E. J. Dionne Whines It Up...About The Judiciary

[Listening]

The opening paragraph of the article pretty much says it all.

And yet, the schizo nature of the court seems to be something Schillian and others feel is what makes "law".

So we have "laws" that change all the time on the whim of nine people despite the voice of their elected representatives.

Obama, the hypocrite tried to make that case as they considered the UnACA.

Then you have Ted (I am so glad he's dead) Kennedy yelling at Roberts and Alito about "preserving" the gains of the past 40 years. Chuck Schumer has picked that up since Ted's celebrated demise.

So, you can change it.....

But, we can't change it back.....

Got it.

Then you go to this.........

In other words, Dionne concedes that the fault here lies with the people who drafted the law, who chose apparently not to write the law to say what they actually meant. Mind you, Dionne (and the dissent and the Fourth Circuit) have to invent a completely fictitious post hoc history to say that Congress meant anything other than what the law says – as has been exhaustively covered in the briefing on this issue, no contemporary legislative history exists on either side of this issue. And so Dionne is forced to pretend (along with the Halbig dissent and the 4th Circuit opinion) that the contrary explanation is the obviously correct one, because it is the one Democrats currently favor, and they are the ones who forced this law down the throats of America.

You see, we can't cite the Federalist Papers even though they tell us what Madison meant as he guided the consititution. But the left can say that a law does not mean what the text of it's wording means.

Unfreaking believable.

 

[Listening]

Bump

 

[Listening]

And we'll try it again.

 

[Contumacious]

The opening paragraph of the article pretty much says it all.

And yet, the schizo nature of the court seems to be something Schillian and others feel is what makes "law".

So we have "laws" that change all the time on the whim of nine people despite the voice of their elected representatives.

Obama, the hypocrite tried to make that case as they considered the UnACA.

Then you have Ted (I am so glad he's dead) Kennedy yelling at Roberts and Alito about "preserving" the gains of the past 40 years. Chuck Schumer has picked that up since Ted's celebrated demise.

Now you see why FDR wanted to pack SCOTUS


just read over the ACA Litigation Blog that the Fourth Circuit has announced the panel hearing argument today over whether the Affordable Care Act is constitutional. According to the ACA Blog, the panel will consist of all Democrat appointees. Here is the panel:

Judge Diana Gribbon Motz (appointed by President Clinton)
Judge Andre M. Davis (appointed by President Obama)
Judge James A. Wynn (appointed by President Obama)


ARticle III Judicial review has been dead since, at least, 1935


.

 

[OKTexas]

And we'll try it again.

Ya got a link to the article you refer to?

 

[Listening]

And we'll try it again.

Ya got a link to the article you refer to?

My apologies...

E.J. Dionne's Unseemly Whinging About the Judiciary Continues Apace | RedState

 

[mamooth]

If you wanted to discuss the 4rth court panel decision, and why it will almost certainly be overturned because it was so laughably bad, why didn't you use one of those threads?

The opening article revealed the glaring conservative hypocrisy here. Abortion was legal and common when the Constitution was written, and the founders saw zero problem with it. It's very clear what their intent was on abortion, and conservatives spit on that intent.

 

[Skylar]

The opening paragraph of the article pretty much says it all.

And yet, the schizo nature of the court seems to be something Schillian and others feel is what makes "law".

So we have "laws" that change all the time on the whim of nine people despite the voice of their elected representatives.

Rights trump many laws. And frankly, should. If the majority can simply legislate away the rights of the people, then we have the tyranny of the majority. A danger the founders were well aware of.

You see, we can't cite the Federalist Papers even though they tell us what Madison meant as he guided the consititution. But the left can say that a law does not mean what the text of it's wording means.

Madison is definitely a useful voice in determining the meaning of the constitution as the founders understood it, as is Hamilton. But the authority of the constitution isn't based on any either of them. But instead, the will of the founders. And then the will of the people.

Given that the people are the actual source of authority, I'd say their authority is probably the most relevant.

 

[Listening]

If you wanted to discuss the 4rth court panel decision, and why it will almost certainly be overturned because it was so laughably bad, why didn't you use one of those threads?

The opening article revealed the glaring conservative hypocrisy here. Abortion was legal and common when the Constitution was written, and the founders saw zero problem with it. It's very clear what their intent was on abortion, and conservatives spit on that intent.

What are you talking about ?

 

[The Rabbi]

If you wanted to discuss the 4rth court panel decision, and why it will almost certainly be overturned because it was so laughably bad, why didn't you use one of those threads?

The opening article revealed the glaring conservative hypocrisy here. Abortion was legal and common when the Constitution was written, and the founders saw zero problem with it. It's very clear what their intent was on abortion, and conservatives spit on that intent.

Where does abortion appear in the Constution?

 

[The Rabbi]

The plain language of Obamacare is clear: subsidies are available only to state exchanges. That was also the clear intent of Congress based on the debates at the time. Only HHS "interpretations" have changed. And those interpretations are illegal.

 

[blackhawk]

I'm sorry isn't it the job of the President and Attorney General and DOJ to enforce the laws as written not how they claim they were intended to be written after the fact?

 

[Bush92]

And we'll try it again.

Ya got a link to the article you refer to?

My apologies...

E.J. Dionne's Unseemly Whinging About the Judiciary Continues Apace | RedState

Activist judiciary ignores common law,
common sense, and will of the common man. Judicial branch does not write laws, bit interprets them. Today liberal judges feel they are elected representatives of the people...or minority there of.

 

[Listening]

I'm sorry isn't it the job of the President and Attorney General and DOJ to enforce the laws as written not how they claim they were intended to be written after the fact?

Isn't it amazing that:

In other words, Dionne concedes that the fault here lies with the people who drafted the law, who chose apparently not to write the law to say what they actually meant. Mind you, Dionne (and the dissent and the Fourth Circuit) have to invent a completely fictitious post hoc history to say that Congress meant anything other than what the law says – as has been exhaustively covered in the briefing on this issue, no contemporary legislative history exists on either side of this issue. And so Dionne is forced to pretend (along with the Halbig dissent and the 4th Circuit opinion) that the contrary explanation is the obviously correct one, because it is the one Democrats currently favor, and they are the ones who forced this law down the throats of America.

***************************

That law does not mean what it says.

Only a few people like Dionne can say something like this with a straight face.

You may not agree with the decision (this or any other decision).

But to say that congress didn't mean what they said....which can happen...and ask the courts to rule against what they meant to say.....

Now that is something special.