A Public Service Message for Those Disappointed by the SCOTUS Obamacare Decision

Posted on June 29, 2012 8:02 am

[High Praise! to Les of Brick Moon for creating this]

Send to Kindle
1 Star (Hated it)2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (Awesome) (8 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

27 Responses to “A Public Service Message for Those Disappointed by the SCOTUS Obamacare Decision”

  1. DamnCat says:

    NO! I’m staying under the porch for at least one more day!

  2. Burmashave says:

    Admit it, DamnCat, you’ll come out just long enough to finish that bowl of Tuna.

    I plan to keep extremely calm — like an unhinged man barely in control — and I’ll do all I can to help Romney get elected. Then, all calmness goes out the window. If ObamaCare isn’t repealed within the first couple of weeks, I’ll become a one man army if I have to.

  3. DamnCat says:

    NO! I haz a mad and tuna won’t fix it!

  4. IMAO » Blog Archive » Cats Against Obamacare links:

    [...] DamnCat [High Praise!] on Obamacare: [...]

  5. Burmashave says:

    Uh oh.

  6. Les says:

    DamnCat, the “free catnip” clause is on page 1,472. You’ll be “just fine.”

    “Psst…got the cage ready, Michelle?”

  7. Jimmy says:

    Les, I am, by definition, calm, except when I’m ranting at a liberal to do everyone a favor and go blow their brains out the back of their scull.

  8. Bunkerhillbilly says:

    All faint praise and searchings for glimmers of victory aside…the bottom line is this: the Chief Justice exceeded his purview by siding with activist justices and in the so-doing legislated from the bench rather than reviewing the case for constitutionality.

    Such efforts rival the low-rent prestidigitation of children with newly unwrapped Marshall Brodein magic kits.

    Someone has to be high off their @$$ on nitrous oxide and ‘shrooms to attempt to weave further M C Escherian, Mobius-strip-like legal penumbralities and emanations from blatantly un-constitutional legislation.

    We are in uncharted waters folks. Afloat in a time and place without respect for or acknowledgement of legal fundamentals. It’s now all government and no citizen. No recourse for the individual.

    If anybody has ever questioned how the Nazis came to power in Germany, this, in manifestation of the Santayana aphorism, is your answer. The changed the laws, had the changes validated by “approved” judges, and inbetween the building of the Autobahn and mouments to the Reich, whisked the Jews, and other “undesirables”, off to the camps.

    So it is counseled to “keep calm and register to vote”?!? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?? Have you people been drinking soy? Place hope in the potential action of Romney?

    It is time for hurricane-force tantrumming from the no-longer Silent Majority. Now.

    Ranking. Em-effing. Full. Stop.

  9. Les says:

    That’s just not right, Jimmy. That’s just cruel. You know they never had any brains in there in the first place.

  10. Jimmy says:

    I like the cut of Bunkerhillbilly’s jib!

  11. Bunkerhillbilly says:

    Go raibh maith agat, Jim.

  12. Jimmy says:

    But there clearly is something that comes out, Les, similar to the ammonia-treated, pink slime they use to fill hamburger.

  13. Les says:

    Bunkerhillbilly, you know they only tolerate encourage tantrums from the OWS types. By all means, speak up, give ‘em hell, but don’t give ‘em a reason to roll out the cattle cars.

    As it is, the MSM makes the most benign dissent from the right look like the second coming of the Third Reich.

    And I’m not saying you have to make a wish on Romney, but think about what could get (un)done if we got all our like-minded friends and family to vote, got some relatively decent (or at least not Socialist) representatives elected, and held their feet to the fire.

  14. Bunkerhillbilly says:

    Les, your reply indicates a predicate concern, perhaps vestigial, over what others might think of you. (“…you know they only-tolerate-tantrums from..OWS…)

    I’m saying it’s Who The Eff Cares What They Think time. Think German-Shepherd-Off-The-Leash.

    The MSM will brown their double-knitted trousers at a populace justifiably raging at a near-psychotic level.

    Back in my younger days, before the aching of back and knees, I played a little football as a running back. When given the ball and doing a bit of broken-field trotting and I’d see some safety heading my way, I’d lock eyes with the guy and let out a war-whoop/rebel yell. That half second that the guy was unsettled/shocked by the sound was good for at least an extra fifteen yards.

    Point being, DO the unexpected. BE the not-Silent Majority. In EVERY opportunity. Because all bets are off now.

    I’d say have the number of a good lawyer in your wallet…but, hey, given as we’re in a time of no laws (anarchy), lawyers are irrelevant.

    Tell me I’m wrong.

  15. Bunkerhillbilly says:

    You want “wish upon a distant star” topicality? I’ve got it for you.

    For consideration: Drudge is headlining that Chief Justice Roberts has been taking medication for epilepsy which may cause vagueness and loss of memory.

    This possible mental impairment may be an explanation of his legal convolutions and decision to side with the other legally mindless Liberal justices.

    It may be remotely possible grounds for review and recusal. Were I Mark Levin, I would have my legal Rottweilers rip into such a possibility…along with emphatically calling for Lainie Kagan’s recusal as well.

    That still leaves seven justices. Four of them voted in the current decision for total strike-down.

    Discuss.

  16. tom kusar says:

    forgot the last step….. VOTE

  17. Les says:

    Well, you have a good point, Bunkerhillbilly, and I trust your experience and sensibility. More power to whomever can stop, or at least slow down the insanity, by hook or by crook. Support the Drudges and the Levins, as long as they are talking sense, shining the light on the roaches — but we have to pick our battles.

    I do whatever I can in my own way — exposing the ridiculous through ridicule — which is pretty much the theme of IMAO. If you’ve seen some of my videos and graphics, you know I don’t much give a rat’s rear what “they” think, and I have gotten some heat.

    Eric Holder’s obvious lies and phony executive privilege? Sic ‘em!

    I haven’t read up on the potential grounds for recusal of judges, but if it turns out to have some teeth, then, again, more power to ‘em. I’ll hop on any bus if it’s going my way, and if the majority of the passengers are rational and not trying to eat my face off.

    And God bless Sheriff Arpaio, but latching onto a sinking ship, like the birth certificate issue and getting set up for a fall — that’s not going to help the cause.

    If the warpaint works for you, go for it. But here are the “they” I’m concerned about: If I see the hypnotized fence sitters get scared out of doing something sensible because all they see (via the fifth column media) are angry villagers frothing at the mouth — with good reason — and we end up with four more years of the five-year plan, well, that’s a bad dog.

    There is nothing more terrifying to a tyrant than someone staring calmly at them, seeing them for what they are, and not getting upset — but that doesn’t necessarily mean being complacent or doing nothing. A snake doesn’t have to say anything, or even move, to send the message, “Don’t tread on me.”

    That is how “they” get power in the first place — through upset and inducing emotion, either “love” or hate.

    “The patient is clearly out of control — get the straitjacket and the sedative!”

    “There, there — you’ll be ‘doing fine’ in no time. And because we love you so much, we’ll give you all the free meds you want, just as long as you do as we say…”

    The despots are horrified to see groups of civil, but resolute protesters, expressing nothing but the truth, with all the violence of a Methodist picnic. If they weren’t scared, they wouldn’t have to be painted as “extremists with dangerous ideas.”

    Scenes like this generally don’t end well, and the monster often survives.

    Let’s do our damnedest to keep the republic, but let’s also keep our powder dry. (apologies for linking to a NYT piece, but it has some good background on the phrase) Actually, keeping the canon and the powder dry was essentially the job George Washington assigned to my 5th great grandfather, not far from Bunker Hill.

    Yes, the crap that has been shoved down our throats ticks me the heck off, and I want it stopped immediately as much as anybody, but I’m going to be even more ticked if we’re screwed down the road because someone (present company not implicated) decided to pull a Leeroy Jenkins.

  18. Jerome says:

    Something else to consider is that revolution doesn’t always end in the desired outcome even if the side you support wins. That’s not to say it shouldn’t happen, I believe we’re actually about 20 years past due for one. Just don’t be surprised if the new boss looks a lot like the old when it’s over

  19. Ogrrre says:

    I’m keeping calm. I’m already registered to vote. I’m just planning on investing in precious metals until the election. Cheaperthandirt is having a sale on precious metals as we speak. I think I’ll buy some more copper jacketed lead; best damn investment I ever made.

  20. Bunkerhillbilly says:

    Jerome says“…don’t be surprised if the new boss looks a lit like the old when it’s over”

    I wouldn’t be if said “new boss” bore a respectable ideological resemblance to such old bosses as George Washington, John Adams, Teddy Roosevelt (pre Bull Moose), or Ronald Reagan.

    Which would be the point, right?

    After all the years that the Tree of Liberty has been neglected, poorly tended to, and let to grow wild…that it is well past time to get into it and do some proper arboreal maintenance. Prune those nearly-dead branches, which are seeking to draw an inordinate amount of sap from the trunk, those branches which produce neither blossom nor fruit…prune it back.

    Nice words, hearty sentiments…literary flatulence unless there’s action behind it.

    The hard truth, jurisprudentially, as I rantingly mentioned before, is that Chief Justice Roberts went activist not Constitutionalist. Public opinion trumped legality

    Arizona decision, Obamacare, Stolen Valor. All decisions disregard constitutionality and dwell in the activistic “penumbras and emanations”.

    The “last ditch”, the court of last resort, caved. Reneged on its duties. Dropped to one knee and touched hand to forelock before tyranny.

    Those of us who consider ourselves law-abiding, rule-respecting, proud individualists have had the trap door dropped from under our feet.

    Legal absolutes and fundamentals? Non-existant. Deemed not germain/relevant. What’s that spell, moon-nuking mousketeers?

    A-N-A-R-C-H-Y.

    Which is the absence of law. Our legal system was based on the founding documents. A system founded on a belief in concepts greater than Man. That is no longer so. Thus establishing a legal nullity, void, or absence. That which isn’t there…

    I’d say that calls for something more than a calm, phlegmatic response.

  21. Fly says:

    C’mon, let’s not exaggerate the problem here. Has anyone actually tried tuna? I think tuna can fix this. DamnCat just short circuited for a minute there.

    Are we seeing the absence of law, or just the absence of original intent? The really hard truth is that The People have accepted this slow change toward tyranny. They now hold fast to the simplistic good which can be so easily accomplished through government coercion, without seeing the complex side-effects.

    Can we convince The People to forgo that good in exchange for liberty? Can we convince them before the truly profound consequences impact our nation?

    Roberts has made taxes the focal point. Are we willing to forgo the good taxes, tax credits, and deductions, in order to say that the federal government should not have the power to tailor taxes, because that power will invariably be corrupted?

    I agree with your call. Let’s get the phlegm out of our lungs and focus on specific solutions. Like tuna.

  22. Bunkerhillbilly says:

    Are we seeing the absence of law, or just the absence of original intent?

    Nice sophistry, but the absence of Original Intent is the absence of law. This absence having been fully expanded with the latest decision.

    The purpose of SCOTUS IS to review decisions and legislation for their adherence to the legal fundamentals. PERIOD.

    Roberts, in his caving to public, political pressures, rather than minding the judicial specifics, establishes the precedent of the court being in thrall to those aforementioned influences.
    As the justices are appointed for lifetime terms, they are supposed to be above mundane influences. Roberts has made this issue moot.

    There are three branches of government: the legislative branch writes the laws…the judicial branch reviews laws and cases at law for the closeness to which they hew to the constitution and amendments…the executive branch executes the laws. This, of course, is the ideal…reality being another thing entirely.

    The court is not the congress, legislation is NOT the product to be produced from it.

    Bottom line, the Constitution-that document which guarantees liberty and protects the individual from the tyranny of government- has been ignored, and the limits placed upon government taken away.

  23. Fly says:

    I think we basically agree. My side point was just that anarchy is different from wrongly principled interpretation of law. I see why you are conflating them, though, since precedents have incrementally divorced the text from its former meaning.

    This failure of the Court is actually the culmination of many terrible precedents. Each one was a challenge to the People to correct them, but we have not. Let’s change that.

  24. Bunkerhillbilly says:

    Again with the semantics and sophistry. Anarchy is not “different from…” it is the result of these decisions.

    “Wrongly principled”? You are too generous by half. It is the lack of principles which has led to this point. Which is what “situational ethicality” (a hallmark of liberalism) fundamentally is.

    There is no conflation. You cannot conflate “Is” with “Isn’t”. They are distinct and unique in form and concept. To say otherwise is “Clintonian”. Which proves the above.

  25. Fly says:

    Since we basically agree, it would be silly to continue this discussion, so let’s. Defining anarchy is semantics, but I haz not sophistry, I haz dictionary! :) Here are my concerns regarding your straight-faced use of the word:

    (1) When did the anarchy begin? Was it Dred Scott? West Coast Hotel? Wickard? Bennis? Kelo? Surely it didn’t begin here with NFIB, did it? How long have we been living in anarchy?

    (2) Does every split decision involve “anarchy”? Can we objectively determine which side was the anarchy and which was the archy?

    (3) If this bad ruling is anarchy, what would you call it when there is an absence of any form of political authority?

  26. Bunkerhillbilly says:

    Ahhh, Br’er Rabbit, ’tis a nice little argumentative tarbaby you try and craft for Ol Bre’r Bunk. ‘Spectin’ The Bunkster to get ta battin’ and smackin’ it and gettin’ the tar all over, huh?

    Since you’ve clearly chosen to deign to condescend, I’ve returned the favor.

    Here are my concerns regarding your straight-faced use of the word (anarchy)

    “Straight-faced”? Your choice of phrase is telling. That you find mirth in the jurisprudential shift resulting from this decision. In the same way that German citizens in the late 1920s -30s found mirth in an adipose, diminutive Bavarian ex-corporal choosing to sport a Charlie Chaplin mustache. Zy nikt furrukt, Gefreiter Schickelgruber, mit Sharlie schnurrbart, konta neemals rykskanzler zyne! (Don’t be crazy, that Corporal, with the Charlie mustache, could never be Chancellor!)

    I haz dictionary

    No, u haz Google. Bunkerhillbilly has Websters. Which includes in its definition “absence of government and law… political disorder…disorder in any sphere of activity.”

    Would that I could laugh off something as dynamic-shifting as this….but the ideas of situational ethicality, a deracinated jurisprudential structure, and being in thrall to government rather than government being beholden to me and my fellow citizens, are more likely to inspire emesis rather than laughter.

  27. Fly says:

    Sorry, I didn’t mean to condescend, I just meant to have fun with the fact that we are arguing over the meaning of “anarchy” while agreeing on the important points, and that my “sophistry” was simply focused on the definition (even Webster’s).

    There’s not an “absence of government and law”, so if you meant to define “anarchy” down to a limited 2b “disorder”, fine, but that makes it sound hyperbolic.

    SCOTUS has the authority under law to rule as they have. Now it is up to us to exercise our authority to overrule them through Congress. I’m not dismissing the problem by calling it archy, I’m saying that we can do something about it without descending into actual anarchy. It’s supposed to be encouraging! :)

    In any case, we’re on the same side, and I wish you the best, Bunkster. See ya on the next thread. :-)

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>