– Decline to sign the charter schools initiative.
– Lou Dobbs is a horrible person [h/t].
– Give me a rambling rover.
Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!
This link doesn’t seem to go anywhere.
However, the statement alone is powerfully reminiscent of the Catholic Church.
Hmmmmm….Football and the Catholic Church….what could they have in common?
You know what puddles is going to say about link #3, above, don’t you?
SOROSSSSSS!!!!11!!
Nazi JEW!!!!
Eats his own young!!!!
SSSSSORRRRROSS111!!!!!!!
You know this is going to happen, and then we’re all stuck with the mess to clean up. puddles’ brains everywhere – uck.
SCOTUS Strikes Down Most Of Arizona Immigration Law
The federal supremacy doctrine won a key victory in the Supreme Court today when, in a 5-3 decision, the Court struck down most of Arizona Republicans’ attempt to insert state policymaking and enforcement into federal immigration law. The Court left intact — for now — the provision that allows state police officers to check the immigration status of detainees, but only because the lower court failed to adequately address the issue and the wording of the decision invites future constitutional challenges to that provision.
Hispanic Voters Put Other Issues Before Immigration
Healthcare, unemployment are tops among six issues tested
by Lydia Saad
PRINCETON, NJ — U.S. Hispanics prioritize immigration, healthcare, and unemployment to equal degrees, according to a new USA Today/Gallup poll asking about the importance of six national policy issues.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155.....yndication
Gee. Hispanics are affected by the economy as well. Go figure.
@2 Soros is telling Europe to get its act together. Europe is like the pre-Constitution American colonies — a loose confederation of sovereign states that didn’t work for us then, and isn’t working for Europe now. Soros wants the Euro Zone to form a unified banking and financial system because no European institution has the authority to solve Europe’s sovereign debt and banking crises. Conservatives’ response is likely to be “hell no!” and “austerity, austerity, and more austerity!”
@4 For example of states rights conservative in denial, see #4. Thanks for the freak show, chump!
Today, they couldn’t even get all of the conservative justices to vote for their version of states rights.
@ 6
I don’t recall ever posting in support of AZ’s law. I may have, but do not recall.
I have no quarrel with the decision. The one provision upheld seems appropriate – if they’re already in custody, why not check their status before releasing them?
Here’s the problem for AZ now: They’re overrun with illegal immigrants, the Feds haven’t been enforcing existing law, and now Obama has instructed the Feds to decrease enforcement even further. What we, here in WA, think is really irrelevant, because we aren’t the ones directly experiencing the blowback. It’s not our schools and hospitals struggling with an awful lot of people, many of whom do not understand English, and no money with which to deal with the crisis.
The Supremes have now set guidelines. Expect more state laws, this time staying within them.
@1,
Thanks, fixed.
“We Teach Tacoma”
We’re the people who educate the 28,000 students in Tacoma Public Schools.
Shouldn’t those educators know how to spell oversight?
Alito and Scalia/Thomas (one brain, two votes)
Wow, serialfool only had 3 of the first 10 posts on an open thread.
Hungover Monday?
Slacking?
Busy filming ACORN stings?
Signing paychecks?
@ 11
Maybe look around and digest some news before spewing.
Thomas and Scalia wrote separate opinions:
http://www.volokh.com/2012/06/.....preempted/
@ 12
No, reading about the decisions before making stupid @11 posts.
You should try it sometime.
Lib Sci, Scotusblog liveblogged the decisions today and at one point had 90,000+ people following.
Pretty neutral site. Here’s their SB1070 Summary:
Here is a rundown on the Court’s ruling with respect to each relevant challenge:
1. Police Checks. Section 2(B) of the law requires the police to check the immigration status of persons whom they detain before releasing them. It also allows the police to stop and detain anyone suspected of being an undocumented immigrant. The Court held that the lower courts were wrong to prevent this provision from going into effect while its lawfulness is being litigated. It was not sufficiently clear that the provision would be held preempted, the Court held. The Court took pains to point out that the law, on its face, prohibits stops based on race or national origin and provides that the stops must be conducted consistent with federal immigration and civil rights laws. However, it held open that the provision could eventually be invalidated after trial.
2. State Law Crime of Being In The Country Illegally. Although federal law already makes it illegal for someone to be in the country without proper authorization, Section 3 of the Arizona statute also makes it a state crime, subject to additional fines and possible imprisonment. The Court held that this provision was preempted and cannot be enforced. The Court held that Congress has left no room for states to regulate in this field, even to implement the federal prohibition.
3. Ban on Working In The State. Section 5(C) of the statute also makes it a state crime for undocumented immigrants from applying for a job or working in the state. It is also held preempted as imposing an obstacle to the federal regulatory system. Because Congress obviously chose not make working in the country without proper authorization a federal crime, states cannot enact additional criminal penalties Congress decided not to impose.
4. Warrantless Arrest Of Individuals Believed To Have Committed A Deportable Crime. Section 6 of the statute authorizes state law enforcement officials to arrest without a warrant any individual otherwise lawfully in the country, if law enforcement officials have probable cause to believe the individual has committed a deportable offense. The Court held that this provision is preempted. Whether and when to arrest someone for being unlawfully in the country is a question solely for the federal government.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2012.....ore-147436
@ 11 @ 13
I was partially incorrect.
In the just-announced Arizona decision, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas each dissented, each wrote separate opinions, and none of them joined the dissenting opinions of the others.
That is to say, each of them apparently had their own, separate reasons for declining to join the majority.
Your post is without merit and is in contradiction to the facts, Lib Sci.
Seems not all of the media are viewing the Arizona decision as a victory for The One:
The decision in part was an election-year setback for President Barack Obama, a Democrat. It went to the heart of a fierce national debate between Democrats and Republicans over the 11.5 million illegal immigrants the U.S. government estimates to be in the country.
http://newsandinsight.thomsonr.....ation_law/
To the extent that Obama has gone looking for an election-year issue, it seems he’s found one.
@8 That provision wasn’t “upheld.” The Court simply isn’t making a decision on that part of the Arizona law in this case.
re 4: I know that you will appreciate this comparison:
Bill Maher recounted a Three Stooges film in which the Stooges appeared at a customer’s home and did some work as carpenters. While doing that, they released rats,bugs, and mice in the house and came back the next day as exterminators.
That is analogous to what Republicans are now doing regarding the economy.
@ 18
Take it up with Reuters. Look at the title of the link in @ 17.
Notice the word ‘upholds’?
@ 19
What does your Maher/Three Stooges screed have to do with what’s in @ 4?
Good to know what your news sources are, tho. Thought so.
@17 Reuters may have gotten this one wrong in saying the Court “upheld” the stop-and-check provision. It’s more accurate to say the Court didn’t left issue to a future decision.
You’re wrong in saying Obama “has gone looking for an election-year issue.” This case is about defending the federal preemption doctrine. It’s hard to imagine a Republican administration not doing the same thing. The only issue here is a state challenging congressional authority.
@ 18
Go and google ‘upholds Arizona’.
http://www.google.com/search?c.....8;oe=UTF-8
Seems an awful lot of MSM types disagree with the formidable legal opinion of Roger Rabbit. Aw, but what do any of them know? Do they have 100,000+ posts on a niche blog? I bet they do not.
@20 I’m correcting Reuters, not you. So, yes, I did “take it up with Reuters” by specifically taking issue with their reportage in my comment.
@ 22
I’ll agree with your comment about the case being decided based upon federal pre-emption.
It’s a disingenuous argument that Obama has made, given his immigration-law decision of late.
Scalia pointed out just that in his dissent:
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2.....ng-on.html
Am I still wrong in saying Obama has gone out spoiling for a fight, when Scalia has decided to give him one?
@23 “Seems an awful lot of MSM types disagree with the formidable legal opinion of Roger Rabbit.”
Courts, not journalists, decide legal cases.
@ 26
Courts, not journalists, decide legal cases.
I’ll expect you to point that out each and every time someone posts a MSM screed objecting to the upcoming Obamacare decision.
And I certainly wonder why you haven’t said that when others have posted about articles concerning this or that SC decision, RR. Why is that?
@25 “Am I still wrong in saying Obama has gone out spoiling for a fight, when Scalia has decided to give him one?”
Obama may be spoiling for a fight and creating an election-year issue, but not on any issue in today’s Arizona immigration law ruling.
Obama’s policy is children of illegal immigrants is entirely separate.
And how, exactly, does a Supreme Court justice give a president “a fight” in a dissenting opinion that no other justice signed? Scalia lost the argument over Arizona’s immigration law. All he’s doing is ventilating his opinion. That’s not much of a “fight.”
@27 Wtf are you talking about? Be specific, please.
@ 28
Obama’s policy is children of illegal immigrants is entirely separate.
In practical terms, RR, no, it’s not. Here’s the HHS announcement of the new policy:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....story.html
Notice that there’s no new funding or allocation of resources to do all this stuff. That means existing resources have to be used for administrative tasks, and there are fewer resources left for immigration enforcement.
THAT’s what Scalia was saying.
No Health Care Ruling Until Thursday
“The U.S. Supreme Court will rule Thursday on the constitutionality of the sweeping health care law championed by President Barack Obama.
“The high court … announced that all remaining rulings for the year will come in three days. …
“Saving this ruling for the final day ‘may not be political …,’ said David Cole, a Georgetown University constitutional law professor. … ‘[T]hey may want the extra few days to make sure that they’re happy with their written opinions.'”
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/25/.....index.html
Roger Rabbit Commentary: I don’t want to read too much into this, but it possibly indicates we’re going to get a divided decision with multiple opinions. We’ll know Thursday.
@31
Roger Rabbit Commentary: I don’t want to read too much into this, but it possibly indicates we’re going to get a divided decision with multiple opinions. We’ll know Thursday.
In other news, water is wet.
It is so ordered.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/op.....79h9j3.pdf
Yet another obviously racist Democrat in NC:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....47812.html
Or at least a guy who wants to keep his job come November.
“Serial”, you lose all attempts at credibility when you try to argue that Reuters correspondents used more correct words in describing a legal opinion from the USCT than a U.S. lawyer. It’s widely known in the legal community that the news media is atrocious in the way it reports legal decisions, so much so that it’s a joke and often the subject of manipulation, most often by insurance companies. Few reporters really understand the difference between a finding in a case and mere “dicta”, resulting in frequent popular misunderstandings of exactly what was determined.
As an undergraduate, I was rather dismayed at how the “Communications” majors would attempt a Constitutional Law course, only to drop out within a couple of weeks due to the workload and expectations of professors that they actually do some research and reasoning, rather than having the results spoon-fed to them.
I cringe each time a news report says someone was “won a settlement”, making it appear like they won a lottery. If an insurance company settles, it’s because the injured party has serious injuries caused by the misconduct or negligence of the defendeant, ant the settlement is made to avoid paying even more money at the conclusion of a trial. In all likelihood, the victim took less money than they were entitled to because they knew the insurance company could otherwise drag out the payment through years of appeals.
As for the Arizona case, I heard that “upheld” language on the radio this morning, and I was astounded. The “papers, please” requirement was easily dismissed as a restriction in interstate commerce, apart from the federal pre-emption argument. Requiring citizens to prove their U.S. citizenship upon demand to an Arizona cop, and to carry papers as specified in Arizona statutes, certainly has an effect on anyone who might have to travel through the state.
@32 “water is wet”
That’s right. Didja notice I’m being real cautious about the forthcoming Obamacare ruling? Translated into Pidgin English, that means I don’t know what they’re going to do, but the fact they’re not announcing a decision until the very last day of the term leads me to make an educated guess that they’re still tweaking it, which in turn suggests they don’t all agree on (a) the result, (b) the reasoning, or (c) both. That’s pretty safe, but not as safe as saying water is wet, because I won’t look so good if they come out with a unanimous decision. I don’t think they will, but they might (think Watergate tapes decision; sometimes SCOTUS goes to great lengths to get every justice on board), and I’m saying they most likely won’t, so I could be opening myself up to a “water isn’t wet” embarrassment here.
Hey Serial Blatherer, why don’t you take a whack at this? You’re not a lawyer, and you have no reputation on this blog worth saving to lose, so you can make any prediction you like.
In other US Supreme Court News:
In Citizens United, the majority claimed that there was “zero evidence” that corporate spending had an adverse affect on an election. But Montana history said otherwise, a popular referendum enacted a prohibition against corporate political donations in 1912, as a popular backlash against the corporate interests which had regularly influenced elections in the decades previously.
So when the case came before the U.S. Supreme Court in a petition for cert, the majority – in an unsigned opinion – denied cert and refused to even hear the case, saying that “there can be no doubt” that Citizens United overturned Montana law. Three justices dissented, pointing out that they would have at least heard Montana’s arguments as to why their statute should be upheld.
@ 37
Four justices is sufficient to grant cert.
Had a fourth gone along, the case would have been heard, and the recent decision upheld.
You want it argued again, for the same result? Go beat the crap out of the liberal justice who wouldn’t go along with the other three.
# 36: Extra credit for Serial giving accurate predictions of which justice will support or deginerate which portions of the health insurance reform law. Anyone can throw rocks at predictions after the fact, the really hard part is making the predictions in advance.
Roberts has pretty clearly signaled he would vote to overturn large portions of the law, he’s peddling a new book written by him in which he claims that previous interpretations of the Commerce Clause were wrong. This is wrong in so many ways – most justices refuse to write an autobiography at all, a few wait until after they’ve retired from the court, but selling a book based on a case which is currently in front of the court is clearly a conflict of interst. Roberts and Thomas both seem to share a unique view of judicial ethics in this regard, it probably comes from spending too much time with Republicans.
@ 35
I’ll accept the loss of credibility in your eyes, and console myself with the fact that today hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of US readers are now under the assumption that the most important part of the Arizona law was upheld, because that’s what an awful lot of MSM articles are telling them this morning.
I’ll also take this opportunity to point out that your side has had your ass handed to you numerous times in this final release of decisions – the SEIU case, the Montana case, and Arizona are all going, um, not your way.
Pity.
On the other hand, it’s nice of the Supreme Court to drop a hint on when they will release the Health Insurance Reform Act decision. Perhaps the news media and their camera/sound crews can go do some other things until Thursday, instead of wasting their times doing stand-ups in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building, speculating about – well, anything, so that they think they sound like they are giving informed opinions.
@ 37
Define ‘adverse effect’. Maybe provide a link. Just a thought.
# 40: Not to suprising, considering the current makeup of the court. I haven’t seen this poor an attempt to overturn decades of precedent (scores of decades, actually) since the Drew Scott decision determined that slave ownership couldn’t be restricted, even in northern states. Chief Justice Tanny thought he was defending a “southern institution”, but all he did was ensure the election of Lincoln and the Civil War shortly thereafter.
If Romney were elected and have an opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court justice, expect that all environmental laws would be next to fall, overturning precedent going back to the 1950’s.
@ 39
What book? Is the word autobiography correct?
I don’t know how the ACA decision will be structured. I assume it will be complicated.
I predict that Sotomayor will be the most likely of the liberal wing to vote with the conservative bloc. Best I can do. After all, I’m not a lawyer like the sage Roger Rabbit.
The SCOTUS decision on Arizona’s immigration law is here:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/op.....82b5e1.pdf
If you read the actual majority opinion by Kennedy and Scalia’s dissent, it’s clear that Scalia is arguing a position that flies in the face of established legal doctrine: He says the Colonies didn’t give up their sovereignty over immigration matters when they joined the United States of America.
Let’s skip over history and precedent and go directly to Kennedy’s apt explanation of why Scalia’s concept of parallel federal and state “sovereignty” in immigration policy is problematical:
“Immigration policy can affect trade, investment, tourism, and diplomatic relations for the entire Nation …. Perceived mistreatment of aliens in the United States may lead to harmful reciprocal treatmentof American citizens abroad. … It is fundamental that foreign countries concerned about the status, safety, and security of their nationals in the United States must be able to confer and communicate on this subject with one national sovereign, not the 50 separate States …. Congress has specified which aliens may be removed from the United States …. A principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials. … Discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces immediate human concerns. … The equities of an individual casemay turn on many factors…. Some discretionary decisions involve policy choices that bear on this Nation’s international relations. Returning an alien to his own country may be deemed inappropriate …. The foreign state may be mired in civil war, complicit in political persecution, or … the alien or his family will be harmed upon return.”
Basically, Kennedy lists numerous practical reasons why the 50 states, through the federal government, must speak with a single and uniform voice on immigration matters. As he points out, Congress has responded to these practical concerns by enacting a legal regime that does exactly that.
Scalia, by contrast, tries to argue that Congress — while he doesn’t dispute its authority to preempt state law — did not, in fact, do so in the immigration policy arena. How persuasive that argument is, depends on the reader; but the only readers whose opinions count is the other justices, and Scalia didn’t make the sale to them.
On a philosophical plane, Scalia’s idea of recognizing states’ authority to enact local policies to deal with their local concerns regarding immigrants poses an interesting intellectual exercise for federalism junkies. This is the sort of thing that law students or retired lawyers might debate over a pitcher of beer when the pickup action at the bar is slow. For those of us who actually practice law (I use the term “us” loosely here, because I’m retired and not actually practicing law anymore, but I do have an active license and could represent actual clients in actual cases if I wanted to), Scalia’s notion that state sovereignty over immigration matters survived the formation of the United States and exists to the present day isn’t the law, and hasn’t ever been the law, and one can cogently arge that it shouldn’t become the law, because Kennedy’s defense of what is, in fact, the law is better reasoned and makes more sense.
@38 “Go beat the crap out of the liberal justice who wouldn’t go along with the other three.”
That procedure isn’t authorized in the Court Rules, therefore isn’t available in practice; but on a philosophical plane, it’s an interesting idea for law students and retired lawyers to kick around over a pitcher of beer when the pickup action at the bar is slow.
@39 Now you know why we need nine justices, instead of one or three or five, to decide the hardest cases. Because appointment to SCOTUS is a political process, and the appointments are made and confirmed by politicians, we’re bound to get a few outliers. This is de rigeur for you dysfunctional humans. Given how many outliers we have today, though, maybe FDR was right and the Court really needs fifteen justices, not nine, as extra insurance against insanity becoming contagious behind those mahogany doors. Or replace all the humans with three rabbits — that would save money and avoid a lot of useless stupidity.
@40 The only thing that was “upheld” today is that Arizona cops can ask ICE if someone is in this country legally, which they could do before the law was passed.
The Court made it clear that Arizona cops can’t detain someone for the purpose of making that status check. They can check his status while detaining him for other reasons, e.g. a DUI arrest. In those cases, they can tell federal immigration authorities they’ve got an illegal in custody, which they could do before the law was passed.
I don’t see what Arizona and its supporters “won” today.
@ 47
Good luck with that Court-packing scheme.
@ 45
I look forward to your continued description of Kennedy’s opinions as ‘apt’ on Thursday.
Regarding what you state that Scalia wrote and thinks, you failed to mention that he also finds Article I of the existing US Constitution to have some merit:
Two other provisions of the Constitution are an ac
knowledgment of the States’ sovereign interest in protect
ing their borders. Article I provides that “[n]o State shall,
without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or
Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be abso
lutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws.” Art. I,
§10, cl. 2 (emphasis added). This assumed what everyone
assumed: that the States could exclude from their territory
dangerous or unwholesome goods. A later portion of the
same section provides that “[n]o State shall, without the
Consent of Congress, . . . engage in War, unless actually
invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of
delay.” Art. I, §10, cl. 3 (emphasis added). This limits the
States’ sovereignty (in a way not relevant here) but leaves
intact their inherent power to protect their territory.
Jesus, RR. If you’re going to bloviate like the resident HA expert you should at least realize that those of us who think you are full of crap are going to check your work.
@49 “Good luck with that Court-packing scheme.”
Not worth the trouble and it won’t succeed anyway. This is just coffee-shop talk. I thought I made that sufficiently clear (for most readers, anyway), but perhaps the satirical tone of my comment @47 was too subtle for your, ahem, intellect to pick up.
@ 48
Since it’s an AZ law, maybe look at how AZ papers see it:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/.....inion.html
It doesn’t have to be an arrest. It can be just a traffic stop and a reasonable suspicion.
The decision also implies that the ICE has to work with the state and cannot obstruct legitimate state interests.
The three struck provisions are pretty small. The big one is still intact. And it will probably, at some point, go back to the Supremes again.
@49 “Jesus, RR. If you’re going to bloviate …”
Yeah, I’m bloviating standard legal doctrine that you flunk law school exams for not knowing. You can justly accuse me of not being original or creative here, but you — not being either a law student or a lawyer — are unable to distinguish between what the law is, and what one Supreme Court justice wishes it was. This is sort of an important distinction that you must be able to make to practice law successfully in this country, and as someone lacking this basic skill, maybe you should consider leaving legal interpretation to those of us who have it.
One of the perks of being a Dumbfuck Troll is that you don’t feel self-conscious about lecturing lawyers on legal subjects even when you’re wrong and don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
I wish I could do that, too, but because I’m a lawyer and therefore expected to know something about law, I can’t get away with it.
While I agree with the idea
From what I remember from my Oregon Public School edumkation, it looks like a spell check error:
There is no public over site.
instead it should be…
There is no public oversight
@51 Feel free to keep arguing that journalist interpretations of Supreme Court decisions trump what the controlling Supreme Court opinion actually says. See #53.
@51 “The decision also implies that the ICE has to work with the state and cannot obstruct legitimate state interests.”
No, it doesn’t imply that. The controlling opinion written by Justice Kennedy implies the exact opposite of that. Kennedy states, in very direct language, that federal authorities have discretion over enforcement of immigration laws.
I envy Einstein. He didn’t have to explain relativity to Flat Earthers. Federalism isn’t nearly as difficult a subject as relativity, but it’s nevertheless sufficiently arcane that it defies comprehension by one-dimensional minds.
@ 53
I guess cherry-picking Scalia’s opinion @ 45 is one of the things you think you can get away with.
Scalia spent quite a bit of time talking about the US Constitution in his separate opinion.
You certainly are aware, RR, that non-Constitution documents are frequently referenced in Supreme Court arguments and decisions as well. The Federalist Papers are the best example although there are others. So for Scalia to go to older documents is not out of line.
You are aware that there are those who argue that we should be relying on legal doctrine and other substance from other countries, usually when it suits left-wing interests to say so. I do recall that Justice Breyer spends much of his summer in Salzburg, along with other justices from courts of foreign countries.
If we can rely on a document from France when it suits left-wing purposes to suggest we should, we certainly can rely on a pre-US document from one of the original 13 states if Scalia suggests it’s appropriate.
Rush Limbaugh — the dominant force in conservative talk radio in America for more than two decades — is leaving his long-time Philadelphia perch on 50,000-watt AM station WPHT, apparently for an unknown rival.
But in a stunning turn of events, Limbaugh has been fighting to save his show in recent weeks, ever since he lashed out at 30-year-old Georgetown law student and women’s rights activist Sandra Fluke, calling her “a slut” for advocating wider health-insurance coverage of contraception.
A subsequent apology hasn’t stopped a whopping 67 companies — spurred on by liberal activists and a social media crusade — to drop all advertising on Limbaugh’s program. Because of the complicated ways that radio advertising is sold, the fallout from the Limbaugh controversy has spread to other talk shows — especially hard-core conservatives like Beck and Michael Savage — and reportedly even some music programing. Locally, some advertisers like the Philadelphia Orchestra instructed WPHT not to air their ads during Limbaugh’s program, from noon to 3 p.m.
http://www.philly.com/philly/b.....radio.html
Capitalism at work I guess. Limbaugh is not cost effective.
@58 Why are you so fixated on what a dissenter says? Kennedy’s opinion is the law of the land; Scalia’s dissent isn’t. We can debate what Scalia said, that’s fine, but that’s nothing more than an intellectual exercise. Scalia didn’t write the law in this case.
You’re really blowing this, SC. I didn’t cherry-pick Scalia’s opinion. I wonder if you know what the term means. Where did I take issue with him using the sources you mentioned? I didn’t. Can you read? Apparently not.
@ 59
Er, not so much.
Limbaugh moving to a Merlin Media station:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWIQ
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nyti.....;seid=auto
I sort of suspect there’s money involved – as in more money paid to Limbaugh to get him to jump to a slightly smaller-output FM station, which still serves the Philadelphia market.
I know it’s a liberal wet dream that Limbaugh goes down, but in fact he’s more popular than ever, particularly in 2012.
BTW I have never, ever listened to one of his shows. I just knew your post had to be inaccurate. Or, if not inaccurate, at least out-of-date, since the ‘unknown rival’ was known a couple of months ago.
@ 60
See:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-.....-directive
Remember that idiotic SOTU comment from Obama about the Supremes? The one in which Alito shook his head and famously mouthed ‘Not True’?
Consider this Scalia response a ‘Fuck You’ to The One.
It strikes me, RR, since you only apparently read part of what Scalia had to say, and then cherry-picked his opinion, you ended up looking like an idiot when you asked why Scalia’s opinion mattered, when it seems that what Scalia had to say might end up getting as much airtime as the rest of the opinion.
Didn’t they teach you in lawyer training school to read both side of the opinion if you had any expectation of understanding the case? Sometimes cases end up decided 5-4 or otherwise closely because there are very, very good arguments on each side of an issue.
Silly wabbit.
If you really want to read a dissenting opinion, just throw yourself into Justice Douglas’ dissents. The guy was so smart he could cut right through the crap and expose it for exactly what it was, and in only a few words.
Chief Justice Burger and others argued that they needed more lawyers to help them with their research and writing opinions. Douglas scoffed at this, he said one clerk per justice was more than enough. He was probably the hardest working Justice ever to sit on the court. And he had roots here in Washington State.
Today in right wing hate:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/201.....paul-ryan/
I’m looking forward to lots of future dissenting opinions from Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts. That will mean that the President has been re-elected, has appointed (and had confirmed) at least two new justices, and Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts will be seeing their intended precedents are shredded into irrelevance.
TN bans hand jobs:
http://www.ibtimes.com/article.....ateway.htm
Wow. Whole lotta jobs are going to come from that.
@ 65
Bader-Ginsburg will step down in the 2012 term or immediately thereafter. She’s not in good health, she has had an amazing career, and she can’t hold on if Obama does not win.
No one on the conservative side is in failing health. Doubt Scalia would give Obama the gift of replacing him with a liberal justice.
So it’s a dream. Obama’s appointments, arguably, have nudged the Court a little to the right.
Keep dreaming, though, and reading those two month-old articles. We’re counting on it.
@ 63
Most of what I remember about Douglas was the small amount of coverage in Woodward’s The Brethren.
Trying to hang out in chambers after he had been replaced as if there was still a role for him, his incontinent fecal odor wafting throughout the room.
Eeeeewwwwww………….
That’s right Klown’s mancrush, you got nothing..
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-50.....e-cover-up
Thanks for wasting the public dollar on your fishing expeditions. It “keeps hope alive” for your sycophants like the klynical klown.
@62 “Consider this Scalia response a ‘Fuck You’ to The One.”
Consider this a “so what?” response.
” … you asked why Scalia’s opinion mattered, when it seems that what Scalia had to say might end up getting as much airtime as the rest of the opinion …”
If you think a Supreme Court justice’s job is to sway votes in elections, you might have a point. I’ve been discussing today’s ruling in terms of what it says about what the law is. If your shtick is that Scalia’s dissent might help Romney win, fine, run with it. I haven’t addressed that point in this thread and don’t intend to.
Heh. Bob believes we need a guy in the White House who “understands [vulture] capitalism”..
How about a guy who understands alternatives to capitalism??
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm.....-mondragon
Can’t hurt. Look around you to see the “success” of the status quo. Not that whoever wins in November will comprehend this.
@63 Some dissenters are more influential than others. Dissenting positions by Holmes and Douglas had a tendency to become majority holdings later on because these guys had their legal shit together and were highly persuasive. Scalia isn’t in their league. Despite being the third most prolific dissenter in the court’s history, and having earned a reputation for writing entertaining opinions, he hasn’t been nearly as influential as those guys in shaping American constitutional law.
@ 69
A clear majority of likely voters believes President Obama has exercised his executive power inappropriately — particularly in blocking the release of documents relating to Operation Fast and Furious, according to a new poll for The Hill. …
The Hill Poll found that likely voters disapproved by an almost 2-to-1 margin of Obama’s assertion of presidential power in the case. Overall, 56 percent of voters disapproved of his action, while only 29 percent approved.
and
The defense is not proving an easy sell with voters, particularly independents.
Sixty-one percent of independents said they disapproved of the president’s actions, and just 25 percent approved. Among Republicans, opposition to the president’s use of executive privilege was more entrenched at 78 percent.
Even 28 percent of Democrats, and 30 percent of self-identified liberals disapproved of Obama’s position.
http://thehill.com/polls/23446.....rious-docs
You don’t get it yet, do you, YLB? Maybe it’s because the MSM figured this would never see the light of day. Now Obama’s AG is about to be found in contempt of Congress.
Good luck spinning this better than you did. I wonder why Issa’s got nothing? Is it, just maybe because of………..
wait for it……………….
………….
…………..
Obama’s claim of Executive Privilege?
Because that’s what people are going to be asking Obama, right up until the election.
Well played, Mr. President!
@68 This comment illustrates, in a way nothing else does, how totally ignorant of legal history you are. Douglas was one of the most influential justices of all time. No one had more impact on civil liberties jurisprudence than he. Whether you like him or not, he was a judicial giant who left many important marks on American law.
@73 How many voters even know what executive privilege is? Hardly anyone drills this deep to make voting decisions. Most voters go no deeper than their existing party loyalty.
@ 74
Has nothing to do with current events, but yeah, I have heard he wrote thundering dissents and was well-liked by the libbies.
I wonder if he’s spoken of as reverently in other parts of the country. He hung out in Washington between terms and he hailed from here. He’s the Supreme Court’s version of Don James to the Seattle leftist crowd.
@ 74
Despite my ignorance I’ve done a pretty good job picking you apart. I don’t claim to be a legal wizard and I have the occasional misunderstanding.
You claim to be an attorney and a judge in prior life and you’re fucking clueless in more aspects of law than I have time to recount.
@ 75
They’ll know what it is by election time, RR. Well played, Mr. President!!!
Your MSM commentary headline of the day:
Obama’s carrying out Dick Cheney’s energy plan
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-21.....ergy-plan/
Good question:
Rep. King questions how terrorist group member attended White House meeting
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor.....dept-entry
Of course, considering Bill Ayers is a friend of The One, the goalposts covering what actually defines a terrorist have shifted somewhat.
Your tweet of the day:
Sean Trende
@SeanTrende
Sotomayor, Thomas and Roberts = only ones who haven’t authored at least 7 opinions.
Anyone think Justice Sotomayor is writing the ACA opinion?
Me neither.
Thomas hasn’t authored 7 opinions? Dude’s been on the court since 1991!
@ 81
I read he’s far enough to the right that his opinions are the ones furthest from disagreement on the Court.
IOW he can’t cobble together a majority if it’s a close call and he’s selected to author the opinion.
Could infer that he’s not a uniter. Of course, he’s there to interpret the Constitution, not to reprise the role of Susan Day ‘Little Miss Flip-a-Coin’ O’Connor.
re 73: I’m surprised to see that you have embraced the progressive notion that where the gun came from is as important as who used it.
@77 “Despite my ignorance I’ve done a pretty good job picking you apart.”
Your narcissism notwithstanding, no, you haven’t. You’ve done a shitty job of picking me apart and you got your ass kicked again this morning. You’re just too stupid to know it.
The AG is being pilloried because he has been challenging Republican voter suppression laws.
In addition, witnesses who could support the AG’s viewpoint have deliberately not been called to testify by politburo member Issa — who voted for the idiotic program in the first place.
How could anyone NOT have contempt for a Republican congress?
@ 83
I’m surprised that a few hundred dead Mexicans is a thing of snark to you.
Amazing how Serial “Ridicule the looks an an African American girl as a joke” Conservative has all this time to post. Slow day at your GOP staffer job?
@ 84
RR, in fact you’re struggling to keep up with a guy who has no legal training.
But look at it this way. Today, for the first time in probably years, you were forced to read part of a Supreme Court opinion.
That probably explains some of it, but ’91 was a long time ago. Thomas also doesn’t ask questions during arguments. So, it leaves me wondering if you’re not asking questions and you’re not offering up opinions, why are you there?
@ 90
I don’t think it has to do with ’91. I think he’s hard-right conservative and narrow majorities that include him after the first vote (and the assignment of the duty of writing the opinion) don’t stay majorities once others see what he’s writing. So he gets assigned the 7-2 or 8-1 decisions and there aren’t as many of those as there used to be, at least not ones we hear about. He writes a lot of concurrences and separate dissents, I notice (as much as I can, not being a lawyer).
He’s just……….conservative. Very much so. Period.
He has a good reason for not asking questions. He thinks that much of it is grandstanding (and to watch Scalia sometimes, rather hard not to agree). He also thinks that everything that has to be said has been said in earlier argument, in written briefs, and in amicus briefs submitted with the case. He’s there to decide, not to revisit what has already been presented in written form and certainly not to be part of the show.
@88 If you keep admiring yourself long enough, maybe someday you’ll get a marriage proposal from your mirror.
# 76: Douglas’ opinions, both majority and in dissent, were near-legendary among students of the court across the nation. I came from the South, and he was revered there as much as anywhere – I didn’t move to this area until shortly before he retired. So it has nothing to do with regionalism.
@ 92
OK. I believe you. I wondered, and now I pretty much don’t. Thanks.
@ 91
I’ll settle for hammering you long enough to get you to think and write a defensible post here and there. ’cause no one else is calling you on your obvious bullshit.
One benefit – I think we just got through a whole day and you didn’t post some inane comment about the stockmarket and how brilliant your trades always are and how some dumbfuck Rethuglican is always on the losing end of the deal.
@94 “no one else is calling you on your obvious bullshit”
You’re the Lone Ranger!!!
@ 95
And your posts are the southbound effluent of my northbound horse.
@94 “we just got through a whole day and you didn’t post some inane comment about the stockmarket”
I can fix that! I’m partly in stocks and partly in cash, so the higher stocks go, the more capital gains I make; and the lower they go, the higher yields I can buy! I win either way!
Meanwhile, as gas prices dip below $3 in some parts of the country, I can’t help but wonder what Romney will say if gas prices are $2.50 in November?
@96 You mean there’s a horse that will have you?
@96 Now that we’ve established you ride a horse, what will you do when you want children?
Meanwhile, as gas prices dip below $3 in some parts of the country, I can’t help but wonder what Romney will say if gas prices are $2.50 in November?
YLB brought that up last week.
Gas prices would be that low because the economy will have tanked, dumbass. If gas prices are at $2.50 in November, I think Romney will be saying what most successful candidates aspiring to elective office say. Something like “I pledge to work tirelessly with President Obama to ensure that the transition between our administrations is as smooth as possible.”
Thanks for that hanging curve, RR.
@100 Good luck selling a job-destroying vulture capitalist to the unemployed.
@ 101
Ooh, nice comeback!
Done here. Go and tell your wife you beat the crap out of a troll, RR.
I don’t mind if Romney wins. My coal stocks would double overnight. I have holdings in oilfield services, too, so drill baby! My defense stocks would do well and most of my other stocks would get a boost. I don’t own any health insurers, I’m too old to be drafted, and Mrs. Rabbit is too old to need an abortion, so it’s hard to see how I can get hurt by a GOP victory. I … oh shit …
[thumping and biting noises]
re 86: “I’m surprised that a few hundred dead Mexicans is a thing of snark to you.”
I’m surprised that you think my point is mere ‘snark’. People who have sold guns to mass murderers have pointed out that the guns were obtained legally.
The guns the Mexican thugs obtained were obtained under the aegis of a law that was written by Republicans and passed by Republicans — who are now persecuting the AG because something went wrong.
But — it was all done legally — right?
@102 He can tell me when he gets out of the ER.
“RR, in fact you’re struggling to keep up with a guy who has no legal training.”
Without any legal training, how could you possibly know? It’d be no different than if you were to argue with me about engineering or construction. You’d have no clue as to what degree your ass was being handed to you.
Gawd! The narcissism is strong with this one.
@ 104
I do not think you understand correctly. The salespeople were sufficiently uncomfortable about what they were doing that they kept going back to the ATF agents to make sure this is what ATF wanted (the gun sales), because they were illegal.
So, no, I don’t think the sales were legal. The sellers were specifically told by ATF to make the sales, which otherwise wouldn’t have occurred.
This really has nothing to do with the GOP. If it could logically be traced to the GOP and that was the reason for it, do you think Executive Privilege would have been claimed last week?
Really, do you?
Really?
re 107: Do you think that disclosing details of the transactions may put U. S. Agents and some Mexican national in danger? Would that be a reasonable situation in which to invoke executive privilige?
“My, my, my….now isn’t this interesting! Issa & Boehner have been going after President Obama and Attorney General Holder concerning Project Gunrunner, but yet, these two assholes voted in favor of the program AND they refused to subpoena any of the reich wingers of the Bush Regime and their role in it…”
http://whitenoiseinsanity.com/.....k-in-2008/
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll393.xml
Do you think that disclosing details of the transactions may put U. S. Agents and some Mexican national in danger? Would that be a reasonable situation in which to invoke executive privilige?
Do you mean other than the 400-500 Mexicans and the US Border Patrol agent who have already been killed as a result of the ‘transactions’?
I was going to say that I almost feel sorry for Goebbels Rabbit….then I decided that I wasnt.
@109 Interesting perspective Serial “Ridicule the looks an an African American girl as a joke” Conservative has on this. He is concerned by americans and foreigners people being killed by a government program. Was he bothered by the thousand and thousands killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan or the troops killed?
Do you think we can find examples of his outrage against the bush administration?
@108. It’s obvious it’s just a witch hunt. republicans will do anything to get back into power.
I’m pretty sure Serial was as outraged over V. President Cheney’s destruction of e-mails he was required to retain by statute as he is over Holder’s refusal to hand everything over to the McCarthy (err, Issah) committee carte blanche.
Remember when Cheney claimed that he wasn’t a member of the Administration, but a member of the Senate (but only when it was convenient for him)?
@113 What we have here is a well-intentioned but bungled law enforcement operation involving a U.S. Attorney who has resigned and an ATF field office getting out of control without the authorization or knowledge of higher-ups in D.C. that started under the Bush administration.
Now we have a witch hunt by a Republican who voted for Project Gunrunner, who has “ordered the A.G. to produce documents whose confidentiality is protected by federal law, has refused to subpoena Bush Administration officials to testify about their knowledge of the operation during their time in office, has refused to allow public testimony from officials whose testimony counters [his] partisan narrative, and has repeatedly rejected the A.G.’s efforts to accommodate the committee, making compliance all but impossible” — sure looks like somebody has a partisan agenda.
Obama has used executive privilege once. Bush used it numerous times. Obama appointed one U.S. Attorney who looks like an incompetent. Bush fired nine competent U.S. Attorneys for refusing to bring political prosecutions against innocent people.
Really, there’s no comparison.
re 109: “Do you mean other than the 400-500 Mexicans and the US Border Patrol agent who have already been killed as a result of the ‘transactions’?”
Yes. That’s exactly what I mean. What are YOU saying? People have already been killed, so what’s a few more if it furthers th Republican political agenda?
And North Las Vegas goes down.
Unlike the struggling Rust Belt cities N. Vegas’s population has been growing by leaps and bounds lately.
HAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAH
Here is a quote from Carl’s link about the “decline to sign charter school initiative”
The only thing public about public charter schools is the money funding them. There is no public over site.
“over site”?????? HAHAHAHAHAH WTF!
AND THESE ARE THE PEOPLE TEACHING OUR KIDS!
and just who is “We Teach Tacoma”? Well they describe themselves as “ We Teach Tacoma is hosted by members of the Tacoma Education Association: Tacoma teachers, librarians, therapists, school nurses, counselors, office professionals and technology experts. We’re the people who educate the 28,000 students in Tacoma Public Schools.
Holy…..fucking…..shit……self ownage!
Good Job Carl! Way to go!
Thanks for the great link!
HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA
How many golf games is obama up to now?
One more time:
“over site”…..lmfao.
owned.
http://www.latimes.com/news/op.....765.column
No worries. Mitt (R-Money) will get the money – by fulfilling the right wing wet dream – cut off all assistance to the poor and disabled and if that’s not enough??
Throw Grandma and Grandpa off a cliff.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012.....io-ruling/
YLB comment: the right wingers on the SCOTUS are politicians in robes.. They’ll vote the right wing line, common sense, legal sanity or reason BE DAMNED!
@112
It doesn’t matter. A big chunk of the affordable care act has been adopted by insurance companies and will be sticking around regardless of what the court does.
Bottom line: 5 years from now we’ll have universal coverage, or damn near it and most or all of the protections in the Affordable Care Act will be in place. The only thing that’s going to vary is how we get there.
“First step in solving any problem is realizing there is one.”
“America is not the the greatest country in the world any more.”
Is there any over site of Obama’s golf game?
@121 The press is beginning to notice that Governor Flip-Flopper refuses to say what he’ll do if elected president.
http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.c.....tails?lite
Math Quiz
If Romney cuts spending to 20% of GDP and leaves revenues at
16% of GDP, how long will it take to balance the budget?
@125 It must have been written by one of our trolls who can’t spell the word “to.”
Factoid: The average holding period for S&P 500 stocks is less than five days.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/47947707
This show is a little much, a little too hard to take for the most part, but hey it’s Aaron Sorkin and you’re going to get some memorable lines in every one of his scripts.
http://www.motherjones.com/kev.....er-id-laws
Carly Fiorina, die-hard Republican, failed CEO, and major piece of work:
http://current.com/shows/the-w.....00000-debt
@132
Paying your bills is for the little people.
of what relevance is Carly Fiorina?
almost forgot:
OVER SITE
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA….
@134 None. Just another wannabe who couldn’t make it to The Show. Like Dino Rossi …
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA….
you mean like Duncecap Darcy Burner?
re 134: “of what relevance is Carly Fiorina?”
Exactly.
Whoa! This blog looks exactly like my old one!
It’s on a completely different subject but it has pretty much the same page layout and design. Great choice of colors!
On the radio today, I heard the Gov. of Arizona proclaim that by unanimous decision, the Supreme Court upheld the Arizona immigration statute. In the press conference which followed, reporters tried to give her the opportunity to correct or clarify her statement, but she just bulldozed through and kept re-reading her written statement.
What planet do these people live on? And why won’t they just go home to it?
@140
Because they’ve found that they can win that way.
Never admit defeat, always fight, deny facts, deny reality, control the spin spin spin.
Essential to this strategy are enough low-information voters, whose collective id is being stroked by these sorts of nativist, racist, essentially tribal appeals.
Keep the rubes frightened and angry at some outsider, while you pick their pockets.