Two Years On: Obamacare

Probably the broccoli mandate.

 

Damn you, K Street! Damn you American Council on Flowering Cabbage Research! Damn you Friends of Brassica Oleracea! Damn you all!

 

It's not. But the Bush v. Gore decision is the one that'll always hurt the view of conservative members on the Court. It appeared truly political.

 

I planted some this morning. I can't wait for my farm credits to roll in for my 10x10 garden.

Thanks broccoli lobby!

 

Listened to Rush Limbaugh for a while yesterday while in the car.

he was talking about this theory that Kennedy would go with the four liberals and vote to uphold the law, and that Roberts would vote with him so as to avoid a 5-4 decision and to avoid damaging the Court's reputation.

But, here's what I'm wondering: is Roberts the only one concerned about the Court's reputation? Sure, he's the Chief, and it's his "legacy", but are the liberals not concerned with the Court's reputation? Are they not frustrated by 5-4 decisions?

And, since it was posted earlier that the Justices vote in order of seniority during their first conference on the case, starting with the Chief, doesn't this make the "theory" less plausible.

After Roberts, the order goes like this:

Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan

If Roberts and Scalia indicate they are going to strike down the law, Kennedy will know it before he votes. Is Roberts going to switch his vote to avoid a 5-4?

And, since the first four to vote are all conservatives, why shouldn't a liberal feel the burden of avoiding a 5-4 and decide to vote with the majority?

This whole speculation is a liberal ploy. If a Justice is more concerned with the Court's "reputation" or his own personal standing with the New York Times and the Washington DC cocktail party circuit, he/she shouldn't be on the Court.

 

Vote was yesterday. How would you like to be a fly on the wall for that meeting.

 

The idea that the Court is sensitive to controversial decisions and that the Chief Justice tries to build as much of a consensus as possible is an old, established one.

How would the speculation be a liberal "ploy"?

 

The idea of a Chief building consensus is very different than him playing a sheep and voting with the majority purely for the sake of avoiding a 5-4 vote.

Let me know if you can cite a single example of any Chief who has done this. Ever. It might be hard to prove, but is there even speculation of such a vote by a Chief?

And, all of this "speculation" is designed to be a message to Roberts -- and Kennedy -- that their reputations (and that of the Court) will be ruined if they fail to vote to uphold the law.

 

The 'Broccoli As Alternative Fuel, Remote Drone and Side Dish' X-program has already paid out hundreds of millions of dollars to the Pentagon cafeteria.

 

The broccoli posts are telling. Shows that liberals really don't give a shit about fixing problems. What's important is that mockery obscures the issue. Long Live Alinsky!

 

Come on. I mean, really. Come on.

 

Lighten up Francis.

None of your snarky BS is fixing any problems either.