Political Hippo Circle Jerk - America, farg YEAH!

[rjs246]

Deathfight?

That sounds exhausting. Deathsnark?

[rjs246]

That's why the lifetime term is so important. The court is supposed to answer to the constitution, not to politics. Whether you like or dislike "Obamacare," the court's ruling makes legal sense. If you dislike it, vote for people who you think will reduce the span of it.

I mean... We had to know there would be bitching on one side and joy on the other today, but ultimately throwing blame around is pointless. Besides, there are a lot worse things the government spends money on than healthcare.

I feel neither joy nor anger. I'm just happy that we can (hopefully) move on from this as a constant topic of conversation. I'm broadly in favor of the ACA but not in love with it as a solution to the healthcare problems in this country and still don't understand how we can have such ludicrously expensive service when other countries provide better service for a lower cost. Whatever. 3 farging years of this. Enough.

[Geowhizzer]

That's why the lifetime term is so important. The court is supposed to answer to the constitution, not to politics. Whether you like or dislike "Obamacare," the court's ruling makes legal sense. If you dislike it, vote for people who you think will reduce the span of it.

I mean... We had to know there would be bitching on one side and joy on the other today, but ultimately throwing blame around is pointless. Besides, there are a lot worse things the government spends money on than healthcare.

I feel neither joy nor anger. I'm just happy that we can (hopefully) move on from this as a constant topic of conversation. I'm broadly in favor of the ACA but not in love with it as a solution to the healthcare problems in this country and still don't understand how we can have such ludicrously expensive service when other countries provide better service for a lower cost. Whatever. 3 farging years of this. Enough.

Not likely.  At least not until November.  At least.

[ice grillin you]

Hahaha, I was just coming to make fun of CNN for trying to beat everyone and getting it wrong.

Wow 5-4 with roberts voting left without kennedy.  Did not expect that.  Big props to
roberts knowing he'd get crucified on the right forever now.

That's why the lifetime term is so important. The court is supposed to answer to the constitution, not to politics.

ironically a lot of people believe roberts only upheld it because he doesnt want to see the court politicized and after bush gore and citizens united he just didnt feel comfortable striking down obama care because it would have turned the supreme court into a political entity....even though it pretty much already is

[Eagles_Legendz]

Whatever his motivation, it took balls.  Good for him.

(and yes, I know it shouldn't be this amazing thing for the court to overcome politics, but his vote is a pretty big deal here).

[Rome]

Astounding decision. 

[SD]

I know the basics of the bill...I suppose. I see a bunch of conservative rhetoric about it raising taxes for the middle class. How so?

[Tomahawk]

The only thing I saw was in Munson's stupid link that said if you make over $200,000/year, you'll be taxed an extra 0.9%

Deathfight?

That sounds exhausting. Deathsnark?

Like MA, I struggle to define snarky so I'll pass

[Munson]

I know the basics of the bill...I suppose. I see a bunch of conservative rhetoric about it raising taxes for the middle class. How so?

I think they're trying to push the penalty that you pay for not getting health inurance as a big deal for the middle class but most of those people either 1. Have health insurance, or 2. Are too poor to afford it which would mean they'll get government assisstence under this bill to purchase health insurance

[Munson]

Gov Markell just signed a bill legalizing online gambling and extending sports betting to 20 non-casino establishments in the state...Delaware FTW

[Rome]

Justice Scalia must resign

By E.J. Dionne Jr., Published: June 27

Justice Antonin Scalia needs to resign from the Supreme Court.

He'd have a lot of things to do. He's a fine public speaker and teacher. He'd be a heck of a columnist and blogger. But he really seems to aspire to being a politician — and that's the problem.

So often, Scalia has chosen to ignore the obligation of a Supreme Court justice to be, and appear to be, impartial. He's turned "judicial restraint" into an oxymoronic phrase. But what he did this week, when the court announced its decision on the Arizona immigration law, should be the end of the line.

Not content with issuing a fiery written dissent, Scalia offered a bench statement questioning President Obama's decision to allow some immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally as children to stay. Obama's move had nothing to do with the case in question. Scalia just wanted you to know where he stood.

"After this case was argued and while it was under consideration, the secretary of homeland security announced a program exempting from immigration enforcement some 1.4 million illegal immigrants," Scalia said. "The president has said that the new program is 'the right thing to do' in light of Congress's failure to pass the administration's proposed revision of the immigration laws. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of federal immigration law that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind."

What boggles the mind is that Scalia thought it proper to jump into this political argument. And when he went on to a broader denunciation of federal policies, he sounded just like an Arizona Senate candidate.

"Arizona bears the brunt of the country's illegal immigration problem," the politician-justice proclaimed. "Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem, and indeed have recently shown that they are simply unwilling to do so.

"Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty — not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it." Cue the tea party rally applause.

As it happens, Obama has stepped up immigration enforcement. But if the 76-year-old justice wants to dispute this, he is perfectly free as a citizen to join the political fray and take on the president. But he cannot be a blatantly political actor and a justice at the same time.

Unaccountable power can lead to arrogance. That's why justices typically feel bound by rules and conventions that Scalia seems to take joy in ignoring. Recall a 2004 incident. Three weeks after the Supreme Court announced it would hear a case over whether the White House needed to turn over documents from an energy task force that Dick Cheney had headed, Scalia went off on Air Force Two for a duck-hunting trip with the vice president.

Scalia scoffed at the idea that he should recuse himself. "My recusal is required if . . . my 'impartiality might reasonably be questioned,' " he wrote in a 21-page memo. Well, yes. But there was no cause for worry, Scalia explained, since he never hunted with Cheney "in the same blind or had other opportunity for private conversation."

Don't you feel better? And can you just imagine what the right wing would have said if Vice President Biden had a case before the court and went duck hunting with Justice Elena Kagan?

Then there was the speech Scalia gave at Switzerland's University of Fribourg a few weeks before the court was to hear a case involving the rights of Guantanamo detainees.

"I am astounded at the world reaction to Guantanamo," he declared in response to a question. "We are in a war. We are capturing these people on the battlefield. We never gave a trial in civil courts to people captured in a war. War is war and it has never been the case that when you capture a combatant, you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts. It's a crazy idea to me."

It was a fine speech for a campaign gathering, the appropriate venue for a man so eager to brand the things he disagrees with as crazy or mind-boggling. Scalia should free himself to pursue his true vocation. We can then use his resignation as an occasion for a searching debate over just how political this Supreme Court has become.

Speaking of cue applause.  Lots and lots of applause.

[rjs246]

I had no idea he was so old. New Ghoulpool candidate.

[Diomedes]

Is there any doubt now who's in charge at the Supreme Court?

[Geowhizzer]

[Geowhizzer]

Michael Savage:  The epilepsy medication made Roberts do it!