[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
LEFT WING LOONS Title: No Honor Among Liberals No Honor Among Liberals March 29, 2012 by Ben Crystal An anti-Obamacare demonstrator holds a copy of the Constitution during a protest in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington. Under different circumstances, I might feel bad for Solicitor General of the United States Donald Verrilli. Charged with the duty of defending the bureaucratic behemoth known as Obamacare — in front of the highest court in the land, no less — Verrilli became a mosquito with a law degree, slamming headlong into the windshield of superior Constitutional scholars. As Verrilli stammered his way through an argument defending Obamacare’s crucial individual mandate, Justice Samuel Alito pointed out: “Today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax. Tomorrow you are going to be back and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax.” Given the fact that Verrilli’s boss, the President, has tried to describe the individual mandate as either a tax or a penalty depending on the audience, it comes as no surprise that Verrilli tried to describe it as both a tax and a penalty. He repeatedly referred to what he termed a “tax penalty.” Unfortunately for Verrilli, Alito was paying attention and dropped the Constitutional hammer on him while Alito’s fellow Justices — and a few onlookers — enjoyed a hearty chuckle at Verrilli’s (not to mention Obama’s) expense. That was Monday. By Tuesday, a visibly shaken Verrilli earned some halfhearted assistance from his predecessor in the Solicitor General’s digs, Justice Elena Kagan. Although Kagan’s intimate involvement with Obama’s reanimation of Hillarycare’s corpse ought to have spurred her recusal, she did her duty as a Democrat, offering the completely irrelevant “the subsidizers eventually become the subsidized” as an addendum to Verrilli’s non sequitur about the need for telephones (which are decidedly not required by law — yet). Despite Kagan’s help, Chief Justice Roberts wobbled Verrilli with: “Can the government require you to buy a cell phone because that would facilitate responding when you need emergency services?” And Justice Antonin Scalia dropped him — and Obamacare — with a solid right hook: “We’re not stupid.” The legal arguments surrounding Obamacare are nothing new, and I suspect Obama and his accomplices considered that before they tried to force it down our gullets. Given Obama’s dim view of Constitutional standards (i.e., forcing religious organizations to pay for abortions), it should come as no surprise he sent his top lawyer into the Supreme Court without a coherent or consistent argument. In fact, it wouldn’t stun me to learn that Obama didn’t think it would matter if they lost. And maybe it should come as no surprise that Verrilli, who walked into court as Solicitor General, will likely be carried out on his shield. Following the justices’ smackdown of Verrilli on Tuesday, leading Democrat mouthpieces began lighting up the blogosphere. And considering the nature of their oddly coordinated message, Verrilli should probably start scouting bus stops and park benches for good 1-800-HURTNOW ad space. Democrat sock puppet Ezra Klein of The Washington Post took to Twitter to explain why Obamacare is staggering: “Counterfactual time: Would solicitor general Elena Kagan have done a better job?” He also tweeted: “At least in public perception, this is a SCOTUS case where the quality of the oral arguments mattered hugely. And Obama’s SG lost big.” Of course, it couldn’t have anything to do with Obama’s own duplicity in presenting a Federalization of one-sixth of the Nation’s economy. If only Obama had a better advocate than Verrilli, then nobody would notice that the arguments for Obamacare stink like an Occupy Wall Street squatters’ camp. Meanwhile, liberal hate-speech impresario Markos Moulitsas tweeted: “… the mandate was… embraced by Romney.” Ah, so it’s Romney’s fault. It’s worth noting that Moulitsas is essentially arguing that Obamacare was developed without any input from Obama while ignoring the fact that Obamacare’s defining idea — that the government can force you to do whatever they think is best for you — dates back to a time when Hillary Clinton was still the “co-President.” At once-important CNN, Democrat super-strategist James Carville opened the hole in the middle of his head to say: “I think that this will be the best thing to ever happen to the Democratic Party because health care costs will escalate unbelievably.” Holy schadenfreude, Mary Matalin! Your husband just garroted himself with his own tongue! They’ve given up, and they’re going to blame Verrilli. Verrilli chose friends like Obama and the Democrat elite; and now, close to what should be the pinnacle of his career, they’re going to nail him to the proverbial cross. The mere existence of Obamacare indicates the Democrats’ low regard for the Constitution. But if this is how they treat their friends, imagine how they’ll treat you.
Poster Comment: "But if this is how they treat their friends, imagine how they’ll treat you".------ That's what 99% of Leftard supporters don't get, their masters just don't give a schitt about them.... never have, never will!!!!
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 3.
#2. To: CZ82 (#0)
In a sane world of LAW this is D.O.A. But In THIS country, now, under the curse of this insane messiah "king"? Only the Lord knows. These spit flecked hacks are just entertainment.
The funniest part about this is Verrilli is being made a fool with the defense Kagan dreamt up while she was the solicitor general..... (And she was the dean of Harvard Law... ROTFLMMFAO!!!!!!). Just goes to show you that some of those on the Supreme Court are dumber that anybody even realizes.... That's why you never ever nominate a Leftard to be part of the SCOTUS!!!! Here check out some of her "brilliance"... this is something she said in response to Verrilli "Why is a big gift from the federal government a matter of coercion? In other words, the federal government is here saying: We're giving you a boatload of money. There are no matching funds requirement. There are no extraneous conditions attached to it. It's just a boatload of federal money for you to take and spend on poor people's health care. It doesn't sound coercive to me, I have to tell you". Just remember that if you ever have to go to court don't get a Harvard lawyer to defend you....
#4. To: CZ82 (#3)
. I hear ya. I heard that Kagan had said about this, "why can't we just let the CONgress address this?" Which shows you the actual depth and grasp she has of the CONSTITUTIONAL workings of this system. Which is ZERO. FTW! ROCK ON! "Sic Semper Tyrannis!"
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|