Sunday, July 05, 2015

"Move On" Marco, "Re-Run" Romney, and The Mouth Attack The Donald

....oh, and "Out Of Love" Jeb, too!!

See, the only problem with The Donald is that he is a lot less Politically Correct than that bunch.

Rubio tells us that HomoMarriage is 'settled law.'  Romney can't win unless it's a one-man race.  Jeb is just another Bush; same resume, same family connections, same Big Gummint butt-sucker.  And Christie?  He absolutely despises the Second Amendment (but you have to have a good memory to recall that.)

Meantime, immigrants, mostly illegals, have absorbed all the jobs created in the Obozoconomy and 93 million people have dropped out of the labor force.  The US has no friggin' idea of how many ISIL terrorists have come over the Rio Grande in the last 5 years, narco-gangs run large sectors of Mexico adjacent to the border, and this is 'all good for America.'


New Law School Forming Now!

The Clarice Feldman School of Law!

Why not create a new online law school, the Penumbra School. You can get your law degree from me at little cost and in rapid order. How? Well, we can skip all the courses on legislation. All we need is a meditation course in its place where we try to divine the feelings on matters of the linchpin Justice Kennedy. And we can dispense with constitutional law since it is now whatever five justices think it should have been. Contract and Corporation Law classes are unnecessary as the GM bailout established they count for nothing if the president decides to abrogate them. Immigration Law is unnecessary, too. No need to read what Congress has passed about immigration just leaf through the latest executive orders from the White House. True that leaves a few things -- Administrative law, for example -- but it increasingly appears that with minor exceptions like this week’s SCOTUS slapdown of the EPA, that Congress is just giving the bureaucrats blank checks to regulate whatever the heck they want to as they please and generally the courts are giving them wide berth to do just that. Our laws are being written on shifting, unpredictable sands, and the people charged with legislating, enforcing and interpreting seem to like that just fine.

The school song will be "Feelings," and the colors will be,.........well, know.

Saturday, July 04, 2015

How the Greeks Got Screwed

There's been a fair amount of propaganda on the 'net about the "laziness" of the Greeks, and their "fat/overpaid/over-pensioned" public servants.

I'll believe the second part--public "servants" are pretty much the same worldwide. (Yes, there are exceptions.)

But that isn't the whole story.

The IMF Debt Sustainability Analysis report on Greece that came out this week has caused a big stir. We now know that the Fund’s analysts confirm what Syriza has been saying ever since they came to power 5 months ago: Greece needs debt relief, lots of it, and fast....

We also know that Europe tried to silence the report. But what’s most interesting is that this has been going on for months, as per Reuters. Ergo, the IMF has known about the -preliminary- analysis for months, and kept silent, while at the same time ‘negotiating’ with Greece on austerity and bailouts.

And if you dig a bit deeper still, there’s no avoiding the fact that the IMF hasn’t merely known this for months, it’s known it for years. The Greek Parliamentary Debt Committee reported three weeks ago that it has in its possession an IMF document from 2010(!) that confirms the Fund knew even at that point in time.

So.  IMF gets to take a loss (underwritten by US taxpayers) b/c Merkel wanted to look good.

ObozoCare Works!!

Just as Obozo the Gramscian/Marxist had hoped, ObozoCare will raise rates. 

A lot.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans — market leaders in many states — are seeking rate increases that average 23 percent in Illinois, 25 percent in North Carolina, 31 percent in Oklahoma, 36 percent in Tennessee and 54 percent in Minnesota...

...The Oregon insurance commissioner, Laura N. Cali, has just approved 2016 rate increases for companies that cover more than 220,000 people. Moda Health Plan, which has the largest enrollment in the state, received a 25 percent increase, and the second-largest plan, LifeWise, received a 33 percent increase....

..Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Mexico has requested rate increases averaging 51 percent for its 33,000 members....

Geisinger, [Pennsylvania] often praised as a national model of coordinated care, has requested an increase of 40 percent in rates for its health maintenance organization....

Arches Health Plan, which covers about one-fourth of the people who bought insurance through the federal exchange in Utah. ... It has requested rate increases averaging 45 percent for 2016...

Health Net, for example, requested rate increases averaging 9 percent in Oregon. The state approved increases averaging 34.8 percent. Oregon’s Health Co-op requested a 5.3 percent increase. The state called for a 19.9 percent increase....

The objective for Obozo is to either 1) bankrupt the insurers; or 2) raise rates so high that there is a national outcry for single payer--which would be the Gummint. 

Or both.

Another ObozoCare Body-Slam!

This one aimed directly at 'small business'--defined as employing less than 50.

Employers who reimburse their workers for health care costs will face massive tax penalties beginning [July 1, 2015].

Prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act, with its mandate that all Americans purchase insurance and requirement for businesses to offer employees insurance plans, many small companies provided coverage by directly reimbursing medical costs or for the cost of private insurance plans. Businesses do it because that’s a less complicated process than dealing with an official health insurance plan, but continuing to do so after July 1 could cost them hundreds of dollars in fines each day....

'Reimbursement' is not as rare as you might think; there's at least one Milwaukee-area company which was using that method a few years ago.  Not likely that it still does; it employed far more than 50 people and thus had to dump that plan in favor of ObozoCare.

...The new rule is the result of an Internal Revenue Service interpretation of part of the ACA. It seems intended to force employers to offer a group health insurance plan (or leave their employees to fend for themselves on the health insurance exchanges)....

You will be made to conform.  And you will like it, comrade.

The Finality and Reality of the Declaration

Here's a little gem from Calvin Coolidge posted at PowerLine.

...About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers....

There's that "truth" thing again--like in Solzhenitsyn, and Codevilla, Jefferson, the pro-lifers, JPII, and those kinda radicals.

Codevilla: The Ruling Class v. Truth

Once again, Prof. Codevilla gets to the heart of it.

...The ruling class’s component groups jointly dismiss America’s traditional liberties because they aim to replace them with their own primacy. Having seized the power to redefine liberty, our rulers tighten their definitions around their opponents’ necks like nooses. Since their desire for primacy has no limit, they can’t stop tightening. The norms that they demand that we honor help sustain each constituency by letting its members feel good about themselves while looking down on others. Their “dignitary interests” (to use Justice Kennedy’s term for who must be honored vs. those who must submit to being vilified) simply trump those of others. This is why the ruling class demonizes any questioning of its demands’ substance by imposing modern equivalents of the slave-era “gag rule.” They wage identity politics as war....

(With that said, there is an implicit warning in that graf:  practice humility!  The root vice of which Codevilla warns here is Pride, so its opposite must be present in any well-ordered opposition.)

But Oppose!!

...Lincoln, following John Quincy Adams, pointed again and again to the slaveholders’ efforts to silence debate about slavery’s moral and political effects as evidence of the slaveholders’ threat to the freedom of whites as well as of blacks. Like Adams, Lincoln pressed slavery’s hard, ugly realities upon audiences that preferred to evade them. As Lincoln brushed away the euphemisms and legal constructs in describing the slave trade’s merchandising of human beings, so should we not mince words regarding all that the ruling class demands that we honor. ...

Yes.  Get out the pictures of the aborted babies.  And the victims of AIDS.

...Why should not all “classes” be equally protected? Does the rule of law even admit of “classes”? Does not the 14th Amendment promise “the equal protection of the laws” to all alike? But when presidents and supreme courts tell us that “equal” can mean “unequal” as willfully as that “is” can mean “is not,” when what is written counts less than what the powerful want, what can “law” mean? What obligation has anyone to obey such pretend-law?...

...As the great Solzhenitsyn reminds us, the sine qua non of liberty is refusal to live by lies. 
We need neither submit nor secede....

Resist by proclaiming the truth.  Loudly, often, and at any price.

Go to Grim's Place

An excellent survey of Independence is posted at Grim's Place today.

Get over there and READ IT.

Want a sample?  OK.

Independence Sentiment Grows

Speaking of Independence Day....

...A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 33% of Likely U.S. Voters now believe that states should have the right to ignore federal court rulings if their elected officials [dis]agree with them. That’s up nine points from 24% when we first asked this question in February. Just over half (52%) disagree, down from 58% in the earlier survey. Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided.”...

Just a bunch of Radical Jeffersonians, ya'know.

...Jefferson also pointed out, correctly, that “Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.” …Judicial review is “a very dangerous doctrine indeed,” Jefferson warned in 1820, “and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”...

Huh.  Who could have guessed?  Oh, yah:  Scalia.

Fordham: Model Jesuit College!

Recently reported:

The chairman of the theology department at Fordham University has gotten married—to another man.

Vince Lombardi's rotational speed approaches 50,000 RPM.

Clintonesque parsing follows:

...When asked whether Fordham was concerned about having a professor of theology whose lifestyle choice is in opposition to the teaching of the Catholic Church about marriage, a spokesman for the university said Hornbeck has the right to get married.

“While Catholic teachings do not support same-sex marriage, we wish Professor Hornbeck and his spouse a rich life filled with many blessings on the occasion of their wedding in the Episcopal Church,” said Bob Howe, Fordham's senior director of communications. “Professor Hornbeck is a member of the Fordham community, and like all University employees, students and alumni, is entitled to human dignity without regard to race, creed, gender, and sexual orientation.”

Howe emphasized that same-sex unions are “now the law of the land, and Professor Hornbeck has the same constitutional right to marriage as all Americans.

The flak doesn't mention a bedrock principle of Catholic doctrine:  there is NO 'right' to do what is wrong.  Ever.  Period.  End of sentence.

But then, what does Catholic doctine have to do with Fordham's theology department?

Scott Walker "Huh?" On Immigration

Seems that Scott Walker has confused the voters, a couple of other 'leading lights,' the NYTimes, and Breitbart on his immigration position.

D'ya think that was the objective, maybe?

The Fourth of July

Start with Ecclesiastes:   The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

There is certainly nothing new in despotism.

...But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security...

...He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance...

...He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people...

...He has obstructed the Administration of Justice...

 ...He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance...

 ...He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation...

 ...For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:...

... For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:...

 ...For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:...

...For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever....

...He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless [Muslim, MS-13, etc.] Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions....

Whaddya going to do about it?

Happy Fourth!  And may you---and your children---have many more!!

Friday, July 03, 2015

Seeing Your Legislator on the Fourth?

Here's a news item.

...“The language of the motion is incredibly broad, giving legislators a near-blanket exemption from the Open Records Law,” said Tom Kamenick, open government expert at WILL. “The new deliberative process exemption would be just as bad, allowing the government at all levels to hide the decision-making process from public oversight.”...

Your Leggies will be doing their best to imitate real people on the 4th of July, finding a few parades to sashay along in.

When you see one of the Pubbies, sidle up close and say "TranSParency!!"

If you have juiced up your tongue just right and make a little effort on the "sp", you'll spit right into his/her face.

They deserve it.

Thursday, July 02, 2015

Tammy Baldwin, Thought-Leader of the Left

Little Tammy Baldwin said what she really thinks.

“Certainly the First Amendment says that in institutions of faith that there is absolute power to, you know, to observe deeply held religious beliefs. But I don’t think it extends far beyond that. . . . [I]n this context, they’re talking about expanding this far beyond our churches and synagogues to businesses and individuals across this country. I think there are clear limits that have been set in other contexts and we ought to abide by those in this new context across America.”

Forget that she's absolutely wrong on the facts.  Understand, instead, that this is the mentality of the Left for which she speaks. (A good friend told me that Little Tammy is *loved* in Madison.)

Little Tammy is the personification of the waxing Left.  Had she been given the opportunity, she would also have applied her "thought" to the speech, press, and association components of the 1A.

Now you know why Little Tammy's crowd despises the Second Amendment, folks.

Wednesday, July 01, 2015

Like Keynes' Theory? Read the Rest of the Story.

David Stockman highlights the OTHER half of Keynes, showing that our "free trade" bunch are either ignorant dolts or robber barons.  Either way, you're screwed.

...As I detailed in the Great Deformation, the Great Thinker [Keynes] actually came out for stringent protectionism and economic autarky six years before he published the General  Theory and for good and logical reasons that his contemporary followers choose to completely ignore. Namely, protectionism and autarky are an absolutely necessary correlate to state management of the business cycle and related efforts to improve upon the unguided results generated by business, labor and investors on the free market. ...

IOW, the reason that Keynesian 'nomics don't work (see, e.g., the U-6 unemployment numbers) is that they are only half-utilized.


...Eighty years on from Keynes’ incomprehensible ode to statist economics and thorough-going protectionism, the idea of state management of the business cycle in one country is even more preposterous. Potential labor supply is a function of the global labor cost curve and now comes in atomized form as hours, gigs, and temp agency contractual bits, not census bureau headcounts.

In fact, the Census Bureau survey takers and the BLS numbers crunchers have not the foggiest idea as to what the real world’s potential labor force computes to, and how much of it is deployed on any given day, month or quarter. Accordingly, printing money and pegging interest rates in pursuit of “full employment”, which is the essence of the Yellen version of monetary central planning, is completely nonsensical....

The Fed Reserve priesthood has no friggin' idea of how many Chinamen are able/willing to work for 10 cents/hour--nor how many Thais, Vietnamese, Filipinos, nor Frenchmen.  So jacking the US money supply or whacking US interest rates is....umnhhhh...insanity.  It's exactly like firing a Ma Deuce with your eyes closed:  you can kill a lot of friends that way.

And, by gum, they have.

...When in the year 2015 you have 93 million adults not in the labor force—-of which only half are retired and receiving social security benefits(OASI)—-and a U-3 computational method that counts as “employed” anyone who works only a few hour per week—-then what you have in the resulting fraction is noise, pure and simple...At the present time, there are 210 million adult Americans between the ages of 16 and 68—to take a plausible measure of the potential work force. That amounts to 420 billion potential labor hours, if we accept the convention that all adults are at least theoretically capable of holding a full-time job (2,000 hours/year) and pulling their share of society’s need for production and work effort.

By contrast, during 2014 only 240 billion hours were actually supplied to the US economy, according to the BLS estimates. Technically, therefore, there were 180 billion unemployed labor hours, meaning that the real unemployment rate was 42.9%, not 5.5%!...

One might quibble, as 16-y-o's are not really eligible for full-time work.  OK, then, reduce "available hours" to only 375 billion and divide.

Not exactly "full employment" there, either, eh?

Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Cruz Has the Solution

Let's face it:  the "Constitutional Amendment" route is foo-foo-dust.  It won't happen.  Thus, the Walker proposal is just that:  foo-foo-dust.  No surprise, as Walker is running as the 'credible moderate-rightist' candidate, which distinguishes him from Bush, Graham, Jindal, and certainly, The Donald, who is barely credible but a helluva lot of fun to watch.

Cruz, on the other hand, has an idea which WILL work:  strip the Federal Courts of authority on certain matters.

...Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution explicitly grants Congress the authority to regulate and limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme is clear as day that Congress can banish the courts from specific issues and regulate the scope of their jurisdiction....

(The reaction of the State of Texas shows that Jindal's 'bend over and take it' position is a bit limp, too.)

Unlike the "amendment" solution, stripping the Fed Courts of jurisdiction is eminently do-able, and in a much shorter time-frame.  And as the linked essay demonstrates, there is urgency.  Lower courts are even more Leftist than SCOTUS and actually have more impact on the country.

Vos, 60% Man

The idea is that only itsy-bitsy public projects are exempt from artificial wage inflation.


Monday, June 29, 2015

John Chisholm, Stasi


A December 2012 affidavit reveals that Milwaukee County prosecutors sought and received secret subpoenas or warrants to seize the email, phone, and text records of 17 people. The subpoenas and warrants were served on a multitude of Internet service providers and cellular phone providers, including AT&T, Google and Yahoo.

With the assistance of the service providers, investigators confiscated 19 months of communications, from Jan. 1, 2011 through July 31, 2012.

Maybe you were in communication with one of those 17?

Then you're in the Stasi's little black book.

Sunday, June 28, 2015

Scott, We Already Have This

We all know that calling for an amendment is pure bullshit politics.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) is calling for a Constitutional amendment to allow states to define marriage and strip the Supreme Court of its authority over the issue after the justices legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

Aside from the BS factor, we already have the 10th Amendment, Scott.  States--like Wisconsin--should simply ignore SCOTUS.  You think that decrepit bunch is going to step up and MAKE us do something?

Better than either of those is an Article V convention of the States.  

Lincoln v. SCOTUS

Interesting historical information here, the gist of which is that SCOTUS really isn't all that 'supreme.' 

Neither Andy Jackson nor Abe Lincoln thought so, anyway.  This distinguishes them from Rubio, who has  rolled over on Obergefell, and Walker, who advocates for an Amendment (as though *that* will ever happen.)  Other (R) candidates have mumbled about amendments--they are also blowing foo-foo dust up your southern orifice. 

Better to treat the decision as erroneous and govern accordingly, following Lincoln.

...Jackson expressed what is known as the “departmental theory” of constitutional interpretation: i.e., that all three departments of the national government have an equal power to interpret the Constitution....

...Abraham Lincoln expressed the departmental principle in his first inaugural, denying that the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution in the Dred Scott case was the last word. Lincoln did not dispute that the Court’s decisions in particular cases must be obeyed, and he admitted that such decisions were “entitled to very high respect and consideration, in all parallel cases, by all other departments of the government.” Nevertheless, the political branches and ultimately the people still had a constitutional role to play. “The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

To that end, the Lincoln administration and Congress acted as if Dred Scott had been erroneous....

(Which it was, just as was Roe, SCOTUScare, and Obergefell.)

Things sat there, more or less, until Warren showed up.

...Under Chief Justice Earl Warren, the Court went on to ever bolder exercises of judicial power....The justices claimed that Marbury v. Madison had “declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in its exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this court and the country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system.

Well, neither of those statements is true.  As shown above, Presidents (and Congresses, for that matter) had simply ignored SCOTUS when grave matters were at stake.  As to Marbury:

...In fact, Marbury was quite a modest decision, in which Marshall held that Congress could not extend the jurisdiction of the Court beyond what the Constitution had provided....

So we can infer that Marbury did not void the 10th Amendment, nor the 9th.  And we can further infer that Marbury did NOT authorize the Court to either legislate OR manufacture social policy.

For those who still think that The Supremes are "supreme," which is a legend in their own minds and that of their sycophant camp-followers and groupies,  I remind you of the absolute incoherence of Roberts, who on one day opined that the Court can and should legislate, and on the next day complained that the Court was legislating.   If that's what you consider 'supreme,' well, you'll get what's coming to you.

However, the next President should follow Lincoln.  Be nice, but ignore the stupid stuff.

Saturday, June 27, 2015

USCC, "Catholic" Health Ass'n: Thanks a Lot!

When USCC was first organized as the National Catholic Welfare Conference, it was a smaller player in charity, using Catholic money to "do good." 

But because it was headquartered in Washington DC, it acquired the social disease which infects most organizations (and lots of the people) living there.  As a result, the now-USCC and its offspring, including the "Catholic" Health Association and "Catholic" Relief Services are Big Players in Organizational Charity, paying officers hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, and having a hive or three of program directors, project managers, finance staffers, and general office-types.

That requires Large Dollars, which USCC (et al) have been taking from Uncle Sam, in larger and larger doses, since the 1960's.

And USCC (et. al.) have been strenuously advocating for Mo' Gummint.  In the case of the "Catholic" Health Ass'n, it has been both strenuous and utterly shameful.

Heads will not roll, of course.  The Establishment is the same no matter the party or denomination.

Anyhow, that has led one rather frustrated AOSHQ post.

...stop protecting people from the big government they support. Too many people who have spent years and decades advocating for bigger and bigger government have to be made to enjoy it as much as we have been.
For me it starts with the Catholic Church. They and any other church that discriminates against gay couples will find up being sued and forced to perform ceremonies or will lose their tax status.

My reaction: Oh well.

US bishops have spent decades advocating liberal big government programs (ObamaCare, as long as they are exempted and amnesty spring to mind) all while enjoying an exemption from its effects or sharing in the burden of the costs via their tax exemption.

Well they are going to get a taste of what they've been building and they aren't going to like it one bit. ...

He (later) includes synagogues and mosques in his program.  I would nominate every mainstream Prot church--the Methodists and some Lut'rans have been joined at the hip with USCC on this stuff, too.

Think that's a bit extreme?  I'm not so sure, and I'm Catholic.  On the one hand, the tax burden will fall onto the people in the pews, not the Bishops (or the Hives in DC.)  On the other hand, the cold slap of reality may, ah, *encourage* the Bishops to RIF about 90% of the staffers and move the HQ to South Dakota.

So it's a mixed blessing.

Friday, June 26, 2015

Scalia Unleashed

Other blogs have posted short, pithy, pull-quotes.  PowerLine goes a bit deeper into Scalia's dissent.

Happy for us!

...The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003. They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds—minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly—could not.....

There's a proof of something about evolution and natural selection in that, no?

Then an exercise in turgidity from Kennedy, with exasperation growing from Scalia:

...Rights, we are told, can “rise . . . from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.” (Huh? How can a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives [whatever that means] define [whatever that means] an urgent liberty [never mind], give birth to a right?) And we are told that, “[i]n any particular case,” either the Equal Protection or Due Process Clause “may be thought to capture the essence of [a] right in a more accurate and comprehensive way,” than the other, “even as the two Clauses may converge in the identification and definition of the right.”

Verily, as Roberts' Rule tells us:  words mean nothing.  And more of them mean less and less, Kennedy, you simpering twit.

Finally, the Quote to Beat All:

...The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie....

Well, for what it's worth, Justice Scalia, out here in reality-land, we have no doubt that Mystical Aphorisms are the inevitable product of sausage squeezed through a sphincter; and since Warren, that sphincter has been, more and more, SCOTUS.

(Added:  Althouse, another somewhat confused lawyer, agrees with Kennedy.  But at least Althouse can write with clarity in her error.)

Rubio Goes Limp

Rubio bromides the assault on nature and nature's God.

While I disagree with this decision, we live in a republic and must abide by the law. As we look ahead, it must be a priority of the next president to nominate judges and justices committed to applying the Constitution as written and originally understood…

Truly courageous, Marco.  Your father--who resisted fascists and then launched into the unknown--would puke.

Roberts' Rule

Yesterday, CJ Roberts (may he lie in dogshit) opined that words no longer mean anything.

Today, the Supreme Court has said gay marriage is a not just a right, but a fundamental right.

What if Roberts' Rule is correct?  (Never thought of that, did they?)

From The Establishment to You

The Establishment's message to all of you:

HT:  Zippers