No doubt Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna was surprised by the furious backlash to his lawsuit to throw out the Affordable Health Insurance Act and the many benefits it bestows on the citizens of Washington state, but if we really want to shock and awe McKenna into submission, it’s time to put our money where our mouth is.
That’s why I’m proud to be a part of the “No Reversing Our Benefits Political Action Committee,” or as we like to shorten it, the “No R.O.B. PAC“, an organization dedicated to teaching McKenna — and anti-reform Republicans everywhere — a very important political lesson.
Every dollar raised by No R.O.B. PAC will be spent toward defeating Rob McKenna in 2012, regardless of the contest, and whomever his opponent is. Presumably that means the gubernatorial race, but, well, we won’t be particular. If McKenna insists on abusing his office to pander to the big insurance companies and the fringe Teabaggers instead of representing the citizens of Washington state, then we’ll make sure he won’t have an office to abuse.
How big an impact can we make. Well, McKenna has already raised $256,000 toward his 2012 campaign, a total we can easily pass if all 13,000 members of the Washington Tax Payers OPT OUT of Rob McKenna’s Lawsuit Facebook group each donate just $20.00 each. And if we only manage to average a mere $10.00 each, that would still leave us with more cash-on-hand than McKenna himself.
Just think of what kind of message that would send!
Yeah, the Teabaggers may be damn loud, but there are many more of us than there are of them, and we’re willing to do much more than just hurl threats and insults. The contributors we chalk up, and the more money we raise, the more we will make it clear to the political and media establishment where public opinion really lies in Washington state and throughout the nation.
So please give generously today!
Goldys’ obsession with McKenna should be reassuring to all real Americans who love liberty and the Constitution.
He must see a threat in the lawsuit brought on behalf of Washington citizens who care about their rights to continually post about it.
Good on you McKenna.
Sucks to be you Goldy.
Donated!!
“Goldys’ obsession” When you make shit up like you just did about Goldy, you only tell us what’s going on in your own head, not his. I’ve heard it called projection, which I take to be some kind of Psych 101 thing.
“real Americans”
So what’s that supposed to mean, that you’re a “real Amwerican” and Goldy isn’t? Go to hell.
RE 3
Sorry, what else would you call 6 postings on the same topic over 2 days than an obsession.
Like I said, I’ve got no kick. It tells me exactly how frightened the fringe left like Goldy are about this lawsuit.
# 4: It’s not an obsession. It might, in all fairness, be grounds for a penalty flag for for excessive celebration when the other side makes a really stupid mistake which probably cost them the game.
So last night I pulled out some old books from my shelves, and after reading them did some internet research looking for updated info.
The more I read, the more convinced I was that the HCR act isn’t in any danger of being tossed aside on 10th Amendment grounds, the legislation is constitutionally sound.
But it does occur to me that there is no guarantee that Conservative majority on the Supreme Court won’t try to throw their colleagues a bone. They’ve shown over the past ten years to be willing to overturn the better part of a century of established case law and precedent to reach the decision they wanted (ironic, considering the Republican opposition to the most recent justice). That’s the only way the Republicans could win this case – if the fix was in.
“Sorry, what else would you call 6 postings on the same topic over 2 days than an obsession.”
Oh, I dunno, how about calling it something worth discussing. Obsession seems more appropriate to describe someone like yourself, Lost, a miserable wingnut obsessively posting day after day on a progressive blog. What’s that do for you? Does it give your pathetic life meaning? Gawd, I hope so.
“It tells me exactly how frightened the fringe left like Goldy are about this lawsuit.”
More projection. What are you so frightened about, Lost? HCR? Don’t worry, you don’t have to become a socialist to see your doctor. Maybe you should go back to obsessing over what might be going on with the wombs of women you don’t even know and tell us about your fears that some woman might abort without some liberty-lovin’, faux-libertarian, teabagging wingnut being there to stop her and murder her doctor.
It’s a big fucking deal, sea guy. McKenna is a tool for the GOP, clearly. He is being an obstructionist douche bag simply to be in LOCK STEP with his brethren, and because he thought it would be politically savvy.
Once again, the Washington state attorney general is on the wrong side of history. We are going to be loud and persistent about it. Can’t stand it, go listen to your gasbag Limbaugh.
@5
Perfect!
Alas, Rod, Lauramae and RHP, I suspect that you’re not “real Americans” like our faux-libertarian and self-appointed Guardian of All Things Going on in Women’s Wombs, Lostinaseaofblue.
Re 8
Ahh, I wasn’t aware you were a constitutional scholar. The erudition of your majestic prose convinced me I was wrong though. Please accept my humble apologies.
Odd how when attorneys serving at the will of the president are fired it’s a scandal. When your side doesn’t like what the attorney does he ought to be fired. Interesting.
# 10: Gee, I guess I’m not a “real American”, at least by his standards. I thought I had it covered – born and raised in the South, an Evangelical Christian, Eagle Scout, etc., – but I guess not!
@11: You mean the States AGs that were fired for political reasons by Bush?
Compared to the AG for Washingtons state who is filing a lawsuit for…political reasons.
Actually, you have a point – the firings and the lawsuit are inappropriate actions, The firings were illegal but the lawsuit is simply stoopid, juvenile and ill-advised.
Lost: Where did you get your law degree? I did not realize that aperson could get a law degree in third grade – seeing as that is a far as you could possibly have gotten in school, given your pathetic ignorance of anything beyond that level.
Oh yeah, guess who just filed a lawsuit against health care reform:
Orly Taitze: The crazy birther queen.
Yup, Lost and McKenna are in good company. The loonies are definitely out in front on this one.
http://www.examiner.com/x-5738.....ing-reform
I’m in for 20 bucks.
@1 Let me ask you something. If you had been born in 1950, and turned 18 in 1968, and received a draft notice from Uncle Sam, would you have gone to Vietnam to defend liberty and the Constitution, or would you have considered your draft notice an unconstitutional infringement of your personal liberties and gone to Canada?
http://galleries.tinytabby.com...../08/11.jpg
I can’t answer for “Lost” but I know how most Republicans answered my question @16.
George W. Bush – went AWOL from National Guard
Dick Cheney – 5 deferments, never served
Phil Gramm – 4 deferments, never served
John Ashcroft – 7 deferments, never served
Jeb Bush – never served
Karl Rove – never served
Dennis Hastert – never served
Bill Frist – never served
Dick Armey – never served
Tom DeLay – never served
Newt Gingrich – never served
Trent Lott – never served
Saxby Chambliss – claimed “bad knee,” never served
Mitch McConnell – did not serve.
Rick Santorum – did not serve.
Roy Blunt – never served
Richard Shelby – never served
Dana Rohrabacher – never served
John M. McHugh – never served
JC Watts – never served
Jack Kemp – never served becaue of “knee problem” that didn’t keep him from playing in NFL for 8 years
Arnold Schwarzenegger – went AWOL from Austrian army
George Pataki – never served
Spencer Abraham – never served
John Engler – never served
Elliott Abrams – never served
Paul Wolfowitz – never served
Vin Weber – never served
Richard Perle – never served
Douglas Feith – never served
Rudy Guiliani – never served
Kenneth Starr – never served
Antonin Scalia – never served
Clarence Thomas – never served
Ralph Reed – never served
Michael Medved – never served
Charlie Daniels – never served
Ted Nugent – never served
Jon Kyl – never served
Tim Hutchison – never served
Christopher Cox – never served
George Will – never served
Chris Matthews – never served
Bill O’Reilly – never served
Sean Hannity – never served
Rush Limbaugh – never served
Michael Savage – never served
Paul Gigot – never served
Bill Bennett – never served
Pat Buchanan – never served
Pat Robertson – never served
Bill Kristol – never served
Ann Coulter – never served
Video: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/.....zimmerman/
Lyrics: http://www.royzimmerman.com/ly.....nhawk.html
@4 “It tells me exactly how frightened the fringe left like Goldy are about this lawsuit.”
A bowl of soup will tell you who’ll win the NCAA championship if you stare at it long enough.
Re 16
Let me answer. My duty to defend my nation is a part of my citizenship. It is part of the price I pay for the common benefits we all enjoy.
I have no duty to make health insurance viable for insurance companies. I have no citizen based duty to support laws which benefit a small minority at the cost of the rest.
I’d call it a hot boy-crush, just like YLB’s crush on GO RICHARD! POPE! POPE! POPE!
Goldy wants to have McKenna’s baby.
@6 “The more I read, the more convinced I was that the HCR act isn’t in any danger of being tossed aside on 10th Amendment grounds, the legislation is constitutionally sound.”
If the government can draft people to fight and die in a war, it probably can make them buy health insurance, too.
Actually, I wouldn’t mind a whole bunch of SCOTUS tosses out this part of the bill, because it would mean old people could never again conscript young people to fight their wars.
@11
I mean the attorneys who served at the presidents’ will. I mean the ones who were dismissed on those terms.
I don’t recall any who were illegally fired…
Re 21
Nope. The one is enumerated in the Constitution. The other isn’t.
Remember law school? All rights not granted the feds revert to the states and the citizens of them?
Leon Trotsky thumps Thumper Rabbit:
Plus secondary and tertiary. It’s only a mitigated solace that Obama’s going to tax away some of Rabbit’s unearned increment of investment theft, stolen from the sweat of labor’s brow, to pay for socialized medicine.
We’ve determined that Rabbit has most of his stolen assets hidden in a P.O. Box burrow in the Caymans, so there won’t be much for Obama to take back and redistribute. But since most of Obamacare’s redistribution goes from the bottom to the top and from the young to the old, Rabbit makes out like a bandit anyway.
@19 “I have no citizen based duty to support laws which benefit a small minority at the cost of the rest.”
I see. Your position is that citizenship only requires you to comply with laws you agree with, the same as that guy who drove his car across the 520 bridge at 150 mph.
“Goldy wants to have McKenna’s baby.”
I’m sure Gordon, the self-appointed Wingnut Womb Cop will be wanting to do a daily check on the life status of the blastocyst in Goldy’s womb. And if Goldy changes his mind and decides to abort, Lost will be there to impose his views on abortion on him, maybe even threatening Goldy’s doctor with murder, er, execution.
The Facebook group seems to have ceilinged out at 13,403 members. Not bad for a group that’s been around for 24 hours, spent zero dollars and didn’t make a single phone call.
@12
I’m rather proud and relieved that I’m not Lost’s version of a real American.
@21 “if SCOTUS” not “of SCOTUS”
@11 Yes, it was a big fucking deal, because these U.S. Attorneys were fired for refusing to file criminal charges against innocent people, and that’s an impeachable offense.
Once again, Lost demonstrates his utter ignorance of law and ethics.
@22 You suffer from the same amnesia that afflicts all hypocrites.
@23 Well, I have news for you doofus, the Constitution grants the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce.
@24 “It’s only a mitigated solace that Obama’s going to tax away some of Rabbit’s unearned increment of investment theft, stolen from the sweat of labor’s brow, to pay for socialized medicine.”
Shit happens. If and when I succeed in ripping off $400,000 a year from the capitalism system without working for it, I’ll just have to pucker up and pay up. To paraphrase Ross Perot, I should hope to be so lucky.
Re 30
Yes, that’s why the president was indicted and convicted…right?
For an attorney you sure forget innnocent until proven guilty a lot, when it suits you.
Re Steve
Get off of it. All Americans benefit from protection from an over-reaching government violating their civil rights. Some, like you, don’t now want the protection. When you do, who will give it you if all those charged to do so are castigated for the attempt?
You’re sure excercised about abortion on a blog about McKenna.
I never questioned your patriotism. Goldy would clearly be happier with the Politburo than Congress, but that’s another matter.
Rabbit,
@25
It is the role of the courts to determine which laws meet the tests of valid government action. But I ask you in all seriousness, if those courts won’t perform their duty, what choice does a citizen have?
@30
Yes, and I clearly recall the indictment and trial Bush…wait, he didn’t, did he?
@24 “But since most of Obamacare’s redistribution goes from the bottom to the top and from the young to the old, Rabbit makes out like a bandit anyway.”
Don’t worry about it. Since I’m a senior citizen, I’ve already been stealing from you for some time, so this doesn’t change anything. But inasmuch as most of the taxes are paid b the capitalist class that steals from the working class (according to them anyway), it evens out.
Re 32
Yep. And insurance is a state regulatory issue, which is why I can’t buy health insurance here from Arizona. So they have no role there…. Oh yeah it’s because I’m engaging in commerce buying insurance, unless I don’t. Wow, then they have no role there either.
Sorry, what was the point again?
Re 28
Well Micheal, since I meant all Americans who care about liberty and want the best for their country I don’t know what to tell you.
The hounds need a run and Wallace Falls sounds good. Have a nice day.
@25 “But I ask you in all seriousness, if those courts won’t perform their duty, what choice does a citizen have?”
Speaking as a retired judge, I’d guess that your choices are to comply with the nation’s laws or face the specified consequences.
You don’t seem to understand that it’s not up to you to make these decisions. If the courts say this legislation is constitutional and is the law of the land, then it is, and you have to comply with it. You, as a private citizen, don’t get to second-guess the courts or superimpose your own interpretation of the law. In all seriousness, your viewpoint on this subject seems very childish.
@36 Your ignorance is breathtaking.
@34 Another way of looking at it is that Bush got away with impeachable offenses, just as Reagan and Bush41 did. Nixon didn’t, though.
Given that Eisenhower was the last Republican president who didn’t violate the Constitution, and that was 60 years ago, why would anyone vote for a Republican? Ever? If you believe in rule of law, you can’t vote Republican, it’s that simple. That’s why all the lawyers are Democrats.
Hey lost,
I served my country too. I swore that oath. To defend our Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. I swore that.
The modern Republican Party and the conservative movement behind it is the biggest domestic enemy that this country has ever faced. If not defeated, it will destroy the country and destroy the planet.
Don’t believe me? I don’t much care.
The Supreme Court once found that an Illinois’ farmer’s growing of wheat at a time when farmers were forbidden to grow wheat because of a market glut implicated interstate commerce, even though he was growing the wheat solely for his own family’s use. Healthcare costs represent something like 18% of the national economy. Any argument that healthcare does not implicate interstate commerce is foolish. Moreover, the individual mandate plainly falls within the congressional power to tax, and the bill references the penalty for not purchasing insurance as a tax. The lawsuit is frivolous. I thought frivolous lawsuits enraged Republicans, but I guess they like their own frivolous lawsuits.
@37
I thought you meant arrogant people who makeup their own science & history and shit on working class folks, my bad.
Have fun at Wallace Falls, it’s a great place and it exists because a bunch of us lefty eco-freaks made sure it got protected from the timber barons.
“Get off of it.”
Wingnuts and their orders.
“All Americans benefit from protection from an over-reaching government violating their civil rights. Some, like you, don’t now want the protection.”
Protection? Well, if that means rounding up treasonous, America-hating wingnut freaks and putting them in FEMA camps, then I’m all for it!
lost @4
what do we call 9 comments in less than 2 hrs?
@45 The one is called blogging, the other is called obsessive commenting. One is normal behavior, the other not so much.
RR @ 16: Dang, it Roger, post a NSFW warning next time!
RR @ 17: In all fairness, Pat Robertson did serve in the Army during the Korean War. His father, a U.S. Senator, had him pulled from the boat when it was docked in Japan when he (the father) learned his unit was destined for combat in Korea. Robertson did go to Korea, but as a Lt. in charge of alchohol for the officer’s club. Ironic, huh?.
I’m In. Thanks, Goldy.
Re 42
Gee, I wonder who the hell decided it was the governments business when and whether I grow wheat on my land. See, a liberal would never pick up on that one.
Dredd Scott was a terrible decision. Should we re-institute it just because the court once wrote a bad opinion?
Once again, so that even a liberal can understand-
The states regulate insurance, not the federal government. They simply have no jurisdiction on this.
The states license hospitals, clinics and their various staff. Not the federal governement. They simply have no jurisdiction here.
The states handle complaints about either of the above. Not the federal government. They have no jurisdiction here.
The federal government has no right whatever to criminalize the purchase or non-purchase of a financial instrument. They can regulate it (though they don’t, the states do) but they can’t enforce the purchase of it.
The sale of medical equipment across state lines could be and is regulated, as are pharmaceuticals. This doesn’t enable the feds to take over all of health care.
You guys are defending a law that-
Hurts and makes criminal people too poor to purchase health care. For one year 100% of premiums must come out of pocket until a tax return is obtained. Can you really see a truly poor family doing this. Can you, for that matter see most of the seemingly prosperous middle class able to pull an additional $1500 a month out of their budgets.
Premiums will rise as a direct result of this law. They would have risen at a slower rate had Der Feurher not acted.
The middle class will be hit by both higher premiums and taxes on those premiums. Sucks to be them.
Politics aside, this is bad law. Most of you must know this, as none of you have answered even one of the objections just above.
Oh, one last thing. This is not a tax. It is administered through the IRS. But it is a criminal fine for not purchasing something you may or may not want.
@51
Read the damn law you dumbfuck. It is a tax with an exemption for those who buy insurance.
Lost @ 49: The decision to set quotas for production of farm products was at the urging of both farmers and food distributores (i.e., businessmen, many of the Republican).
Farmers were cash-poor, and desperately needed to raise money to pay land taxes, mortgage payments, etc. In the face of collapsing prices for farm products, farmers still planted from fence-post to fence-post in a desperate attempt to make a tiny bit more money. But produce prices had fallen to the point that they were below the cost of even harvesting the crops, which were sometimes left to rot in the fields. The excessive planting also contributed to soil erosion, compounding the “dust bowl” problems.
In the face of this crisis, and with both Democratic and Republican concensus, a system of farm price supports was established on an emergency basis. Under this program, the government offered to buy produce at a minimum price, thereby setting a price floor and providing some certainty to both the farmers and the distributors. But such a system only works if people don’t use it to produce even more crops, so a quota system was established.
This was the system in effect when a farmer was cited for growing wheat in excess of their quota. In defense the farmer claimed that the wheat was grown only for consumption on the farm (i.e., to feed animals on the farm), and it therefore didn’t enter interstate commerce. But the court accepted the prosecution’s argument that growing the wheat for farm use had an EFFECT on interstate commerce, in that it took the farmer out of the potential interstate weat market from which the farmer would buy supplies.
So no, this wasn’t a “liberal” idea. It actually was supported by both Democrats and Republicans, who desperately wanted to get the economy going again.
@49
The Court’s decision in Wickard v. Filburn has been upheld in any number of subsequent cases and cited as precedent repeatedly since then. The most famious recent case is probably Gonzales v. Raich.
See also the Tenth Amendment.
Sure the Court could decide to overturn the Health Care Reform act, but they would have to overturn a lot of precedent in order to do so.
Rob McKenna and his GOP activist political advisors bet all their marbles on the fact the Health Care Reform Act would remain unpopular, due to TeaBagger and Conservative distortion campaigns. Looks like Robbie acted a little too soon after sticking his thumb in the wind….
More Americans now favor than oppose the health care overhaul that President Obama signed into law Tuesday, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds — a notable turnaround from surveys before the vote that showed a plurality against the legislation.
By 49%-40%, those polled say it was “a good thing” rather than a bad one that Congress passed the bill. Half describe their reaction in positive terms — as “enthusiastic” or “pleased” — while about four in 10 describe it in negative ways, as “disappointed” or “angry.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/w.....htm?csp=hf
Now, of course, the minority NO! voters are screaming at the top of their lungs, and using hysterical scare tactics…while the quieter majority sees through the insanity. But Democracy isn’t based on counting the LOUDest votes. Next time you see a teabagger with one of those cliched “we the people” signs, remind the kook that he is NOT representing the will of the people. The will of Rush Limbaugh, maybe….
Oh, one last thing. This is not a tax. It is administered through the IRS. But it is a criminal fine for not purchasing something you may or may not want.
I love how lostinaseaofGOP – and other hysterical conservatives – are now forced to defend classic “free ride” attitudes. They want to avoid paying into the system, but are surely happy to tap into the system if/when they get sick.
So much for personal responsibility.
# 52: Good point. The government doesn’t require you to buy a house, but gives you a subsidy (tax deduction) for mortgage costs and real estate taxes if you do so.
contributed
As folks begin to see all the Amendments the Dummocrats are voting down…they will hate Obam-MaoCare more & more!!
This really is funny.
And massive campaign fodder for November.
The Senate will vote on 20 to 25 amendments — including ones to ban various Medicare cuts, special deals and wasteful spending.
Senate Democrats are seeking to kill all the GOP amendments and have defeated the first 14, including one that would have prevented Medicare from being raided for new entitlements and another to eliminate special deals for certain states.
Mr. Cynical spews:
As folks begin to see all the Amendments the Dummocrats are voting down…they will hate Obam-MaoCare more & more!!
This really is funny.
And massive campaign fodder for November.
Depends if the Rethugs offer an amendment that will prohibit the health care bill to pay for diaper rash medication for sexual deviants. What will poor Senator Vitter do?
@59
It is a crass political tactic and will be seen by many voters for what it is.
Don’t worry there is plenty of time to do the same thing right back to the Republicans.
I chipped in $20.
Looking forward to the Inslee Gubernatorial campaign!
lost: “The states regulate insurance, not the federal government. They simply have no jurisdiction on this.”
This guy is truly stupid. He must never have had a civics course. He has no clue what the interstate commerce clause means. He thinks that, uh . . . he just doesn’t think. lost, you claim to be a “real American,” but you have no idea what America is, and always has been, all about.
@60 the moron…
Seems DUMMOCRAPTS are for covering the cost of erectile dysfunction medication for convicted sex offenders. Some DUMMOCRAPTS are against placing them on a national registry.
Go figger?
Proud,
Yeah, I’m so stupid that I don’t know that I can’t buy insurance over state lines. Wait, yes I do. Interstate commerce that doesn’t cross state lines? Interesting.
I’m so stupid that I don’t know that most health care professionals and all hospitals and clinics operating in Washington must have state licenses, not federal ones. Interstate commerce without leaving the state? Wow.
Why don’t you stop with the personal abuse and actually answer an argument for a change. Any one of my arguments in the post you are quoting. Still waiting. Still waiting.
You used to be worth exchanging ideas with, but your partisan hatred for those showing you how badly served the country is by Obamacare is blinding you.
Have a nice night.
Re 53
I just read that decision.
Yet another reason to consider FDR the greatest traitor this country has known.
lost
I’ll give you the easy, Wikipedia version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.....ssociation
The Supreme Court, the court which you righties now hope will defy democracy and overturn this legislation, long ago determined that the insurance industry is subject to congressional legislation. Congress, wrongly, has since then given the insurance industry an exemption from antitrust laws–the insurance industry and Major League Baseball, they get exemptions.
I would have thought that you knew that, lost.
Re 67
Congressional regulation of existing commercial activity and mandating the purchase of a specific product are totally different activities.
I would have thought that you knew that, Proud.
Well since nothing else has worked, they’ve moved on to death threats and vandalism.
Everything the Tea Bagger set is saying is completely divorced from reality.
Death threats, vandalism, openly carrying fire-arms, it’s pretty must low-grade civil war.
lost @ 68: ” . . . mandating the purchase of a specific product . . .”
And, I would have thought that you would have recognized the difference between “mandating purchase” and not getting a tax exemption. Read the bill. You guys don’t have a constitutional argument, lost. The Ds have pretty smart constitutional lawyers. The stuff that McKenna and you are claiming is old and tired. Rejected many times. Your hope is that the incredibly activist Roberts Court, which doesn’t give a shit about precedent, but only about pushing a rightwing agenda, will act in a very political way and overturn this legislation. If the Court does this, it will make the judiciary irrelevant. The judiciary will become not one of the three branches of government, but like the judiciary in the USSR, simply a political entity. John Marshall, or whatever is left of his bones, will turn over in his grave.
@65 “I’m so stupid that I don’t know that I can’t buy insurance over state lines.”
This is your rationale for saying the federal government can’t regulate nationwide insurance companies?
RE 72
We’ve had this argument. Regulate existing commercial activity to some limited degree, yes. FDR activist court aside, the commerce clause was written to regulate interstate commerce, not all national commerce. It’s actually pretty clear text liberals stretched to fit their desire for massive government intrusion into our lives.
Can the government mandate that I buy a product I neither want nor need? No.
As said in another thread I’m off to bed, and then my cabin for a few days. No internet, so have fun.
@73
Like it or not the past 70 years of commerce clause decisions by the courts put regulation of insurance pretty well inside the current bounds of the Congressional power to regulate interstate commerce.
Sure the Roberts Court could decide to toss out the law on that basis but they would be overturning a lot of precedent in order to do so. I have a hard time seeing how they could do so without creating chaos as there is a hell of a lot more than just health care that hinges on the post New Deal interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
As proud leftist said such a ruling would destroy the credibility the Court has as an institution and diminish their power.
My money is in.
Is anyone getting confirmation emails on their contribution? It’s not entirely clear that my donation went through.