislative infringement of economic liberty that can be said to have a rational basis. Applying this extremely permissive test, courts usually approve any purpose that a legislature asserts. Courts even concoct purposes that legislatures neglect to articulate. This fulfills the Roberts Doctrine that it is a judicial function to construe laws in ways that make them perform better, meaning more efficiently, than they would as written by Congress.
Thursday’s decision demonstrates how easily, indeed inevitably, judicial deference becomes judicial dereliction, with anticonstitutional consequences.
We are, says William R. Maurer of the Institute for Justice, becoming “a country in which all the branches of government work in tandem to achieve policy outcomes, instead of checking one another to protect individual rights. Besides violating the separation of powers, this approach raises serious issues about whether litigants before the courts are receiving the process that is due to them under the Constitution.”
The Roberts Doctrine facilitates what has been for a century progressivism’s central objective, the overthrow of the Constitution’s architecture. The separation of powers impedes progressivism by preventing government from wielding uninhibited power. Such power would result if its branches behaved as partners in harness rather than as wary, balancing rivals maintaining constitutional equipoise.
Roberts says “we must respect the role of the Legislature” but “[A] fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan.” However, he goes beyond “understanding” the plan; he adopts a legislator’s role in order to rescue the legislature’s plan from the consequences of the legislature’s dubious decisions. By blurring, to the point of erasure, constitutional boundaries, he damages all institutions, not least his court.
Six dung beetles sitting on the SCOTUS.ReplyDelete
Our republic has ended.
The Progressives are thrilled, of course. They'll stay that way -- until they are stripped of almost all assets (Many rich-as-Croesus Progressives) and shipped off to slave labor camps.
I will abide by your advise at Lisa's blog.ReplyDelete
Thank you for your courage.
Ohio's Gov. John Kasich to anounse his presidential run today Friday, saying "amateur hour" if he enters the race.ReplyDelete
What an ego!!! Everyone else in the race is a rank amateur? Really?
Note to the gloating weenie progressives, this is my life, and not yours, this is my freedom, that I personally, and proudly served my country to preserve, my rights for. and it makes me and millions of others happy to own a gun. So although I personably don’t own or fly a Confederate flag, or have one on my belt buckle, but when I see anyone with a Confederate flag in my state of Texas with this flag in it back window or under its license plate, it tells me that it has nothing to do with southern heritage. I telling the world, that "I am a proud racist!"ReplyDelete
Just don't use that gun to shoot yourself in the foot with.Delete
I was not around to see LBJ in office, but his history is very discouraging and NOT a fan. Great history lesson to be learned about demoRats, the military won the battles andReplyDelete
Congress lost the war.
Something like we have now with Obama
LBJ was another rotten son-of-a-bitch. continuing vietnam was LBJ's acquisitionLadybird's name. I believed him just like I believed Onama's Hope and Change BS. Especially when it's someone else's life at stake.ReplyDelete
Roberts is an odd duck.ReplyDelete
On the Gay Marriage ruling, he said it had "nothing to do with the constitution."
What the hell does he know about the constitution?
The gay marriage ruling harms us not one whit, but ObamaCare is a metastasizing cloud of liberty-devouring termites.
I said it a few years back, and now I repeat:
We are a progressive nation. Those longing for the good old days will be longing for a long time.
There is no going back. Better not to concentrate on forging a new path forward in the new, ever-evolving environment.
There is no going back. Better to concentrate on forging a new path forward in the new, ever-evolving environment.Delete
Thank you for your honest assessment and commentary FT…. at least I can say we still have some patriot’s who still cares for our ONCE great Nation.ReplyDelete
Let me say this, and you might even think that I’m crazy but this is how I honestly feel.
After yesterday and todays Supreme Court's rulings, Donald Trump is looking pretty damn good to me. This afternoon, I read about the ACA and the decision by the supremes to allow this disaster to continue. then I saw a video of Shabazz calling for the niggers to finish what some slave started way back when and to top that off I see
He said “Finish the mission, and lets kill the slave masters”
You just can’t make this stuff up. Please, wake me up from this bad dream. I mean why can’t WE THE PEOPLE stop this shit without going to the mattresses? So I guess that it's cool to be both gay and Black now! Or better yet a gay Black!
FT, what exactly about this decision bothers you?ReplyDelete
I can't believe you don't know the answer to that, Jersey, but just in case you're in earnest, here it is in a nutshell:Delete
It is not only unconstitutional it is morally wrong –– especially in a country that still pretends to be a representative republic –– for 5 or 6 unelected individuals to be able to thwart the will of the majority arbitrarily by using rationalization, specious logic and wishful thinking as the bases for the decisions they make that affect the future quality of more than three-hundred million lives.
This is not "democratic," Jersey, this is OLIGARCHIC, and when the Judicial oligarchy –– for whatever reasons –– supports the whims and caprices of an arrogant, conceited, willful, spoiled brat of an incompetent president with a barely hidden, anti-American agenda who was elected under false pretenses, OLIGARCHY degenerates further and slides into out-and-out DICTATORSHIP.
Though I despise Obamacare, and wish with all my heart it had never been foisted on us by main force, my objection to the Supreme Court decision on Obamacare AND the Gay Marriage issue has more to do with the high court's violation of proper legal procedure than personal sentiment.
I don't expect you to understand, but I felt duty bound to TRY to answer your question as honestly and as clearly as I knew how.
He would never understand, liberals are dumber than bricksReplyDelete
I'm not so sure about that, Lolly. Jersey is a little different, because he is friendly and not consumed with bitterness and contempt.Delete
If we stop trying to understand each other, society really will be lost. I've given up on many, but not on the hope that a breakthrough may yet be achieved.
As the old saying goes, "It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness."
Ok, You ass-Wipe Liberals, You won and the Country lost.ReplyDelete
Now STFU about it so we can concentrate of the real problems facing this nation? Like 18 trillion in debt and radical muslims who want us all dead by beheading, and our dear leader does NOTHING about it..
SCOTUS hits a new low...ReplyDelete
Certainly not to a majority.
Sad for some. Cause for jubilation for others.
Attorneys will be discussing merits/demerits ad infinitum at the bottom of ye olde briny for some time to come.
When the left finally collapsed the nation, they'll blame Bush, rightwingconservativechristians, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.ReplyDelete
Or, could they possibly be right; to a degree?Delete
Attorneys will be discussing merits/demerits ad infinitum at the bottom of ye olde briny for some time to come.
Well, it's day two. I don't know of any republicans or conservatives, or any other heterosexuals, who have crashed into stores and looted or burned down stores and buildings because of yesterday's ruling on gay marriage.I know that I I don't really feel too different about it. It's tottaly irrelevant to me.I'm more concerned about their ruling in taking down the Confederate flag, a symbol of Southern Pride, NOT RACE.ReplyDelete
So whats the Big Deal all about?
“Without liberty and injustice for ALL”ReplyDelete
Maybe we should all Quit our jobs and go on welfare . And let the Government worry about us..ReplyDelete
How times have changed since Obama came along to save us all. , and not for the better.
These Liberals all want to play Santa with other people's money and are led by a Chicago thug named Barack Hussein Obama with a goal at financial redistribution.
Lefties who still defend him are in for a huge surprise when he empties their bank accounts!
At this point, “What Difference Does it Make” . Ovomit and his supporters have killed the America we once loved. we no longer have any fight left \ anymore. why doesn’t anyone challenge this American hater ?ReplyDelete
What has “Hit a New Low” is the conservatives trying to overturn the best in America, like putting a nail in the coffin of racism. Finally having Obamacare ( Affordable Care Act) becoming a permanent fixture in American lives . The financial markets hitting new highs. With his victories this past week, Obama's legacy will be the most successful POTUS in history.ReplyDelete
Obama has fulfilled his promise of change, there's no denying it. Healthcare and equal rights trophies sit on his mantle. And the only things the GOP have to run on is repealing them Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and repeal of the ACA.
While republicans are making fools out of themselves over immigration in the Mexican families and want deport them Ala Donald Trump.
Wel, aren't you the cheerful little earful?Delete
Della de la Rue
The Confederate flag does NOT, and never has represented slavery. It represents Southern Pride. There will always be some sick moron who interprets things differently. That's exactly how wars are started.ReplyDelete
And on another note, how about these people (if you want to call these illegal aliens, especially Mexicans people) flying the Mexican flag or other flags of other countries instead of, or next to the American flag, or worse, above it, but I am supposed to say nothing and chalk it up to those people having that RIGHT to display the flag of their supposed HOME country.
Where were all the bitching and moaning when the Mexicanswere flying the American Flag upside down and under the Mexican flag?
But they want the Confederate/ Rebel banished?
And how about these Sons of Bitches that burn or Stump on the American flag ( the ring Leader was Barack Obama's buddy Bill Ayers!!
These idiots think that the world should be made in their image, as if they are Gods over all of us. Does anyone really think that removing the flag will stop racial problems, just how low do you think it’s going to take until there’s another riot in the streets even if and after the Confederate flag has been taken down?
What’s Next? Today it's the Confederate flag, and tomorrow who knows what?Delete
And just Who gets to define what a symbol is? The KKK uses the American flags who is bitching about that?
This just don't feel like a free country anymore. What these idiots do not understand that if you start to banish flags, and symbols, and certain speech, that it will not stop at what they think is good and bad. When we run out of flags, it will be clothing, then music, then speech, then colors, then bumper stickers, then newspapers, magazines, and on and on until the only thing left that we are allowed to say, do, display, read, watch, listen to, create, and so on, until it's your Church or Synagogue, and then what? What will be the only those things that are government approved? Does anyone think that this would be a good thing? Just like the Moochie banning our kids foods! Seriously.
And that will be the end of what our Founding Fathers left us. That is what communism is. And if these whiny lefties think that once they get their way, and allow the govt to intervene, that it will stop at their door, well they truly are as dumb as a box of rocks like we know they are. Liberals Blame the Guns, I Blame the Liberals!
This man is a sham, and so is Shrillary...
If you value your freedoms, and if you want to keep those freedoms, the you have to do your best to keep this Pig in a Pant suit OUT of the White House. Her Thighness talks about gun control and then both she and Obama illegally sends armed rebels in Libya and Syria through our embassy in Benghazi? And the rest is history!
Her speech over the week-end about the Charleston shooting, had all the content of a grease trap. And yet these Democrats really think that putting up some ugly old lying conniving slut is good for America’s future? Are they kidding? They are drinking Hillary's Douche Water. Because it takes an extra level of stupidity to look past the Lying the Stealing and the Influence Peddling, to find any reason to elect that Pig
The Black man says Whites need to change their racist ways. OK, so how about we start with this?Delete
How about Blacks staying in school, how about Blacks pulling their pants up, stopping the gang banging and shooting their brothers and sisters, stop using the “N” word if you don’t want us whites to use it, stopping the Drugs and the Drug dealing, and get a job instead of griping about a past they know nothing about except what they have been told and; stop looking for handouts from the government.
I’m sick and tired of being blamed for something that was done in the past and that I nor my ancestors or anyone who is alive today had a part in. I, and the White race in general, are being blamed for actions that happened over 150 years ago? Why?
Grow up, and stop blaming the whole world for the way you choose to act and live, it’s no ones fault but your own! Personal responsibility goes a long way.
Since the late 1960’s and early 1970’s we have ALL pretty much been on an even playing field where jobs, money and education are involved, the idea of "White privilege" is nothing more than an outright LIE! In this country, anyone that wants an education can get an education; it’s not getting the education that presents the problem, it’s having the will to make use that education to the benefit of yourself, your family and society as a whole.
I simply don't believe that children grow up wanting to be a gang banger, drug dealer or criminal of any kind. instead, there are too many kids today who are brought up in very toxic environments and they lose their ability to hope and dream at a very early age then end up repeating another recycling of their parents / or parent..
The Confederate flag is a focal point in American history. I have my own personal and feelings about it and what it means to me and it is not at all about hatred and racism, it’s about the heritage of the South and their courage to take a stand and fight to separate from the United States over what they believed was being denied to them: States’ Rights, no matter that the lefties think.
I will admit that today there are groups that use the Confederate flag as a symbol of hatred but those people are the scum of the earth; Klan, Skinheads and Nazis, over all the most uneducated and illiterate group of White Trash imaginable. But we find that happening in ever race, and in every community including and especially in Black communities. We are never in our lifetimes going to change that. The New Black Panthers have held events where they trampled, and burned the American flag. Why do you suppose they would do that? If they want to Dump On the Confederate flag because they are terribly stupid and misguided as to it’s meaning, OK, maybe so, but why the American flag?
Many claimed to believe that the election of Barack Hussein Obama would bring about the end of racism in America; Obama was supposed to be the Post racial President.and I believe the majority of the racism prevalent today emits from the black community. There are Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons in the black community that make money keeping this pot stirred and tended, and until black America realizes this and stops it themselves, it will never stop. I’ve never been racist that I know of, I don’t judge people by the color of their skin, and don't want anyone to do that to me or my family either. Obama and his Socialist ilk, are far from Uniters, they are Racial Dividers. I for one am sick and tired of all this racial double standards we have here in America from Oprah to Sharpton
By stirring up racial tension over this issue, the Obama administration hopes to gain support for its administration while blaming unrest in Ferguson and Baltimore on slavery and Jim Crow.