This SCOTUS Decision Most Critical of Out Lifetimes

Recommended Posts

This is probably Detroit on the left, Windsor on the right. Fucking Democrats.

[photograph of the aftermath of fire-bombing Dresden]

Not funny....

It depends. Adam's light-headed comparison of a destroyed Homs neighbourhood to Detroit was funny to him, I guess. I found it grotesque, and so used ironic counterpoint to underline what I though was the speciousness of the comparison. Ha ha.

Incidentally, if you don't find comparing Detroit to Dresden to be funny (or if you don't find comparing urban Syria to Detroit to be funny), you do find the fire-bombing of Dresden a beautiful thing, don't you?

On the subject of the destruction of Tokyo by incendiary bombs, you said this:

Some estimates are as high as 250,000 dead. It was a beautiful raid. More beautiful than Dresden

Funny that.

It was and it saved United States soldiers lives...maybe even some Canadians.

And you just cannot get your nuanced sense of, let's see, "...ironic counterpoint..." around it.

When you have to explain the joke, it was best allowed to die stillborn on the tongue.


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ted Cruz has some choice words for the Supremes, according to this AP story in the San Francisco Chronicle:

Republican presidential contender Ted Cruz attacked Chief Justice John Roberts and other members of the Supreme Court in unusually harsh terms Thursday, referring to them as "rogue justices" and "robed Houdinis" after a 6-3 decision to uphold President Barack Obama's health care law.

Cruz, a Texas senator, did not mention any current high court members by name in remarks on the Senate floor. But his speech included a thinly veiled reference to Roberts, part of the court majority that upheld tax credits that defray the cost of coverage for lower-income individuals nationwide.

"These justices are not behaving as umpires calling balls and strikes. They have joined a team," the Texas lawmaker said.

At his Senate confirmation hearing a decade ago, Roberts said, "I will remember that it's my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat."

Cruz also said the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist — whom Roberts succeeded — "would be filled with sorrow at what has become of the Supreme Court of the United States."

Appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2005, Roberts also referred to Rehnquist, calling him a mentor and friend.

Other congressional critics of the law registered their unhappiness with the ruling, but few if any employed the tone that Cruz used.

He said the decision was "judicial activism, plain and simple," and said the court spoke for "nakedly political reasons."

As for the six justices who comprised the majority in the decision, he said, "They are lawless, and they hide their prevarication in legalese."

While Cruz did not explain his reference to "robed Houdinis," Harry Houdini was an early 20th-century magician who specialized in escaping from jails, straitjackets, coffins and other seemingly inescapable surroundings.

Since you got your feathers only lightly ruffled by my sardonic comments above, Adam, you will probably cluck approvingly at this story from the Guardian:

Syrians respond to 'summer in Syria' tweet with photographic realities of war

Edited by william.scherk
Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you got your feathers only lightly ruffled by my sardonic comments above, Adam, you will probably cluck approvingly at this story from the Guardian:

Bill, I never take arguments personally, if I do, I will tell you.

And your feather cluck ironic nuance is too nuanced.

What came first, your nuanced joke, or, the dead silence pin dropping clatter...



Link to post
Share on other sites

The Washington Post editorial board puts up a fairly nasty headline to their commentary, The Supreme Court’s Obamacare ruling disappoints the conspiracy theorists.

IN ADVANCE of the Supreme Court taking its third crack at Obamacare, there was feverish speculation. The justices would vote according to their preferred policy outcomes, some said, striking down the subsidies that underpin the policy. Or the court’s conservatives would act to help Republican presidential candidates, preserving the subsidies to prevent a policy disaster for which the GOP would be blamed. Or maybe Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. would do whatever he thought was in the best interests of the institution of the Supreme Court.

No such untoward motivations were evident in the cogent ruling the court issued Thursday, which maintains government health-care subsidies for needy Americans in every state. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy both joined the court’s liberal wing in ndorsing the most reasonable reading of the statute, knowing they will face an angry backlash from the Obamacare-hating right. Perhaps the next time the court delivers a ruling that disappoints the left, the default position should not be to question its good faith.

The case decided Thursday, King v. Burwell, arose from a line in the Affordable Care Act that is, in fact, ambiguous. The law says that subsidies are available to those who buy coverage in a marketplace “established by the State.” Does that really mean, as the Obama administration’s opponents alleged, that the law denies subsidies to people in the majority of states that refused to establish a marketplace? The law, after all, also tells the federal government to establish “such” marketplaces in states that don’t do it on their own. That, among other things, suggests there should be no practical distinction between marketplaces established by states and that established by the federal government.


It’s easy when disagreeing with a Supreme Court ruling, whether King v. Burwell or Citizens United, to dismiss it as the product of bad faith. Thursday’s ruling should encourage the court’s more strident critics to wonder who the real cynics are.

One detail I did not know -- Ted Cruz and John Roberts both clerked for Justice Rehnquist, and they each worked on Bush v Gore. I guess their legal friendship is over ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Marxism continues to conquer the world long after the name was dropped (by most): the philosophy of envy, control, fear and levelling running up against inertia and human nature and soon, political fascism from the "right" (the wrong right) or what the Nazis did to the communists in Germany which will first be directed against Muslims in Europe who are now not fleeing ISIS so much as bringing ISIS into Europe

Your run-on sentencing sometimes obscures the salient points you make. Here, I take issue with your conclusion that refugees fleeing the Syrian conflict are composed of ISIS operatives. I may have misunderstood, of course, so I'll try to pick out that remark, including the nouns and verbs in a more comprehensible form.

  • Marxism continues to conquer the world (even if not under that name).
  • Marxism by any name is the philosophy of envy, control, fear and levelling
  • Marxism is running up against inertia and human nature
  • Political fascism is what the Nazis did to the communists in Germany (the communist party was banned in 1933, and subsequently rooted out, stem and branch).
  • Soon, political fascism from the "right" will be directed against Muslims in Europe.
  • Muslims in Europe are now not fleeing ISIS so much as bringing ISIS into Europe.

-- I only take issue with the last two sentences. In the first of the two, it seems you believe that the fascist right will take power, or perhaps make enough political headway to force non-fascist parties in power to adopt fascist laws and regulations targeting "The Muslims."

This may be true to some extent. The best evidence comes from surveying the popularity of such nationalist groups as Jobbik in Hungary, the Progress Party in Norway, the British Nationalist Party, the Dutch Freedom Party, The Northern League in Italy, the National Democratic Party in Germany, France's National Front, Vlaams Belung in Belgium, the Danish People's Party, the True Finns, the Sweden Democrats, and the Austrian Freedom Party -- and so on (I've left out the fascist right of Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Slovakia, Spain, Estonia, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, and Slovenia).

These are all full members of the European Union.

I think one of the things you might not be considering are the manifold institutions of the EU, from its paramount Human Rights law on down to border agreements -- the so-called Schengen Agreement, which dismantles internal barriers to the flow of people, goods, and capital. I think you will find that the various states under EU law have to respect EU law and EU jurisprudence. (for example, France's ' 'burka ban' was appealed to the EU bodies, and found to be legal)

-- all that just to signal that fascist assaults upon Muslim Europeans -- in law -- have very high hurdles, that there is a margin of maneuver, notwithstanding the fascist right's collective numbers and standing in the European Parliament. There, the parties have formed a bloc of 38 legislators, out of 751 seats.

You are, then, generally correct to point to a 'rise of fascism' in Europe. I would only suggest you keep your sense of proportion.

That leaves your last opinion, that "Muslims in Europe are now not fleeing ISIS so much as bringing ISIS into Europe."

Here is my take: those fleeing to Europe are fleeing war or persecution. The greatest refugee flows are from the territory of Syria. There are an estimated 1 million Syrian refugees in Jordan, another million in Lebanon, and a million and a half in Turkey. For the most part, these refugees are escaping the savage civil war and indiscriminate attacks upon civilians by the government side, not merely or only ISIS depredations and terror. The best estimate of the numbers of Syrians who have fled their homes is 9 million people. This is the greatest refugee crisis since WWII.

You seem to suggest that these millions fleeing war are of a muchness, and that muchness includes ISIS members in great numbers.

There is no data that supports this contention.

I know you have insisted upon an apocalyptic scenario for (especially) France, due to Muslim fecundity. You foresee a fascist De Gaulle taking over in a coup, and imposing an authoritarian dictatorship within ten or twenty years, new wars of religion, and a violent breakup of the European Union.

That's an opinion, and a hell of an opinion, but it is most likely wrong in my eyes.

This is Syria, the city of Homs, an area destroyed by government bombing. The government is driving the 'enemy' population out, in a form of ethnic cleansing. This picture is a very small example of the destruction of the urban fabric.


The refugee situation situation you describe sickens me no end, but I was thinking of the refugees out of North Africa, especially Libya, who would only minorilly be ISIS agents.


as for Europe, what will be will be and the reactions too--it's all going to be played out

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thursday could be one of the most important decisions of the remaining 606 days of the worst Presidency in American history.

The Obamacare subsidies case: Either Roberts or Kennedy. This is a “pick ’em” on the outcome. If they do find for the government, expect federalism concerns to play a large role.

The EPA case: Scalia seems like the most likely author, which would almost certainly be a setback for the EPA. Kennedy could be writing this, however, especially if Ginsburg writes the Arizona redistricting case.

The ACCA case: This is probably Ginsburg, unless she has the Arizona redistricting case. If she does not write this opinion, anyone other than Breyer (or Scalia, if he does author the EPA case) is a likely candidate.

The rights of gay marriage is the other important case. However, the outcome will not significantly injure the survival of our Constitutional Republic whereas the Federal exchange issue will as will the EPA case because both will cripple the rest of his failed Presidency.

There is one more mid level disaster case which is the oldest on the docket:

The oldest case on the docket is Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project. The question here is whether the Fair Housing Act allows for a disparate impact claim – that is, a claim that a practice can violate the FHA by virtue of disproportionately affecting a racial group. There is only one justice from the January term who did not author a case: Kennedy.

Kennedy is probably the most misunderstood member of the court. He’s frequently described as a swing vote, but it is probably more accurate to say he is heterodox. Unlike Sandra Day O’Connor, who really did try to balance factors and split proverbial babies, Kennedy has divergent views that tend to be strongly held. On matters of race (such as affirmative action) and the scope of government, he tends to be pretty conservative. Nothing is written in stone, but this suggests that he will probably be writing with the conservative justices here. Oddly, liberals might be better off if Scalia were writing the opinion, as he seemed skeptical at times of the state’s claims. On the other hand, perhaps Scalia is in the majority with Kennedy and the liberal justices. Again, this is not a science.

This is an important case. The fellow who wrote this article Trende has some excellent insights into the Court, the cases on the docket and the Justices...good writer also.


The abysmal 5-4 decision in the "disparate impact" Texas case is far reaching.

As FEE noted that now,: can be held liable for housing discrimination whether or not you or anyone in your organization intended to discriminate. Instead — to quote Justice Anthony Kennedy, who joined with the Court’s four liberals in a 5-4 majority — you might have been influenced by “unconscious prejudice” or “stereotyping” when you lent money or rented apartments or carried on appraisal or brokerage or planning functions.

What you did had “disparate impact” on some race or other legally protected group, and now you’re caught up in potentially ruinous litigation in which it’s up to you to show that you had a good reason for what you did and could not have arranged your actions in some other way that had less disparate impact.

FEE recommends reading Thomas' "brilliant" recounting of ...the EEOC’s successful subversion of its own founding statute..." in his 16 pages of dissent.

This is on point and illustrates the soft tyranny juggernaut that just keeps moving forward with the agenda.


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Raisin case was decided in favor of the private sector.

However, this case is critical.

Involves limiting the fascist EPA and requiring that the scheme consider costs.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now