"Toobin has vocally denounced the Court in the past few days and he, a constitutional legal analyst, will not engage with the constitution on the merits."
This is how humans cope with remorse - not that the prick deserves compassion. He should be shunned - for eternity
Substitute “eradicate”, “kill”, “eliminate” , “destroy”, “execute”, etc., etc. for “abort” in this sentence…
“I mean, so the idea that we’re going to make a judgment that is going to say that no one can make the judgment to choose to abort a child based on a decision by the Supreme Court, I think, goes way overboard.”- President Joe Biden, (May 3, 2022)
“I mean, so the idea that we’re going to make a judgment that is going to say that no one can make the judgment to choose to abort a child based on a decision by the Supreme Court, I think, goes way overboard.”- President Joe Biden, (May 3, 2022)
When the Sebelius case was decided, the media initially was reporting that Roberta struck down the law.
I was reading the decision and was confused because what I was reading did not indicate it was being struck down. As the news was airing—and screwing up!—I emailed an attorney friend at the IJ and asked him what was up.
At the risk of speaking for him, he said Roberts crafted the opinion in such a way that it would ultimately restore federalism over the years.
I’m interested to know if Alito’s majority opinion references that decision.
Regarding Sebelius, Roberts in his attempt to keep the Court from looking political, made the Court look political.
I am not a lawyer and I know SOCUTS operates differently than lower courts. But Roberts gave the Obama lawyers something they did not ask for, the argument for the individual mandate was not a proper use of Congress's Commerce Clause or Necessary and Proper Clause powers, also the significant expansion of Medicaid, was not a valid exercise of Congress's spending power, their case was lost.
So he redefined the individual mandate as a tax; Obama Care should have been struck down and sent back to Congress, as was U.S. v. Davis.
Roberts looked political.
As far as jurisprudence goes, the decision to strike down Row cannot be credibly argued against, SCOTUS has no standing therefore the case should never have been heard.
We're talking about relativistic/utilitarian thinking. Absolutes like laws are only one of the weapons in the utilitarian arsenal. Driving force goes with "Whatever it takes, end justifies the means". If law supports their desire, they use it (pounding Roe v. Wade on us for 50 years). If the law does not suit (Roe v. Wade unravelling), change tactics to FUD, desire and policy, posturing the illusion of liberty hiding the engine of libertine lawlessness in the shadows. If the law is in the way, change horses. Nothing new under the sun, just a lot more ways to spin it into the public square.
Your analysis is logical, and thoughtful. Leftists and others hysterical about this likely decision have apparently disengaged their God-given ability to think rationally and critically. They certainly do not respect our system of checks and balances. If they actually got what they think they want, outrage fueled fiats to force their 'morality' on everyone, eventually they will come to realize how wrong they were. I'm thinking the French Revolution. There is nothing new under the sun.
An honest and objective media would never allow these shenanigans to happen (not showing the videos, not showing the pictures, calling Florida's law the "Don't say gay" law, etc.). An honest and objective media would immediately shut this crap down by reporting the truth and exposing the lies. But quite literally, Pravda and al Jazeera are now more honest than American media. They at least get it right SOME of the time.
Very clear and well stated. Helps me deal with the hysterical reaction on public radio and on the streets. (But then so does the Bible's record of the crowd crying, "Give us Barabbas!")
There's an article on Facebook (from WSB) claiming that this will reverse Griswold (no more birth control!), Obergefell (this endangers same sex marriage!), and a whole host of other SCOTUS decisions protecting the rights to privacy and the LGBT community. It's insane how unhinged they've become.
"Toobin has vocally denounced the Court in the past few days and he, a constitutional legal analyst, will not engage with the constitution on the merits."
This is how humans cope with remorse - not that the prick deserves compassion. He should be shunned - for eternity
Spot-on Erick!
Substitute “eradicate”, “kill”, “eliminate” , “destroy”, “execute”, etc., etc. for “abort” in this sentence…
“I mean, so the idea that we’re going to make a judgment that is going to say that no one can make the judgment to choose to abort a child based on a decision by the Supreme Court, I think, goes way overboard.”- President Joe Biden, (May 3, 2022)
_______________________________________
Living out this contradiction,
Just gets harder all the time.
Law depends on what we’re feeling,
And we don’t feel that’s a crime.
Just ignore the incoherence.
Just pretend you just don’t see.
Close your eyes and call it “Progress”…
Deconstruct reality!
Chaos is The Cause we’re into.
Instability’s our thing.
We’ve advanced straight back to pagan…
(We love that familiar ring.)
Won’t you join us here in bedlam
Where Whatever has they way.
We’re done with the “god” of Scripture…
Satan taught us how to prey.
“I mean, so the idea that we’re going to make a judgment that is going to say that no one can make the judgment to choose to abort a child based on a decision by the Supreme Court, I think, goes way overboard.”- President Joe Biden, (May 3, 2022)
[Wait….Did he say “a child”?]
Joe, you’d better walk that back, sir.
Truth’s no longer selling well!
Please, Joe, try to be more ‘nuanced’.
Join us, Joe!....(We’re raising hell)
* * *
Welcome to the current madness,
Could that be a bright red flag?
Truth slips out despite the darkness…
Whoops! The cat escapes the bag!
We’ve been busy deconstructing
Every truth that comes our way.
This we’re proud to call “progressive”.
(We’ve got pipers yet to pay.)
When the Sebelius case was decided, the media initially was reporting that Roberta struck down the law.
I was reading the decision and was confused because what I was reading did not indicate it was being struck down. As the news was airing—and screwing up!—I emailed an attorney friend at the IJ and asked him what was up.
At the risk of speaking for him, he said Roberts crafted the opinion in such a way that it would ultimately restore federalism over the years.
I’m interested to know if Alito’s majority opinion references that decision.
Regarding Sebelius, Roberts in his attempt to keep the Court from looking political, made the Court look political.
I am not a lawyer and I know SOCUTS operates differently than lower courts. But Roberts gave the Obama lawyers something they did not ask for, the argument for the individual mandate was not a proper use of Congress's Commerce Clause or Necessary and Proper Clause powers, also the significant expansion of Medicaid, was not a valid exercise of Congress's spending power, their case was lost.
So he redefined the individual mandate as a tax; Obama Care should have been struck down and sent back to Congress, as was U.S. v. Davis.
Roberts looked political.
As far as jurisprudence goes, the decision to strike down Row cannot be credibly argued against, SCOTUS has no standing therefore the case should never have been heard.
We're talking about relativistic/utilitarian thinking. Absolutes like laws are only one of the weapons in the utilitarian arsenal. Driving force goes with "Whatever it takes, end justifies the means". If law supports their desire, they use it (pounding Roe v. Wade on us for 50 years). If the law does not suit (Roe v. Wade unravelling), change tactics to FUD, desire and policy, posturing the illusion of liberty hiding the engine of libertine lawlessness in the shadows. If the law is in the way, change horses. Nothing new under the sun, just a lot more ways to spin it into the public square.
FUD= Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt?
Yup
Your analysis is logical, and thoughtful. Leftists and others hysterical about this likely decision have apparently disengaged their God-given ability to think rationally and critically. They certainly do not respect our system of checks and balances. If they actually got what they think they want, outrage fueled fiats to force their 'morality' on everyone, eventually they will come to realize how wrong they were. I'm thinking the French Revolution. There is nothing new under the sun.
An honest and objective media would never allow these shenanigans to happen (not showing the videos, not showing the pictures, calling Florida's law the "Don't say gay" law, etc.). An honest and objective media would immediately shut this crap down by reporting the truth and exposing the lies. But quite literally, Pravda and al Jazeera are now more honest than American media. They at least get it right SOME of the time.
Very clear and well stated. Helps me deal with the hysterical reaction on public radio and on the streets. (But then so does the Bible's record of the crowd crying, "Give us Barabbas!")
Keep up the good work. So very clear. very tough job to get the clear truth out.
There's an article on Facebook (from WSB) claiming that this will reverse Griswold (no more birth control!), Obergefell (this endangers same sex marriage!), and a whole host of other SCOTUS decisions protecting the rights to privacy and the LGBT community. It's insane how unhinged they've become.
Straw man tactics - final flailing strategy to influence the unthinking.