tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post7396837818720982947..comments2024-03-19T08:07:28.854-05:00Comments on Althouse: Rush Limbaugh — calling SCOTUSblog "a very, very left-wing blog" — explains "the left's" "full swing" "effort to intimidate" the Supreme Court.Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-18158152322925612902012-05-20T14:13:37.120-05:002012-05-20T14:13:37.120-05:00"... Bottom line, if not for liberals, Limbau..."<i>... Bottom line, if not for liberals, Limbaugh would be speechless! :-P</i>"<br /><br />Or, to put it another way, if not for "liberals", Limbaugh would have nothing to speak about. Nor, likely, need.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-48844621933070206212012-04-01T17:29:18.426-05:002012-04-01T17:29:18.426-05:00Of course, the DNC video ad on national TV display...Of course, the DNC video ad on national TV displaying a Paul Ryan look-alike pushing an old lady in a wheel chair over a cliff was perfectly acceptable. That's because the lefties are so much better than the rest of us....and they mean oh-so well. <br /><br />I'm missing the part where political satire is suddenly out of bounds. <br /><br />Even the libruls were in high alarm over the SG's stuttering and ineffective defense of the tyranny of the left. As Rush very effectively put it, the SG was struggling to "defend the indefensible".<br /><br />-Krumhorn <br /><br />..Krumhornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01196023921287085693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-66395824733332312612012-04-01T10:20:15.446-05:002012-04-01T10:20:15.446-05:00If Verrilli is *acting* like a political hack (a p...<i>If Verrilli is *acting* like a political hack (a position which I can claim no knowlege of) then he SHOULD be pilloried for it. I see no evidence that he IS . . .</i><br /><br />You should have stopped there.<br /><br />There is NO evidence that Verrilli is a hack. NONE. NONE WHATSOEVER.<br /><br />Which is why it is totally inappropriate for the RNC to treat him like one.<br /><br />You don't become a hack merely by arguing a case in front of the Court.Benderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09322135500288738561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-66048023100406869892012-03-31T21:37:33.440-05:002012-03-31T21:37:33.440-05:00Bender:
"""
They are basically pain...Bender:<br />"""<br />They are basically painting Verrilli as a political hack. But what the RNC ends up doing is showing themselves to be crass political hacks.<br />"""<br /><br />Verrilli is the Solicitor General of the United States. That is, in theory, not supposed to be a political position. If Verrilli is *acting* like a political hack (a position which I can claim no knowlege of) then he SHOULD be pilloried for it. I see no evidence that he IS, but I follow events and ideas, not players (generally).<br /><br />The RNC are SUPPOSED TO BE political hacks. It's in the freaken job description.Billy Oblivionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16282343088921248885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-35758498828955200902012-03-31T18:27:54.873-05:002012-03-31T18:27:54.873-05:00The reason they're all bent out of shape is th...The reason they're all bent out of shape is that they see the ad as attacking one of the guild members. Verilli may be on the opposite side of this issue but he's one of the SCOTUS inside guys so the other insiders object to him being embarrassed personally. Tough bananas, IMHO.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05957553963422292205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-16923051509967167872012-03-31T17:18:19.841-05:002012-03-31T17:18:19.841-05:00I'm sure it would be a 6-3 vote for constituti...I'm sure it would be a 6-3 vote for constitutionality...if it was up to the clerks.Jumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08010872199201417401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-39545670834265578822012-03-31T17:04:11.846-05:002012-03-31T17:04:11.846-05:00I suspect that from Limbaugh's perspective SCO...I suspect that from Limbaugh's perspective SCOTUS blog is far left - I'd be curious how is brother David, who is a lawyer, regards it.<br /><br />I read SCOTUS blog fairly regularly, but not daily, and generally find it on the left side of the mainstream of modern legal thought.<br /><br />In a broader Constitutional perspective, taking political philosophy into account, my sense is that the writers there are close to clueless about the views of the Founders or the pre-New Deal Constitutional tradition. They know they only through Tribe and his epigoni.Cato Renascihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10202793596976551749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-41103650920292803312012-03-31T16:52:14.925-05:002012-03-31T16:52:14.925-05:00Have any of you not read Orwell's Animal Farm?...Have any of you not read Orwell's <i>Animal Farm</i>? <br /><br />Can you not see the parallels?<br /><br />SCOTUSblog is just one of the barn walls...setnaffahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10993173717353847154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-25525165360191070172012-03-31T16:30:02.063-05:002012-03-31T16:30:02.063-05:00There is an awful lot of chatter out there from th...There is an awful lot of chatter out there from the left that maybe it would be to Obama's advantage if the law were struck down.<br /><br />Perhaps such talk will be enough to send a green light to the libs on the Court -- "it's OK if the law goes down." If the left is willing to let it fall, and if on the merits the law is not all that essential anyway that they would be fine with it falling, then maybe the libs on the Court won't put up much of a fight, especially since they would have to tie themselves up in knots to justify upholding it.Benderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09322135500288738561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-57165616327383566132012-03-31T16:10:33.857-05:002012-03-31T16:10:33.857-05:00Roberts admires Warren's ability to get a unan...Roberts admires Warren's ability to get a unanimous decision in Brown. I think he will vote either way with Kennedy to avoid a 5-4 decision. He will also write the opinion and water it down as necessary to pick up an additional vote. He'd love to pick off Scalia on a narrow Commerce Clause justification or Sotomayor on a narrow interpretation that allows the law to stand in a narrowed way.ElPresidenteCastrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01730874727040496115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-26585994173578537262012-03-31T14:38:51.059-05:002012-03-31T14:38:51.059-05:00I wonder if Rush was getting his story information...I wonder if Rush was getting his story information from <a href="http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=E1BE612B-9BC6-49FC-A1B7-D60AD8C07947" rel="nofollow">a POLITICO piece</a> which referred to patterns identified in <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Summary-Memo-070710.pdf" rel="nofollow">this SCOTUS blog memo</a>.gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06219461694806089345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-76620229966685573232012-03-31T14:33:41.081-05:002012-03-31T14:33:41.081-05:00If Roberts votes to uphold this monstrosity, then ...If Roberts votes to uphold this monstrosity, then he's the worst kind of Benedict Arnold. He was appointed on the basis of being a strict constructionist.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11205752419540502278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-37531556716113887482012-03-31T13:51:43.046-05:002012-03-31T13:51:43.046-05:00Strike down the mandate, say 5-4 or 6-3; if Sotoma...<i>Strike down the mandate, say 5-4 or 6-3; if Sotomayor or Kagan comes along, one of them writes this part</i><br /><br />While certainly plausible that Kagan and/or Sotomayor could join an otherwise majority to strike the individual mandate, so as to show their independence (what does it matter if it is 5-4 or 6-3 or 7-2?), I think that if they were to do so, that is as far as they would want to go. They would want to remain in the background and shadows. Having them write the opinion striking the mandate is way too much exposure for them.<br /><br />Besides, they might join the majority only because, although they personally support the mandate, they don't feel strongly enough about it to join the minority. So any opinion they write might be rather weak.<br /><br />I would not be surprised if Kennedy gets the plum prize of writing the opinion striking the mandate.<br /><br />Roberts might throw Kagan or Sotomayor a bone on severability, though. If the individual mandate goes, guaranteed coverage and community rating go too, given that the government has said as much. But who wants to go through the mess of figuring out just how connected all of the other provisions are to these three, and which can stand alone?<br /><br />That onerous prospect leads me to think that they would strike the whole thing. If not that, then remanding to the lower courts to deal with it. But that just means punting and having to deal with those headaches on a later day.Benderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09322135500288738561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-17635931762698788482012-03-31T13:51:20.816-05:002012-03-31T13:51:20.816-05:00When I hear Verilli in that clip, I can just hear ...When I hear Verilli in that clip, I can just hear him thinking to himself: "Is this really happening to me right now." <br /><br />He had some kind of throat thing going, and they always seem to happen at the worst possible time, but this was truly the worst time ever. He had terrible arguments, and this also is not his fault.<br /><br />Sent up as cannon fodder, yet we are wondering if he will win anyway, even though the other side was awesome. Something seems a little unseemly about that.bagoh20https://www.blogger.com/profile/10915174575358413637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-3805627019415122662012-03-31T13:50:35.140-05:002012-03-31T13:50:35.140-05:00They don't necessarily know conlaw terribly we...<i>They don't necessarily know conlaw terribly well, but they're as absolutely certain that this law is not only unconstitutional but obviously so</i><br /><br />Conlaw is a useful guide to constitutionality when it examines the logical implications of the text and precedent, or when it balances competing principles in the text - not when it's just following precedent that's crazy as balls.<br /><br />If the Court had decided some time ago that the Tenth Amendment was a grant of unlimited power to People Magazine, they could come up with a whole line of decisions that were logical consequences of that premise, and as we sat here waiting for the annual "50 Most Beautiful People/Entities that Get Waivers from Our Health Insurance Mandate" issue we'd see the same arguments about the importance of conlaw.<br /><br />Basically, it's a disagreement about whether the Constitution means what it says, or whether it means what the Court says.bgateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14094313567630214207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-30772039066502143502012-03-31T13:43:57.863-05:002012-03-31T13:43:57.863-05:00"this is the single most classless and mislea...<i>"this is the single most classless and misleading thing I’ve ever seen related to the Court"</i><br /><br />How can he be an expert if he's never seen the Thomas and Bork hearings?bagoh20https://www.blogger.com/profile/10915174575358413637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-7293319368881376712012-03-31T13:40:20.595-05:002012-03-31T13:40:20.595-05:00"using the recordings of advocates arguing at..."using the recordings of advocates arguing at the Supreme Court for partisan purposes is inappropriate."<br /><br />Hmmm... I have no problem with it if there is substance. The Verilli bits used are edited for comic effect. I don't think it will sway anyone, just comforts those against Pelo/Reid care.<br />By the way, disallowing video makes audio only seem natural, and audio by itself is much easier to edit for effect.<br />But there are plenty of other substantive helpful soundbites from all this that could be used to highlight some of the poor reasoning being put forth to defend the act.<br />It would be wise for the RNC to gather those and use them in the general campaign to highlight the importance of SCOTUS appointments. Want more Kagans? Wow! Wow!walterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17818749187960350810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-8189957627596484302012-03-31T13:38:27.795-05:002012-03-31T13:38:27.795-05:00this is the single most classless and misleading t...<i>this is the single most classless and misleading thing I’ve ever seen related to the Court</i><br /><br />Admittedly he focuses on the Supreme Court, but I still think it's odd that he doesn't watch the State of the Union address.bgateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14094313567630214207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-9922672191735770342012-03-31T13:20:09.798-05:002012-03-31T13:20:09.798-05:00If you want to see something really funny in this ...If you want to see something really funny in this vein, go read Jonathan Chait's screed at The New Yorker. I'd naturally expect the boys at the SCOTUS blog to be less full throated in their baying, but Chait is really over the top.Comanche Voterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05329190305833193353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-24147051631996778112012-03-31T13:14:18.706-05:002012-03-31T13:14:18.706-05:00"drag it through the mud, and vomit on it.&qu...<i>"drag it through the mud, and vomit on it."</i><br /><br />As part of a claim that the <i>other guys</i> are not serious.<br /><br /><br />Or did that actually happen and I missed it, because I would not want to miss that.bagoh20https://www.blogger.com/profile/10915174575358413637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-13953976026118088882012-03-31T13:13:08.228-05:002012-03-31T13:13:08.228-05:00@Simon:
I could see that. The Court would also av...@Simon:<br />I could see that. The Court would also avoid the appearance (whether warranted or not) of making law. A broad decision is sure to.bring that accusation no matter whose side's ox is being gored.leslynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04976589297868178854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-22538222655868187522012-03-31T13:07:13.437-05:002012-03-31T13:07:13.437-05:00Sorry. My reference was supposed to be to Marbury...Sorry. My reference was supposed to be to <i>Marbury v. Madison</i>, not "Marry."<br /><br />(Bad autospeller! Bad!)leslynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04976589297868178854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-47491161048856825752012-03-31T13:03:46.720-05:002012-03-31T13:03:46.720-05:00I don't see why the court couldn't do what...I don't see why the court couldn't do what it did in <i>Brown</i>: Decide the threshold question and the fundamental question about the mandate, and call it a day. Bring everyone back next term to talk about remedy once we know for sure that a remedy is needed. Unusual, to be sure, but not unprecedented.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065798213115341398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-53078187327436371812012-03-31T13:01:06.111-05:002012-03-31T13:01:06.111-05:00@Fr Martin Fox.
Surely plausible. Even not uncom...@Fr Martin Fox.<br /><br />Surely plausible. Even not uncommon.<br /><br />But I don't think it's necessary for the Court "to navigate between the Scylla of surrender and the Charybdis of partisanship?" I don't think they've been in that severe a position since <i>Marry v. Madison</i>.<br /><br />Well, and maybe the New Deal.<br /><br />And <i>Brown v. Board of Education</i>.....hmmm.<br /><br />Nope. I still go back to <i>Marbury</i>. The pressure of partisanship is not what it was then for the Court. I think the justices will say what they believe the law is. That's the business they're in.<br /><br />I rest my case.leslynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04976589297868178854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-43447082395064450462012-03-31T12:54:03.008-05:002012-03-31T12:54:03.008-05:00Father, I've had similar thoughts, so I wouldn...Father, I've had similar thoughts, so I wouldn't bet against you there. The Chief is going to want to find ways to turn down the heat--imagine <i>Booker</i>'s toccata and fugue, but with an AIA prelude. <br /><br />The politics of the case--I think liberals are off their rockers if they think they can campaign against the court for doing something that a large majority of the public support. The reason that the public hate <i>Citizens United</i> is because they don't like the result, but repeated polls have shown that the public doesn't like the mandate and they don't think it's constitutional. The only people to whom a campaign against the court based on such a decision would appeal are those who the campaign doesn't need to reach! It's a long shot, but I suppose they could campaign on the preexisting conditions thing, insofar as it's the most popular part of the bill. Nevertheless, it's so obvious why that stands or falls with the mandate (the least popular part of the bill) that it's hard to see them getting traction.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065798213115341398noreply@blogger.com