Pepper sprayed for public safety.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

The Court doesn't get hot.

I think you're wrong, but even if he loses the decision, he sets himself up nicely for what comes next.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I think you're wrong, but even if he loses the decision, he sets himself up nicely for what comes next.

you still don't realize when you link to a blogger you're not telling us what you think, do you?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I see him serving his political interests very nicely. I cannot figure out what you and Hank think he should be doing or why it would help him at all.

I never have any idea what Hank thinks, so I'll let him not speak for himself.

It may come out just fine thanks to the Rs, but I just think the words that came out of his mouth are kind of silly and don't make much sense to me.

Rule of thumb: Whenever your staff has to explain what you meant to say and describe it as what you really said, but what they say you said isn't what came out of your mouth, you said the wrong thing.

Of course, that is as true for McConnell as Obama.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I never have any idea what Hank thinks, so I'll let him not speak for himself.

It may come out just fine thanks to the Rs, but I just think the words that came out of his mouth are kind of silly and don't make much sense to me.

Rule of thumb: Whenever your staff has to explain what you meant to say and describe it as what you really said, but what they say you said isn't what came out of your mouth, you said the wrong thing.

Of course, that is as true for McConnell as Obama.

of course, any thinking person agrees the R's are insane, but you lot feel Obama is the second coming so when he babbles nonsense it's like a lost book of Jesus talk where he's not making sense. Can someone find a blog to send to Ty to make him think Obama is sometimes wrong?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

of course, any thinking person agrees the R's are insane, but you lot feel Obama is the second coming so when he babbles nonsense it's like a lost book of Jesus talk where he's not making sense. Can someone find a blog to send to Ty to make him think Obama is sometimes wrong?

I don't think it was a brilliant statement of the law but I think it was clever politically. Look at the way he got that judge and McConnell to rise to the bait.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't think it was a brilliant statement of the law but I think it was clever politically. Look at the way he got that judge and McConnell to rise to the bait.

Honest question: have you ever argued (Ty is the most accomplished lawyer on the board, so I don't mean this as an insult) in front of a Federal appeals judge? I just see the whole approach as ill-advised. I realize holder is dealing on a higher plane than my cases but App. Judges strike me as the most pompous people I have ever met. I think he may well have fucked hcr and the particular case. Brown v. Bd of Ed was a horribly unpopular opinion, but the court signed it, and did it 9-0 to shut up the flakes. I see hcr going down 9-0 under the same theory.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Honest question: have you ever argued (Ty is the most accomplished lawyer on the board, so I don't mean this as an insult) in front of a Federal appeals judge? I just see the whole approach as ill-advised. I realize holder is dealing on a higher plane than my cases but App. Judges strike me as the most pompous people I have ever met. I think he may well have fucked hcr and the particular case. Brown v. Bd of Ed was a horribly unpopular opinion, but the court signed it, and did it 9-0 to shut up the flakes. I see hcr going down 9-0 under the same theory.

Honest answer: Yes, multiple times. Also, I clerked for a federal appellate judge for a year.

Obama is not arguing the law to them. He is reminding them that a 5-4 decision to strike down the mandate will be seen as a political decision. And it will. You explain to me how Scalia could reconcile Raich with that vote.

Either he convinces the five not to go there, or he mobilizes his voters to get angry when they do. When conservatives keep the story alive, he benefits.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Honest answer: Yes, multiple times. Also, I clerked for a federal appellate judge for a year.

Obama is not arguing the law to them. He is reminding them that a 5-4 decision to strike down the mandate will be seen as a political decision. And it will. You explain to me how Scalia could reconcile Raich with that vote.

Either he convinces the five not to go there, or he mobilizes his voters to get angry when they do. When conservatives keep the story alive, he benefits.

You are totally off on this. He is not speaking to the court at all (as if they would listen - "after all the briefs, orals and months of thinking about this, we were going to strike it down but now that Obama has reminded us, we changed our mind") - seriously?

His audience is the public and this is his plan B. He is undermining the legitimacy of the court's decision, so he can run against that, rather than having to defend why his primary focus when the world was crumbling was passing an unconstitutional law.

And he got bitch slap by an appellate court judge, which is so beneath him. It was absolutely terrible from a political standpoint.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Honest answer: Yes, multiple times. Also, I clerked for a federal appellate judge for a year.

Obama is not arguing the law to them. He is reminding them that a 5-4 decision to strike down the mandate will be seen as a political decision. And it will. You explain to me how Scalia could reconcile Raich with that vote.

Either he convinces the five not to go there, or he mobilizes his voters to get angry when they do. When conservatives keep the story alive, he benefits.

if he gets reelected I just hope he brings in some people to run the depts tha thas some sense of what to do. This is getting absurd.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

And he got bitch slap by an appellate court judge, which is so beneath him. It was absolutely terrible from a political standpoint.

See, this was his greatest PR achievement. I actually think
Obama just misspoke - it happens to all of us, especially Hank - and said something stupid. But the Appellate court judge just drove home what a partisan dork interested in gotchas the judge is, and that is not what we should expect from our judiciary.

I generally don't agree with Ty on this, but seeing the Appellate judge's reaction to something said wholly outside the judicial forum suggests that Ty is not entirely off base.

I'm amused too by Clarence Thomas' poke at the other justices questioning. He has a point.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I never have any idea what Hank thinks, so I'll let him not speak for himself.

It may come out just fine thanks to the Rs, but I just think the words that came out of his mouth are kind of silly and don't make much sense to me.

Rule of thumb: Whenever your staff has to explain what you meant to say and describe it as what you really said, but what they say you said isn't what came out of your mouth, you said the wrong thing.

Of course, that is as true for McConnell as Obama.

He said it would be unprecedented for the court to strike down a major program as outside the commerce clause powers. There's nothing silly about that.

What is silly is that it got reported as him saying there shouldn't be judicial review.

He should have avoided the republicn buzz words of "unelected judges" but that's about it.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

You are totally off on this. He is not speaking to the court at all (as if they would listen - "after all the briefs, orals and months of thinking about this, we were going to strike it down but now that Obama has reminded us, we changed our mind") - seriously?

His audience is the public and this is his plan B. He is undermining the legitimacy of the court's decision, so he can run against that, rather than having to defend why his primary focus when the world was crumbling was passing an unconstitutional law.

And he got bitch slap by an appellate court judge, which is so beneath him. It was absolutely terrible from a political standpoint.

You realize that your first two paragraphs are entirely consistent with what Ty said, right? You only differ on whether it helps or hurts Obama to have set up the question.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

See, this was his greatest PR achievement. I actually think
Obama just misspoke - it happens to all of us, especially Hank - and said something stupid. But the Appellate court judge just drove home what a partisan dork interested in gotchas the judge is, and that is not what we should expect from our judiciary.

I generally don't agree with Ty on this, but seeing the Appellate judge's reaction to something said wholly outside the judicial forum suggests that Ty is not entirely off base.

I'm amused too by Clarence Thomas' poke at the other justices questioning. He has a point.

He didn't misspeak, it was 100% deliberate. It was just bad strategy. And by the way, I didn't think Ds ever misspoke. I thought only dim Rs, like Bush, did (Biden, of course, excluded).

Obama has a habit of picking fights with those beneath him (see e.g., Cantor and Ryan). It's bad strategy and he is getting bad advice. Leave that to you minions or even Biden to do. Stay above the frey. Act like you've been there before. The incredibly shrinking president indeed.

I think the appellate judge overreacted, but also think it was cute for the 3rd branch to actually defend itself for once. My sense is that this judge could give too shits about HCR; his main bone is defending a co-equal branch of government.

I didn't see Thomas' poke, what was it?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

He didn't misspeak, it was 100% deliberate. It was just bad strategy. And by the way, I didn't think Ds ever misspoke. I thought only dim Rs, like Bush, did (Biden, of course, excluded).

Obama has a habit of picking fights with those beneath him (see e.g., Cantor and Ryan). It's bad strategy and he is getting bad advice. Leave that to you minions or even Biden to do. Stay above the frey. Act like you've been there before. The incredibly shrinking president indeed.

I think the appellate judge overreacted, but also think it was cute for the 3rd branch to actually defend itself for once. My sense is that this judge could give too shits about HCR; his main bone is defending a co-equal branch of government.

I didn't see Thomas' poke, what was it?

So your take is that the supreme court, which seems poised to take a major shot at Obama's signature policy, is beneath him and best ignored? Interesting.

So you don't go in for that co-equal bit?

He can't just sit back and have the story be that Obamacare is unconstitutional. He could have been more eloquent in making the point that a 5-4 decision striking it down would be unprecedented and potentially politically motivated, but the point needed to be made and made now.

As for Hank's interest in how it influences the 9, I don't think it does.