Seer-ee-uss-lee… You HAVE TO read this installment of Stonekettle Station. Tears run down my face, and I need to leave, but I COULD NOT tear (not tear) myself away. This one is totally priceless.
Damn it, wicked! That link should have carried a warning about the dangers of having liquid in one’s mouth when reading. Back to cleaning the computer. . .
(From the link): It has been widely assumed—including by yours truly—that calling Supreme Court justices “politicians in robes,” as I did just last week counts as an insult. But as of Monday—almost surely before, but without any question as of Monday—Nino Scalia wants precisely to be thought of as a politician in a robe. No other reasonable conclusion can be drawn from his churlish and self-aggrandizing and probably unethical tirade against President Obama’s recently announced immigration policy. And while the court majority’s ruling (from which Scalia of course dissented) represents a pretty solid victory for the Justice Department, the narrow win for the state of Arizona on the controversial “where are your papers” part of the law makes it quite possible that these very issues will come to the court again, after Scalia has taken his political position. Just as Zola famously said “J’Accuse!,” I hope the liberal legal groups are already practicing saying “Recuse!”
Well, it sounds like the Obama administration is going to continue deporting more illegals than any other administration in history, but will continue to concentrate on criminals. And, will continue to not concentrate on those whose only offense is trying to find a better life for their families, much like most of our American ancestors. Racial profiling is still not acceptable, you can’t hate people for no better reason than what they look like — at least these racists won’t fare any better than those who continue to hate blacks, women, gays… Meanwhile President Obama will continue to work toward a comprehensive immigration reform policy. Don’t expect him to be able to do it alone. He’s done what he can without Congress.
Does anyone think SCOTUS justices are arguing in good faith, and correctly interpreting precedent? If not, is this anything new? Do we occasionally have a loud mouth like Scalia who can’t keep his politics quiet and must broadcast them?
Can you imagine the outrage from the Republicans if that had been Justice Sotamayor Justice Kagan doing what Scalia did?
It was pointed out by someone just this morning that Scalia did not get one vote for his tirade – in fact, Roberts was the one that joined the Liberals in this ruling.
This person’s point was – that even though there are a group of nine with 4 decidedly Conservativs and 4 decides liberal with one deciding vote – there are times when politics does not seem to come into play.
BUT….and this is a big BUT……what if a Republican gets into the White House and then stacks the SCOTUS with more Conservatives? It won’t really matter when Roberts joins the Liberals – will it?
This is why there is too much at stake for this 2012 presidential election. It is not just the president we are choosing – it is the future of the SCOTUS.
It is a bad time for President Obama’s reelection, with the economy going South and more and more people suddenly hitting the unemployment lines. It will give unreasoning ammo to who ever the Republican candidate is. Though the President can do little and is even less responsible for the condition of the economy.
It will be him who suffers the majority of the blame and be held responsible. Too many will be playing that ole and tired game of pointing their finger at him and blaming him while holding on high the likes of Addleson and Trump.
The economy has improved a lot even tho there is much more improvement needed. Romney’s economic plans would put America back to (at least) a deep recession if not send us into depression. I’m confident most voters look at more than the ‘anyone but Obama.’ Republicans are sore losers but their numbers are too small to win at the national level! We still elect presidents by electoral college votes!
LOL Iddle hands are the Devil’s workshop! So much I see done and so little they want me to do. We are finally I think ready for the great tree removal to save the foundation of the house. If it has not already happen to you as a parent then it is sure to it will. Most of the stuff that was in the way was one child’s or another’s. My drive looking like a used car lot and most exactly where the tree removal crew will need to get their truck. LOL well the car never left no matter how much complainning or begging. BUt got the two back by using the heavy SUV of my daughter which was setting there to push the classic Mustang and full size truck out of the way. Ahh the cars and Suv were not too badly damagage by the use or move…
My kids are a little older than yours so I’ve already gone through this. When we moved here 22 years ago we moved from the house the kids grew up in, the house the kids left from. When they left they left all the stuff they wanted to keep — well they wanted it all kept, but they obviously didn’t want to actually do the keeping. I can’t go back and explain why I moved some of that. Seems silly, but I’m sure I’ve done equally silly stuff before and will again.
I am in another funk today. If I read one more NeoCon or Fundy blogging that we need to bomb Egypt just because they made their choice for president to be that Muslim Brotherhood candidate – I am going to SCREAM.
What is it with these Damn War Mongerers? If they want to go fight the Muslims so dmn bad – then they can take their sorry old butts over there and with a one-waytickets.
And they do NOT get to take my tax dollars to pay for their damn weapons.
I am sick and tired of all these people who do nothing but beat that damn war drum.
NeoCons are doing it for the power. The Fundies are doing it in their name of their false God. But – damn it – these two groups together ar as dangerous as any Radical Muslims terrorists – in my opinion.
What’s the difference between NeoCons/Fundies and Radical Muslims when they both have nothing better to do than to start another damn war.
I know – but doesn’t it just make you want to scream when these sanctimonius morons just to go drop bombs somewhere – as if that is the only thing that will take care of the problem.
I guess these folks don’t think about what happens AFTER the bombs are drompped…
If SCOTUS says The Affordable Health Care Act or even just the mandate portion of it is unconstitutional, where do you think the anger and disappointment of the millions already enjoying benefits of the Act, including the young people who are now on their parents policies, will be directed? Do you think a bunch of young people would be energized? They, like the rest of us, can’t do anything about the Court, but they can and will turn on Romney and the Republicans.
They’ll have a few months to answer this question: What is the GOP’s plan? For two years, the party of “no” has been able to say without any specifics that they intend to repeal and replace the law. Romney isn’t good at actually answering questions!
During those same months President Obama will tie Romney to the scheme of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) of ending Medicare as we know it, tossing seniors vouchers to negotiate with insurance companies -— which would raise their out-of-pocket costs by as much as $6,400 a year, according to the Office of Management and Budget.
Romney has not made that great of an impression on anyone that is not a part of the 1% and their cheerleaders.
It will be interesting to see what happens at the GOP Convention – that will tell alot of the story…
Has anyone heard whether Rick Santorum will be given a featured speaking role at the convention? Last I heard, he was trying to wrangle his way onto the stage and I suspect he wants the prime-time spot.
Romney is a poser, for a profit or a Political gain he will believe anything.
Say anything and would make a losey President since his backbone is nothing but the bubble stuff that is used to pack boxes so they do not collapes.
The Republicans have brainwashed the masses. Those masses will point fingers at Obama, blaming him for everything, and the Right will come out smelling like a rose to everyone but those who have brains enough to think. Wash, rinse, repeat.
I have no faith that people will wake up and smell the fertilizer heaped on those roses.
I just wish once that Republicans would be as outraged at things like this sex scandal at the Texas Air Force Base instead of screaming and ranting about the DADT rule that Obama got rid of….
But, what am I thinking? This is about women getting raped and assaulted – and judging by all the anti-wmen legislation the Repblkcians have tried to pass – is women getting raped anda assaulted high on their priroity list?
The women dressed provocatively, or had ‘that’ look, or asked for it in some way. Besides women aren’t important to republicans, women aren’t even equal to the real humans who are white males. [eye roll]
How can any woman who respects herself vote republican?
Good question. BTW – did you receive a letter last week from the DNC and President Barack Obama’s name was prominently displayed on the outside of the envelope? I got one – which surprised me since I am on the Republican side as registered voter. And we all know why I did that….and it felt Sooooooo good to see Todd Tiarht go bye-bye..
My husband is rather jealous of me because I’ve gotten several surveys from the RNC and even Boehern/McCnnell separtely And now this frfom Obama
My husband has been a Registered Democrat for years – and he gets nothing..
Does anyone know how they choose to do their mailing?
Yes. Republicans are targeting women’s rights and the Democratic Party is targeting women’s votes. Each time the Republican Party of bigoted heterosexual white evangelical males meets with success they guarantee another woman votes for the Democratic Party.
Thinking women realize that if this country was run like the founding fathers intended and the Teapublicans scream about going back to, we would actually be treated much worse than we are. We wouldn’t be allowed to work, vote, have our own credit rating, our own bank accounts, or do any of dozens of things we take for granted. The majority of women don’t agree with Republican thinking that women’s place is at home, making babies, and not talking back.
Regarding the Lackland AFB matter (what a dump, BTW), in 1973 there were not male TIs for female basic trainees. The females, as did their male counterparts, were dressed in the “utility uniform”, a/k/a fatigues, the majority of the time. When they weren’t, they were dressed in that most unflattering light blue overblouse/dark blue skirt combo.
That said, I fear this isn’t the first time this has happened, but is the first time it has seen the bright light of day. Perhaps it is time for the USAF to reconsider male TIs for female basic trainees (I cannot believe I just “said” that). I am aware of the social goals intended to be met by this policy, but given most TIs (mine weren’t the brightest, but were committed career NCOs with long-term marriages to the extent any of that matters who were not on power trips), this might be the only responsible thing to do.
I have a question. I hope I can word it so it’s understood.
Yesterday SCOTUS didn’t ‘strike down’ the ‘show me your papers’ part of the AZ immigration law because it hadn’t taken effect yet and they couldn’t judge it. Sooooo, the mandate portion of The Affordable Care Act hasn’t yet taken effect either. Could SCOTUS rule in a similar manner?
Yes. Will they? No. One distinction (with or without a difference, as you see fit) is that the ACA is a federal law, while the Arizona case involved a state law. However, note that the provisions found unconstitutional by SCOTUS had not yet taken effect, either, due to the injunction issued by the U.S, District Court. The stated rules of SCOTUS (read about 100 decisions, and you’ll start to figure some of them out) essentially provide that whether the provision(s) of a law have taken effect, if said law is “patently unconstitutional”, SCOTUS is free to so rule. For Zippy, this naturally flows from Marbury v. Madison, where Chief Justice Marshall made up the rules of judicial review of the constitutionality of an Act of Congress from whole cloth (this is why I refer to him as the great judicial activist).
New polling from Virginia’s 7th Congressional District, one of the more reliably conservative districts in the country, shows surprising vulnerabilities for Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, especially on the issue of women’s health.
And asked about Cantor specifically, voters disapprove of his handling of government spending, health care and reigning in the budget deficit, three key issues that Cantor and House Republicans have campaigned heavily on since 2008.
While Cantor is not among Republicans who are considered at risk by political prognosticators, 43 percent of voters would replace Cantor compared to just 41 percent who would reelect him. Cantor is running against Democratic Wayne Powell, a 30-year army veteran and moderate Democrat who is still relatively unknown in the district.
(From the link): In conservative policy circles, the idea of a mandate is not unique to the purchase of private health insurance for those under 65. For example, the Ryan budget calls for ending Medicare in favor of vouchers, and for the elderly to use those vouchers to purchase health care from private insurers (“Voucher-Care”). How is this different from the PPCA, other than that Voucher-Care would cover those 65 and over? Indeed, Ezra Klein, provides this description of the Ryan plan:
The federal government subsidizes Americans to participate in health insurance markets known as ‘exchanges.’ Inside these exchanges, insurers can’t discriminate based on pre-existing conditions. Individuals can choose to go without insurance, but if they do so, they pay a penalty. To keep premium costs down, the government ties the size of the subsidy to the second-least-expensive plan in the market — a process known as ‘competitive bidding,’ which encourages consumers to choose cheaper plans.
Sound familiar? It should. It is what Romney passed in Massachusetts, what President Obama and the Democrats passed for the under-65’s, and what Ryan would like to impose on the 65’s and over who today, thanks to Medicare, have single-payer, universal health care.
So, if the individual mandate is declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, then so are the radical right’s plots to undermine Medicare and replace it with Voucher-Care.
Or, consider the radical right’s ambition for Social Security. They want to privatize it, i.e., have the payroll tax contributions that currently go to the Trust Funds, instead flow into private, individual accounts, earning interest from private banks and/or invested in private stocks and bonds that, the proponents concede, must be limited to minimize capital risk. Again, as with Voucher-Care, this would have to be mandated so the money is unavailable to the owner until age 65, and then paid out in monthly amounts. How is this not an individual mandate?
Thus, both the Ryan plan for Voucher-Care, and the radical right’s ambition to privatize Social Security depend on individual mandates.
Justice Scalia is turning into William O. Douglas. I’m aware this may mean little to most, but the statement has to do with the gradual deterioration of a brilliant jurist until he becomes just an angry old man.
Much like the situation with Justice Douglas. I say “much like” as there might be a sliver of difference, but it’s all where one stands politically which one is “worse”.
PrairiePopulistsAndProgressives.net 
Seer-ee-uss-lee… You HAVE TO read this installment of Stonekettle Station. Tears run down my face, and I need to leave, but I COULD NOT tear (not tear) myself away. This one is totally priceless.
http://www.stonekettle.com/2012/06/when-vaginas-are-outlawed-only-outlaws.html
Still laughing. He does such a great job of stringing words together that point out the obvious in the most fun ways!
The comments are good too!
Damn it, wicked! That link should have carried a warning about the dangers of having liquid in one’s mouth when reading. Back to cleaning the computer. . .
Okay, next time I’ll add a spew warning. 😉
Thank you.
(From the link): It has been widely assumed—including by yours truly—that calling Supreme Court justices “politicians in robes,” as I did just last week counts as an insult. But as of Monday—almost surely before, but without any question as of Monday—Nino Scalia wants precisely to be thought of as a politician in a robe. No other reasonable conclusion can be drawn from his churlish and self-aggrandizing and probably unethical tirade against President Obama’s recently announced immigration policy. And while the court majority’s ruling (from which Scalia of course dissented) represents a pretty solid victory for the Justice Department, the narrow win for the state of Arizona on the controversial “where are your papers” part of the law makes it quite possible that these very issues will come to the court again, after Scalia has taken his political position. Just as Zola famously said “J’Accuse!,” I hope the liberal legal groups are already practicing saying “Recuse!”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/26/michael-tomasky-on-antonin-scalia-the-lawless-supreme-court-justice.html
Well, it sounds like the Obama administration is going to continue deporting more illegals than any other administration in history, but will continue to concentrate on criminals. And, will continue to not concentrate on those whose only offense is trying to find a better life for their families, much like most of our American ancestors. Racial profiling is still not acceptable, you can’t hate people for no better reason than what they look like — at least these racists won’t fare any better than those who continue to hate blacks, women, gays… Meanwhile President Obama will continue to work toward a comprehensive immigration reform policy. Don’t expect him to be able to do it alone. He’s done what he can without Congress.
Does anyone think SCOTUS justices are arguing in good faith, and correctly interpreting precedent? If not, is this anything new? Do we occasionally have a loud mouth like Scalia who can’t keep his politics quiet and must broadcast them?
Can you imagine the outrage from the Republicans if that had been Justice Sotamayor Justice Kagan doing what Scalia did?
It was pointed out by someone just this morning that Scalia did not get one vote for his tirade – in fact, Roberts was the one that joined the Liberals in this ruling.
This person’s point was – that even though there are a group of nine with 4 decidedly Conservativs and 4 decides liberal with one deciding vote – there are times when politics does not seem to come into play.
BUT….and this is a big BUT……what if a Republican gets into the White House and then stacks the SCOTUS with more Conservatives? It won’t really matter when Roberts joins the Liberals – will it?
This is why there is too much at stake for this 2012 presidential election. It is not just the president we are choosing – it is the future of the SCOTUS.
The future of SCOTUS is always at stake when there is a Presidential Election.
It is a bad time for President Obama’s reelection, with the economy going South and more and more people suddenly hitting the unemployment lines. It will give unreasoning ammo to who ever the Republican candidate is. Though the President can do little and is even less responsible for the condition of the economy.
It will be him who suffers the majority of the blame and be held responsible. Too many will be playing that ole and tired game of pointing their finger at him and blaming him while holding on high the likes of Addleson and Trump.
The economy has improved a lot even tho there is much more improvement needed. Romney’s economic plans would put America back to (at least) a deep recession if not send us into depression. I’m confident most voters look at more than the ‘anyone but Obama.’ Republicans are sore losers but their numbers are too small to win at the national level! We still elect presidents by electoral college votes!
LOL Iddle hands are the Devil’s workshop! So much I see done and so little they want me to do. We are finally I think ready for the great tree removal to save the foundation of the house. If it has not already happen to you as a parent then it is sure to it will. Most of the stuff that was in the way was one child’s or another’s. My drive looking like a used car lot and most exactly where the tree removal crew will need to get their truck. LOL well the car never left no matter how much complainning or begging. BUt got the two back by using the heavy SUV of my daughter which was setting there to push the classic Mustang and full size truck out of the way. Ahh the cars and Suv were not too badly damagage by the use or move…
My kids are a little older than yours so I’ve already gone through this. When we moved here 22 years ago we moved from the house the kids grew up in, the house the kids left from. When they left they left all the stuff they wanted to keep — well they wanted it all kept, but they obviously didn’t want to actually do the keeping. I can’t go back and explain why I moved some of that. Seems silly, but I’m sure I’ve done equally silly stuff before and will again.
I am in another funk today. If I read one more NeoCon or Fundy blogging that we need to bomb Egypt just because they made their choice for president to be that Muslim Brotherhood candidate – I am going to SCREAM.
What is it with these Damn War Mongerers? If they want to go fight the Muslims so dmn bad – then they can take their sorry old butts over there and with a one-waytickets.
And they do NOT get to take my tax dollars to pay for their damn weapons.
I am sick and tired of all these people who do nothing but beat that damn war drum.
NeoCons are doing it for the power. The Fundies are doing it in their name of their false God. But – damn it – these two groups together ar as dangerous as any Radical Muslims terrorists – in my opinion.
What’s the difference between NeoCons/Fundies and Radical Muslims when they both have nothing better to do than to start another damn war.
You’re a brave woman, don’t let their cooties jump on you when you get that close! 🙂
I know – but doesn’t it just make you want to scream when these sanctimonius morons just to go drop bombs somewhere – as if that is the only thing that will take care of the problem.
I guess these folks don’t think about what happens AFTER the bombs are drompped…
If SCOTUS says The Affordable Health Care Act or even just the mandate portion of it is unconstitutional, where do you think the anger and disappointment of the millions already enjoying benefits of the Act, including the young people who are now on their parents policies, will be directed? Do you think a bunch of young people would be energized? They, like the rest of us, can’t do anything about the Court, but they can and will turn on Romney and the Republicans.
They’ll have a few months to answer this question: What is the GOP’s plan? For two years, the party of “no” has been able to say without any specifics that they intend to repeal and replace the law. Romney isn’t good at actually answering questions!
During those same months President Obama will tie Romney to the scheme of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) of ending Medicare as we know it, tossing seniors vouchers to negotiate with insurance companies -— which would raise their out-of-pocket costs by as much as $6,400 a year, according to the Office of Management and Budget.
Romney has not made that great of an impression on anyone that is not a part of the 1% and their cheerleaders.
It will be interesting to see what happens at the GOP Convention – that will tell alot of the story…
Has anyone heard whether Rick Santorum will be given a featured speaking role at the convention? Last I heard, he was trying to wrangle his way onto the stage and I suspect he wants the prime-time spot.
And you didn’t even mention the PaulBots. We’ll need popcorn and comfy chairs for that entertainment! 🙂
Romney is a poser, for a profit or a Political gain he will believe anything.
Say anything and would make a losey President since his backbone is nothing but the bubble stuff that is used to pack boxes so they do not collapes.
The Republicans have brainwashed the masses. Those masses will point fingers at Obama, blaming him for everything, and the Right will come out smelling like a rose to everyone but those who have brains enough to think. Wash, rinse, repeat.
I have no faith that people will wake up and smell the fertilizer heaped on those roses.
I just wish once that Republicans would be as outraged at things like this sex scandal at the Texas Air Force Base instead of screaming and ranting about the DADT rule that Obama got rid of….
But, what am I thinking? This is about women getting raped and assaulted – and judging by all the anti-wmen legislation the Repblkcians have tried to pass – is women getting raped anda assaulted high on their priroity list?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47960915/ns/us_news/
The women dressed provocatively, or had ‘that’ look, or asked for it in some way. Besides women aren’t important to republicans, women aren’t even equal to the real humans who are white males. [eye roll]
How can any woman who respects herself vote republican?
Good question. BTW – did you receive a letter last week from the DNC and President Barack Obama’s name was prominently displayed on the outside of the envelope? I got one – which surprised me since I am on the Republican side as registered voter. And we all know why I did that….and it felt Sooooooo good to see Todd Tiarht go bye-bye..
My husband is rather jealous of me because I’ve gotten several surveys from the RNC and even Boehern/McCnnell separtely And now this frfom Obama
My husband has been a Registered Democrat for years – and he gets nothing..
Does anyone know how they choose to do their mailing?
I am wondering if both parties are targeting women this time around?
Yes. Republicans are targeting women’s rights and the Democratic Party is targeting women’s votes. Each time the Republican Party of bigoted heterosexual white evangelical males meets with success they guarantee another woman votes for the Democratic Party.
Thinking women realize that if this country was run like the founding fathers intended and the Teapublicans scream about going back to, we would actually be treated much worse than we are. We wouldn’t be allowed to work, vote, have our own credit rating, our own bank accounts, or do any of dozens of things we take for granted. The majority of women don’t agree with Republican thinking that women’s place is at home, making babies, and not talking back.
Regarding the Lackland AFB matter (what a dump, BTW), in 1973 there were not male TIs for female basic trainees. The females, as did their male counterparts, were dressed in the “utility uniform”, a/k/a fatigues, the majority of the time. When they weren’t, they were dressed in that most unflattering light blue overblouse/dark blue skirt combo.
That said, I fear this isn’t the first time this has happened, but is the first time it has seen the bright light of day. Perhaps it is time for the USAF to reconsider male TIs for female basic trainees (I cannot believe I just “said” that). I am aware of the social goals intended to be met by this policy, but given most TIs (mine weren’t the brightest, but were committed career NCOs with long-term marriages to the extent any of that matters who were not on power trips), this might be the only responsible thing to do.
I have a question. I hope I can word it so it’s understood.
Yesterday SCOTUS didn’t ‘strike down’ the ‘show me your papers’ part of the AZ immigration law because it hadn’t taken effect yet and they couldn’t judge it. Sooooo, the mandate portion of The Affordable Care Act hasn’t yet taken effect either. Could SCOTUS rule in a similar manner?
Yes. Will they? No. One distinction (with or without a difference, as you see fit) is that the ACA is a federal law, while the Arizona case involved a state law. However, note that the provisions found unconstitutional by SCOTUS had not yet taken effect, either, due to the injunction issued by the U.S, District Court. The stated rules of SCOTUS (read about 100 decisions, and you’ll start to figure some of them out) essentially provide that whether the provision(s) of a law have taken effect, if said law is “patently unconstitutional”, SCOTUS is free to so rule. For Zippy, this naturally flows from Marbury v. Madison, where Chief Justice Marshall made up the rules of judicial review of the constitutionality of an Act of Congress from whole cloth (this is why I refer to him as the great judicial activist).
New polling from Virginia’s 7th Congressional District, one of the more reliably conservative districts in the country, shows surprising vulnerabilities for Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, especially on the issue of women’s health.
And asked about Cantor specifically, voters disapprove of his handling of government spending, health care and reigning in the budget deficit, three key issues that Cantor and House Republicans have campaigned heavily on since 2008.
While Cantor is not among Republicans who are considered at risk by political prognosticators, 43 percent of voters would replace Cantor compared to just 41 percent who would reelect him. Cantor is running against Democratic Wayne Powell, a 30-year army veteran and moderate Democrat who is still relatively unknown in the district.
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/06/26/506456/eric-cantor-poll/
But if the Democratic and Independent women come out in full force and vote – Eric may just be on that unemployment line…
From my keyboard to God’s ears……
(From the link): In conservative policy circles, the idea of a mandate is not unique to the purchase of private health insurance for those under 65. For example, the Ryan budget calls for ending Medicare in favor of vouchers, and for the elderly to use those vouchers to purchase health care from private insurers (“Voucher-Care”). How is this different from the PPCA, other than that Voucher-Care would cover those 65 and over? Indeed, Ezra Klein, provides this description of the Ryan plan:
The federal government subsidizes Americans to participate in health insurance markets known as ‘exchanges.’ Inside these exchanges, insurers can’t discriminate based on pre-existing conditions. Individuals can choose to go without insurance, but if they do so, they pay a penalty. To keep premium costs down, the government ties the size of the subsidy to the second-least-expensive plan in the market — a process known as ‘competitive bidding,’ which encourages consumers to choose cheaper plans.
Sound familiar? It should. It is what Romney passed in Massachusetts, what President Obama and the Democrats passed for the under-65’s, and what Ryan would like to impose on the 65’s and over who today, thanks to Medicare, have single-payer, universal health care.
So, if the individual mandate is declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, then so are the radical right’s plots to undermine Medicare and replace it with Voucher-Care.
Or, consider the radical right’s ambition for Social Security. They want to privatize it, i.e., have the payroll tax contributions that currently go to the Trust Funds, instead flow into private, individual accounts, earning interest from private banks and/or invested in private stocks and bonds that, the proponents concede, must be limited to minimize capital risk. Again, as with Voucher-Care, this would have to be mandated so the money is unavailable to the owner until age 65, and then paid out in monthly amounts. How is this not an individual mandate?
Thus, both the Ryan plan for Voucher-Care, and the radical right’s ambition to privatize Social Security depend on individual mandates.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/has-obama-snookered-scotus_b_1622620.html
I heard some pundit talk abou the government mandate is not without precedence. There was something in 1879 (?) about mandating guns, ammo and etc.
I’m not exactly sure what they were talking about….but this was on one of those panel shows..
Did anyone else happen to hear this —-and I will try to do some searching to find it..
As for Justice Scalia and his personal attack on President Obama in the AZ immigration ruling -isn’t there something that can be done about Scalia?
Seriously, this dude went out of his way to be offensive to Obama – and there is no recourse?
But, of cousr, I’m sure Salia has been stewing in his own juices of hate ever since Obama called all the SCOTUS out for their Citizens United ruling.
tit for tat
I would like this scenario: the reelection of President Obama and he having the opportunity to nominate the successor to Scalia.
Now that would be Lady Karma at her best……
Justice Scalia is turning into William O. Douglas. I’m aware this may mean little to most, but the statement has to do with the gradual deterioration of a brilliant jurist until he becomes just an angry old man.
The sad part is – we the people are still paying for this angry old man and we are paying through our noses.
Much like the situation with Justice Douglas. I say “much like” as there might be a sliver of difference, but it’s all where one stands politically which one is “worse”.