Republicans Plan to Obstruct the Constitution -- Again

[TooTall]

They also don't see the fact that the whole reason Court appointments are becoming such an issue is that the Court is overstepping its bounds, legislating from the bench, not interpreting established law in light of the Constitution.

That isn't happening. What's happening is congress had used it's power to enact laws that heretofore congress didn't touch. there's no actual constitutional crises that congress cannot levy taxes for healthcare. Presumbably you'd go back to Roe, but that's been done.

I can go back to Roe and Obergfell, both which stretched "interpretation" to levels seen in Dred Scott and Plessey.

Well I didn't like Obergfell, but even Roberts conceded the gays would win the day. I thought Roe was also a political misstep, but while I respect your religious views, over 60% believe that there's some right to choice. There's just no real constitutional crisis.

Civil rights required the conservatives to accept govt intrusions on personal contracts. You had to contract with blacks. There was no way out. That was a crisis. The emacipation took property without compensation. That was a crisis.

If you don't want an abortion, don't get one. If you don't want health insurance, pay a tax.

What is stopping Obama from passing a law that if you don't buy a car you have to pay a tax? That makes just as much sense as the ACA tax.

Come on, let's be just a tad realistic. Tthe reality is still that if a person is uninsured, and he gets really sick or even needs an ER, he often doesn't pay for, but instead shifts the cost to the insured folks. Congress said "buy insurance or pay a tax." I'm not relitigating the ACA again, because IT WAS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS. Congress has the power to levy taxes. There is a rational reason to treat those who refuse to buy insurance (and freeload) differently from insured. It was not a difficult question.

It was a POLITICAL question. Court's don't go there. Or shouldn't. The gop could have nominated someone capable of winning this election, and go at HC by just making sure everyone has X dollars to get services and then let them buy them in a transparent market.

28.5 million in 2015—remain without health care coverage. The treasury should be overflowing with money when they collect the taxes from the 28+ million that do not have health insurance.

 

[rightwinger]

Throw out the bums that refuse to do their jobs and refuse to do anything but warm a chair in Congress and collect a paycheck.

Harry Reid left hundred of GOP bills on his desk, refusing to allow them to come up for a vote. Where was that sentiment then?


Harry Reid’s Obstructionism

Harry Reid’s reign of paralysis


Many of these comments / thread, and posts reek of the stench of hypocrisy.

How many of those GOP bills had the 60 votes needed to go to the floor?

Let me check.........ummmmmm....None

Wait.....so like the average hack you "support" the rules when they "favor" you.
Got it.

Hey Republicans......you reap what you sow

When you require the Dems to get 60 votes to bring their bills to the floor, don't complain when you are required to meet the same standard

 

[Grizz]

They also don't see the fact that the whole reason Court appointments are becoming such an issue is that the Court is overstepping its bounds, legislating from the bench, not interpreting established law in light of the Constitution.

That isn't happening. What's happening is congress had used it's power to enact laws that heretofore congress didn't touch. there's no actual constitutional crises that congress cannot levy taxes for healthcare. Presumbably you'd go back to Roe, but that's been done.

I can go back to Roe and Obergfell, both which stretched "interpretation" to levels seen in Dred Scott and Plessey.

Well I didn't like Obergfell, but even Roberts conceded the gays would win the day. I thought Roe was also a political misstep, but while I respect your religious views, over 60% believe that there's some right to choice. There's just no real constitutional crisis.

Civil rights required the conservatives to accept govt intrusions on personal contracts. You had to contract with blacks. There was no way out. That was a crisis. The emacipation took property without compensation. That was a crisis.

If you don't want an abortion, don't get one. If you don't want health insurance, pay a tax.

What is stopping Obama from passing a law that if you don't buy a car you have to pay a tax? That makes just as much sense as the ACA tax.

Come on, let's be just a tad realistic. Tthe reality is still that if a person is uninsured, and he gets really sick or even needs an ER, he often doesn't pay for, but instead shifts the cost to the insured folks. Congress said "buy insurance or pay a tax." I'm not relitigating the ACA again, because IT WAS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS. Congress has the power to levy taxes. There is a rational reason to treat those who refuse to buy insurance (and freeload) differently from insured. It was not a difficult question.

It was a POLITICAL question. Court's don't go there. Or shouldn't. The gop could have nominated someone capable of winning this election, and go at HC by just making sure everyone has X dollars to get services and then let them buy them in a transparent market.

Um no, the Administration argued it WASN'T a Tax....until it NEEDED it to be a Tax.

"

After leaving a seat empty for a year because they "wanted the people to decide"

I'd like to see how Republicans justify turning down a nomination after Hillary wins by a landslide

I see another one hasn't a clue to how this works.

They also don't see the fact that the whole reason Court appointments are becoming such an issue is that the Court is overstepping its bounds, legislating from the bench, not interpreting established law in light of the Constitution.

That isn't happening. What's happening is congress had used it's power to enact laws that heretofore congress didn't touch. there's no actual constitutional crises that congress cannot levy taxes for healthcare. Presumbably you'd go back to Roe, but that's been done.

The ACA was sold to the Democrats in Congress based on the lie that it absolutely was NOT a tax. Then the Administration lawyers argued in front of the Supreme Court that it WAS a tax.

Absolutely correct.

 

[kaz]

After leaving a seat empty for a year because they "wanted the people to decide"

I'd like to see how Republicans justify turning down a nomination after Hillary wins by a landslide

Imo that was more or less lip service. The gop just wanted to make sure the dems didn't get 3 Justices with Obama and another 2 with Hillary.

Assuming Hillary wins, I think they'll confirm Garland with 90 or so votes. The gop also knows Ginsburg is looking to retire, which will give Hillary two nominees. I assume they will confirm Ginsburg's replacement so long as "she" doesn't advocate an extremist view of the constitution, as did Bork, and now Kagan certainly doesn't and neither really does Sontomayor.

I sure hope you're right. This partisan stuff has gone too far.

You going to do anything about your own side or are you just saying Republicans need to stop? It sure the hell isn't just them

 

[L.K.Eder]

When We the People overwhelmingly select Hillary....how are Republicans going to ignore the will of the people after grandstanding for a year?

well, they could say that hillary should not be able to nominate and get confimed a supreme court judgment, cuz of the coming and ongoing impeachment proceedings.

 

[Grizz]

Throw out the bums that refuse to do their jobs and refuse to do anything but warm a chair in Congress and collect a paycheck.

Harry Reid left hundred of GOP bills on his desk, refusing to allow them to come up for a vote. Where was that sentiment then?


Harry Reid’s Obstructionism

Harry Reid’s reign of paralysis


Many of these comments / thread, and posts reek of the stench of hypocrisy.

How many of those GOP bills had the 60 votes needed to go to the floor?

Let me check.........ummmmmm....None

Wait.....so like the average hack you "support" the rules when they "favor" you.
Got it.

Hey Republicans......you reap what you sow

When you require the Dems to get 60 votes to bring their bills to the floor, don't complain when you are required to meet the same standard

We aren't complaining kid, you are.
I'm simply pointing out your abject hypocrisy.

 

[regent]

The Republicans have changed the court size about five times to keep their majority, or to keep a new
Democratic president from making an appointment. The problem with those tactics today is more people are informed. That's more not all.

 

[Grizz]

The Republicans have changed the court size about five times to keep their majority, or to keep a new
Democratic president from making an appointment. The problem with those tactics today is more people are informed. That's more not all.

Link it?

 

[bendog]

That isn't happening. What's happening is congress had used it's power to enact laws that heretofore congress didn't touch. there's no actual constitutional crises that congress cannot levy taxes for healthcare. Presumbably you'd go back to Roe, but that's been done.

I can go back to Roe and Obergfell, both which stretched "interpretation" to levels seen in Dred Scott and Plessey.

Well I didn't like Obergfell, but even Roberts conceded the gays would win the day. I thought Roe was also a political misstep, but while I respect your religious views, over 60% believe that there's some right to choice. There's just no real constitutional crisis.

Civil rights required the conservatives to accept govt intrusions on personal contracts. You had to contract with blacks. There was no way out. That was a crisis. The emacipation took property without compensation. That was a crisis.

If you don't want an abortion, don't get one. If you don't want health insurance, pay a tax.

What is stopping Obama from passing a law that if you don't buy a car you have to pay a tax? That makes just as much sense as the ACA tax.

Come on, let's be just a tad realistic. Tthe reality is still that if a person is uninsured, and he gets really sick or even needs an ER, he often doesn't pay for, but instead shifts the cost to the insured folks. Congress said "buy insurance or pay a tax." I'm not relitigating the ACA again, because IT WAS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS. Congress has the power to levy taxes. There is a rational reason to treat those who refuse to buy insurance (and freeload) differently from insured. It was not a difficult question.

It was a POLITICAL question. Court's don't go there. Or shouldn't. The gop could have nominated someone capable of winning this election, and go at HC by just making sure everyone has X dollars to get services and then let them buy them in a transparent market.

28.5 million in 2015—remain without health care coverage. The treasury should be overflowing with money when they collect the taxes from the 28+ million that do not have health insurance.

Imagine, the fed govt collecting less tax revenue that needed to make program solvent. When's that happened before. (-:

Again, the gop should have just found a way to fund tax credits for everyone to get preventative care and generic drugs, and let people shop for the best deal, with low cost insurance for broken arms, and really really sick people go on Medicaid, which is where they ended up before the ACA and where they end up now.

 

[Dana7360]

Bork got a full hearing

Republicans have refused Garland even a phone call

Bork said the constitution permitted states to outlaw fucking birth control .. in NINETEEENEIGHTYSEVEN

Bork got a hearing and those voting against him gave specific reasons for their vote.

Cowardly Republicans will not even do that

There's the problem. 90 senators would not find Garland's views to be ... controversial.

But again, the gop was ok with Obama getting two nominations. And presumably Hillary will also get two in one term.

After that .. possible culture wars.

If the congress doesn't confirm Garland, Hillary will appoint 2 but possibly 3 justices to the court. That is if Hillary wins.

Judge Anthony Kennedy is 80 years old. It's possible that he would retire or possibly die during a Hillary presidency.

Please don't misunderstand, I'm not hoping that Kennedy or anyone dies. I hope he continues to live a healthy life.

I suspect the gop will confirm two Hillary appointees. IF Kennedy were to pass away during Hillary's first term, I doubt a gop Senate would take up a third. And it would be punted to 2020 and beyond.

So once again the republicans show how much they distain our constitution.

If Kennedy passed away the president has a constitutional obligation to nominate someone. The senate has a constitutional obligation to advise and consent.

The constitution doesn't say one party can prevent even a vote for a nominee as they have been doing for almost a year.

It's shameful. I can't do anything to remove a republican who does that. I'm lucky, there is only 1 republican that represents me on the state or federal level. My state has one republican elected to state office. Otherwise everyone who represents me is a democrat. The chance of one of our senators in DC being a republican is nearly non existent.

 

[9thIDdoc]

He's all too accommodating. Neither congress or the American people in general should accept Clinton for President under any circumstances nor anyone she nominates appoints or designates for any position what-so-ever. She is not qualified to be my public servant and I refuse to accept her.

 

[bendog]

Bork said the constitution permitted states to outlaw fucking birth control .. in NINETEEENEIGHTYSEVEN

Bork got a hearing and those voting against him gave specific reasons for their vote.

Cowardly Republicans will not even do that

There's the problem. 90 senators would not find Garland's views to be ... controversial.

But again, the gop was ok with Obama getting two nominations. And presumably Hillary will also get two in one term.

After that .. possible culture wars.

If the congress doesn't confirm Garland, Hillary will appoint 2 but possibly 3 justices to the court. That is if Hillary wins.

Judge Anthony Kennedy is 80 years old. It's possible that he would retire or possibly die during a Hillary presidency.

Please don't misunderstand, I'm not hoping that Kennedy or anyone dies. I hope he continues to live a healthy life.

I suspect the gop will confirm two Hillary appointees. IF Kennedy were to pass away during Hillary's first term, I doubt a gop Senate would take up a third. And it would be punted to 2020 and beyond.

So once again the republicans show how much they distain our constitution.

If Kennedy passed away the president has a constitutional obligation to nominate someone. The senate has a constitutional obligation to advise and consent.

The constitution doesn't say one party can prevent even a vote for a nominee as they have been doing for almost a year.

It's shameful. I can't do anything to remove a republican who does that. I'm lucky, there is only 1 republican that represents me on the state or federal level. My state has one republican elected to state office. Otherwise everyone who represents me is a democrat. The chance of one of our senators in DC being a republican is nearly non existent.

I don't think it's so bad. Reagan got 3 confirmed. Kennedy was confirmed in the final year, but first Bork said batshit crazy stuff, and then Douglas Ginsburg not only smoked POT in law school, but may have been involved in some "collective buys." Kennedy was the "safe choice."

Poppy got 2. Slick got 2. W got 2. Obama got 2.

But we'll have to see if the gop acts responsibly ... assuming Hillary wins and they hold onto the Senate. If the dems win the senate, I think they'll move very fast to push nominations through.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Bork got a hearing and those voting against him gave specific reasons for their vote.

Cowardly Republicans will not even do that

There's the problem. 90 senators would not find Garland's views to be ... controversial.

But again, the gop was ok with Obama getting two nominations. And presumably Hillary will also get two in one term.

After that .. possible culture wars.

If the congress doesn't confirm Garland, Hillary will appoint 2 but possibly 3 justices to the court. That is if Hillary wins.

Judge Anthony Kennedy is 80 years old. It's possible that he would retire or possibly die during a Hillary presidency.

Please don't misunderstand, I'm not hoping that Kennedy or anyone dies. I hope he continues to live a healthy life.

I suspect the gop will confirm two Hillary appointees. IF Kennedy were to pass away during Hillary's first term, I doubt a gop Senate would take up a third. And it would be punted to 2020 and beyond.

So once again the republicans show how much they distain our constitution.

If Kennedy passed away the president has a constitutional obligation to nominate someone. The senate has a constitutional obligation to advise and consent.

The constitution doesn't say one party can prevent even a vote for a nominee as they have been doing for almost a year.

It's shameful. I can't do anything to remove a republican who does that. I'm lucky, there is only 1 republican that represents me on the state or federal level. My state has one republican elected to state office. Otherwise everyone who represents me is a democrat. The chance of one of our senators in DC being a republican is nearly non existent.

I don't think it's so bad. Reagan got 3 confirmed. Kennedy was confirmed in the final year, but first Bork said batshit crazy stuff, and then Douglas Ginsburg not only smoked POT in law school, but may have been involved in some "collective buys." Kennedy was the "safe choice."

Poppy got 2. Slick got 2. W got 2. Obama got 2.

But we'll have to see if the gop acts responsibly ... assuming Hillary wins and they hold onto the Senate. If the dems win the senate, I think they'll move very fast to push nominations through.

What did Bork say that you deem "batshit crazy"?

 

[Preacher]

Loving this irony.These morons want republicans to allow the greatest threat to our constitution to appoint 3 or more SCJ that agree with her on 2nd amendment so they can end the 2nd amendment.....and REPUBLICANS are the ones that are threats to the constitution....oh pure comedy.

 

[bendog]

There's the problem. 90 senators would not find Garland's views to be ... controversial.

But again, the gop was ok with Obama getting two nominations. And presumably Hillary will also get two in one term.

After that .. possible culture wars.

If the congress doesn't confirm Garland, Hillary will appoint 2 but possibly 3 justices to the court. That is if Hillary wins.

Judge Anthony Kennedy is 80 years old. It's possible that he would retire or possibly die during a Hillary presidency.

Please don't misunderstand, I'm not hoping that Kennedy or anyone dies. I hope he continues to live a healthy life.

I suspect the gop will confirm two Hillary appointees. IF Kennedy were to pass away during Hillary's first term, I doubt a gop Senate would take up a third. And it would be punted to 2020 and beyond.

So once again the republicans show how much they distain our constitution.

If Kennedy passed away the president has a constitutional obligation to nominate someone. The senate has a constitutional obligation to advise and consent.

The constitution doesn't say one party can prevent even a vote for a nominee as they have been doing for almost a year.

It's shameful. I can't do anything to remove a republican who does that. I'm lucky, there is only 1 republican that represents me on the state or federal level. My state has one republican elected to state office. Otherwise everyone who represents me is a democrat. The chance of one of our senators in DC being a republican is nearly non existent.

I don't think it's so bad. Reagan got 3 confirmed. Kennedy was confirmed in the final year, but first Bork said batshit crazy stuff, and then Douglas Ginsburg not only smoked POT in law school, but may have been involved in some "collective buys." Kennedy was the "safe choice."

Poppy got 2. Slick got 2. W got 2. Obama got 2.

But we'll have to see if the gop acts responsibly ... assuming Hillary wins and they hold onto the Senate. If the dems win the senate, I think they'll move very fast to push nominations through.

What did Bork say that you deem "batshit crazy"?

States could ban birth control in NINETEENEIGHTYSIX (OR SEVEN)

 

[Grizz]

I can go back to Roe and Obergfell, both which stretched "interpretation" to levels seen in Dred Scott and Plessey.

Well I didn't like Obergfell, but even Roberts conceded the gays would win the day. I thought Roe was also a political misstep, but while I respect your religious views, over 60% believe that there's some right to choice. There's just no real constitutional crisis.

Civil rights required the conservatives to accept govt intrusions on personal contracts. You had to contract with blacks. There was no way out. That was a crisis. The emacipation took property without compensation. That was a crisis.

If you don't want an abortion, don't get one. If you don't want health insurance, pay a tax.

What is stopping Obama from passing a law that if you don't buy a car you have to pay a tax? That makes just as much sense as the ACA tax.

Come on, let's be just a tad realistic. Tthe reality is still that if a person is uninsured, and he gets really sick or even needs an ER, he often doesn't pay for, but instead shifts the cost to the insured folks. Congress said "buy insurance or pay a tax." I'm not relitigating the ACA again, because IT WAS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS. Congress has the power to levy taxes. There is a rational reason to treat those who refuse to buy insurance (and freeload) differently from insured. It was not a difficult question.

It was a POLITICAL question. Court's don't go there. Or shouldn't. The gop could have nominated someone capable of winning this election, and go at HC by just making sure everyone has X dollars to get services and then let them buy them in a transparent market.

28.5 million in 2015—remain without health care coverage. The treasury should be overflowing with money when they collect the taxes from the 28+ million that do not have health insurance.

Imagine, the fed govt collecting less tax revenue that needed to make program solvent. When's that happened before. (-:

Again, the gop should have just found a way to fund tax credits for everyone to get preventative care and generic drugs, and let people shop for the best deal, with low cost insurance for broken arms, and really really sick people go on Medicaid, which is where they ended up before the ACA and where they end up now.

"Again, the gop should have just found a way to fund tax credits for everyone to get preventative care and generic drugs"

Correction , BOTH sides should have done this, it's not what the President wanted, he wanted/wants Single Payor Gob care for all.

"and let people shop for the best deal"

This they could already do.

"with low cost insurance for broken arms,"

This already exists.

"and really really sick people go on Medicaid, which is where they ended up before the ACA and where they end up now"

Nope, Medicaid eligibility is determined by one's assets (or the lack thereof)

 

[bendog]

He's all too accommodating. Neither congress or the American people in general should accept Clinton for President under any circumstances nor anyone she nominates appoints or designates for any position what-so-ever. She is not qualified to be my public servant and I refuse to accept her.

You could try holding your breath. Jus sayin (-:

 

[bendog]

Well I didn't like Obergfell, but even Roberts conceded the gays would win the day. I thought Roe was also a political misstep, but while I respect your religious views, over 60% believe that there's some right to choice. There's just no real constitutional crisis.

Civil rights required the conservatives to accept govt intrusions on personal contracts. You had to contract with blacks. There was no way out. That was a crisis. The emacipation took property without compensation. That was a crisis.

If you don't want an abortion, don't get one. If you don't want health insurance, pay a tax.

What is stopping Obama from passing a law that if you don't buy a car you have to pay a tax? That makes just as much sense as the ACA tax.

Come on, let's be just a tad realistic. Tthe reality is still that if a person is uninsured, and he gets really sick or even needs an ER, he often doesn't pay for, but instead shifts the cost to the insured folks. Congress said "buy insurance or pay a tax." I'm not relitigating the ACA again, because IT WAS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS. Congress has the power to levy taxes. There is a rational reason to treat those who refuse to buy insurance (and freeload) differently from insured. It was not a difficult question.

It was a POLITICAL question. Court's don't go there. Or shouldn't. The gop could have nominated someone capable of winning this election, and go at HC by just making sure everyone has X dollars to get services and then let them buy them in a transparent market.

28.5 million in 2015—remain without health care coverage. The treasury should be overflowing with money when they collect the taxes from the 28+ million that do not have health insurance.

Imagine, the fed govt collecting less tax revenue that needed to make program solvent. When's that happened before. (-:

Again, the gop should have just found a way to fund tax credits for everyone to get preventative care and generic drugs, and let people shop for the best deal, with low cost insurance for broken arms, and really really sick people go on Medicaid, which is where they ended up before the ACA and where they end up now.

"Again, the gop should have just found a way to fund tax credits for everyone to get preventative care and generic drugs"

Correction , BOTH sides should have done this, it's not what the President wanted, he wanted/wants Single Payor Gob care for all.

"and let people shop for the best deal"

This they could already do.

"with low cost insurance for broken arms,"

This already exists.

"and really really sick people go on Medicaid, which is where they ended up before the ACA and where they end up now"

Nope, Medicaid eligibility is determined by one's assets (or the lack thereof)

The gop chose to not submit a proposal covering everyone. Bennett of Utah tried, and he was primaried by the tea party for his trouble. No, people to NOT shop for the best deal. THAT's precisely the problem, and will continue to be so when we go single payer, which is where we're headed. And, you lack any basic understading of Medicaid eligibility for the disabled.

 

[peach174]

WASHINGTON — Sen. John McCain pledged Monday that Republicans will unite against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton puts forward if she becomes president, forecasting obstruction that could tie Capitol Hill in knots.

However an aide later clarified that McCain, R-Ariz., will examine the record of anyone nominated for the high court and vote for or against that person based on their qualifications.

McCain's initial comments came in an interview with Philadelphia talk radio host Dom Giordano to promote the candidacy of Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa.

"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up," McCain said. "I promise you. This is where we need the majority and Pat Toomey is probably as articulate and effective on the floor of the Senate as anyone I have encountered."

"This is the strongest argument I can make to return Pat Toomey, so we can make sure there are not three places on the United States Supreme Court that will change this country for decades," McCain said.


Yeah, right, nice attempt at a save by the aide. So the Republicans plan on another 4 years of do-nothing obstructionism if they don't get their way?
No one who values democracy or our form of government should vote for a single Republican in this election. Democrats will have no choice but to run the country if the Republicans refuse to participate.

McCain Suggests GOP Would Oppose Clinton Supreme Court Picks

Throw out guys like mccain

I am not voting for him.
I will do a write in.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

If the congress doesn't confirm Garland, Hillary will appoint 2 but possibly 3 justices to the court. That is if Hillary wins.

Judge Anthony Kennedy is 80 years old. It's possible that he would retire or possibly die during a Hillary presidency.

Please don't misunderstand, I'm not hoping that Kennedy or anyone dies. I hope he continues to live a healthy life.

I suspect the gop will confirm two Hillary appointees. IF Kennedy were to pass away during Hillary's first term, I doubt a gop Senate would take up a third. And it would be punted to 2020 and beyond.

So once again the republicans show how much they distain our constitution.

If Kennedy passed away the president has a constitutional obligation to nominate someone. The senate has a constitutional obligation to advise and consent.

The constitution doesn't say one party can prevent even a vote for a nominee as they have been doing for almost a year.

It's shameful. I can't do anything to remove a republican who does that. I'm lucky, there is only 1 republican that represents me on the state or federal level. My state has one republican elected to state office. Otherwise everyone who represents me is a democrat. The chance of one of our senators in DC being a republican is nearly non existent.

I don't think it's so bad. Reagan got 3 confirmed. Kennedy was confirmed in the final year, but first Bork said batshit crazy stuff, and then Douglas Ginsburg not only smoked POT in law school, but may have been involved in some "collective buys." Kennedy was the "safe choice."

Poppy got 2. Slick got 2. W got 2. Obama got 2.

But we'll have to see if the gop acts responsibly ... assuming Hillary wins and they hold onto the Senate. If the dems win the senate, I think they'll move very fast to push nominations through.

What did Bork say that you deem "batshit crazy"?

States could ban birth control in NINETEENEIGHTYSIX (OR SEVEN)

Batshit crazy? Hardly. He wasn't advocating the ban, in fact, he called the law "nutty". He was assailing the court's decision based on a constitutional right to privacy which he properly argued, does not exist.