CNN's Toobin Reverses, Predicts Obamacare Will Be Scrapped by SCOTUS
[UPDATED with transcript and audio.] Because the left so utterly dominates America's biggest media outlets, part of being a liberal journalist oftentimes involves being utterly ignorant of conservative viewpoints. Since so many journalists, as former CBS correspondent Bernard Goldberg has said repeatedly, don't really know people who are center-right, they generally tend to have very truncated views of what conservatives think, in part because they have no interest in seeking them out.
That's true not just in political journalism but also legal journalism as well and nowhere has this become more apparent than in the confident predictions that the Supreme Court will uphold Obamacare's "individual mandate" requirement to purchase health insurance. CNN's Jeff Toobin was one such confident liberal who believed the court would rule in its favor. After actually hearing the judges today, though, Toobin has reversed his opinion, calling the Obama position a "train wreck." Video below the fold. [MP3 audio here.]
One wonders if we'll start to see similar reversals or bet hedging from liberals who actually have gotten to hear the conservative perspective forcefully articulated.
Liberal journalists aggressively promoted Obamacare, desperately hyping its need. To see several video examples, see this MRC report by Geoffrey Dickens.
This is quite a turnaround for Toobin. On the March 23 Situation Room, he confidently predicted an eight-to-one Obama victory: "I actually think that Chief Justice Roberts and perhaps even Justice Scalia and Justice Alito might join Justice Kennedy in upholding the law."
A transcript of the March 27th exchange, which occurred at 12:08pm EDT, follows;
JEFFREY TOOBIN: This was a train wreck for the Obama administration.
ASHLEIGH BANFIELD: [Whispers] Wow.
TOOBIN: This law looks like it's going to be struck down. I'm telling you, all of the predictions, including mine, that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong. Justice Kennedy, the swing vote, was enormously skeptical. Justice Alito, Justice Scalia, were constantly skeptical. Justice Thomas didn't say anything but we know his position on the issue. The only conservative justice who looked like he might uphold the law was chief Justice Roberts who asked hard questions of both sides. All four liberal justices tried as hard as they could to make the arguments in favor of the law, but they were- they, they did not meet with their success with their colleagues. Most surprising to me perhaps, Donald Verrilli, the solicitor general, did a simply awful job defending the law. He was nervous. He was not well spoken. The argument got off to a very bad start for the administration. And it was really the liberal justices who is carried the argument much more than the lawyer.
The argument that seemed to give justice Kennedy the most trouble and he is, of course as we know, the swing vote in so many issues, justice Kennedy practically his first question out of the box was, we know that Congress can regulate commerce. But can Congress create commerce? Can -- and Donald Verrilli had great difficultly answering that. He said no, but he said we're not creating commerce here. There was a lot of discussion of the issue, the liberal justices kept making the point that we discussed here many times, that people who refuse to buy health insurance are in fact part of the health insurance market. They are, in fact, imposing costs on the taxpayer. And Paul Clement, who was representing the 26 states challenging the law, responded that if you believe that not acting is, is commerce, there's no limiting principle to that. And, certainly the conservative justices were very responsive to that argument. Paul Clement I thought did a really excellent job attacking the law. And if I had to bet today, I would bet that this court is going to strike down the individual mandate. The only possibility I saw-
BANFIELD: This is not at all what I expected you were going to be saying. Not at all. But, I do want to ask you this.
TOOBIN: That's why we cover the news, to see what happens.
BANFIELD: This is a mammoth task for one man. No kidding. This is a mammoth task for the Solicitor General. Many people watching this process saying going into three days, two hours a day of oral arguments is huge for one person Is this a factor of not having the right material, not having a good argument or not being prepared and just having a bad day?
TOOBIN: I think- you know, I can't answer that. I don't know why he had a bad day. I mean, he is a good lawyer, he was a perfectly fine lawyer in the really sort of tangential argument yesterday. He was not, simply, ready with the answers for the conservative justices.
- Matthew Sheffield's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Well, there's your "expert" legal analysis for ya
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 2:55pm.
In a day, Toobin flips 180 degrees, which means his analysis was of no more value than that of my cat.
I beg to differ
Submitted by NOLAgirl on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 2:55pm.
I'm sure your cat brings you some happiness and entertainment. Poor Toobin can't say the same.
Oh, my cat(s) definitely have MORE value than . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 2:57pm.
. . . Toobin's analysis. His analysis would fill their litter boxes quicker than they can.
I dunno about your cat, Gal,
Submitted by killa37 on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 2:59pm.
I dunno about your cat, Gal, but my cats are fairly predictable, and I usually know where they're coming from. This clown should be embarrassed - not only for this, but for many other items.................but for some reason, it'll be 'nuanced', and therefore, acceptable to flip-flop that easily and that quickly.
You're right about that
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 3:21pm.
Hopefully Obamacare is thrown out this summer, and when that happens, NB ought to post a list of all the so-called "legal analysts" who predicted a slam dunk for the White House.
I just hope
Submitted by monsterman on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 6:33pm.
I just hope we aren't blindsided as we were with the OJ decision
We, meaning those who want
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 7:57am.
We, meaning those who want Obamacare dumped? There are those "we" who want Obamacare validated.
I LOVE the 'cat' analysis
Submitted by ChrisNH on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 3:42pm.
Simply BRILLIANT!
All these Leftist Media Hacks spend their whole lives inside their Bos-Wash corridor speaking and fraternizing with those 'of their kind.' How wonderful to see them getting bludgeoned today!
Nancy Pelosi heard, sobbing, "Can we put the severability clause back in? PLEASE?"
Even worse than Toobin is NY Times . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 3:50pm.
. . . Supreme Court reporter Greenhouse, who uttered earlier this week that she didn't even understand why the Court was devoting ANY time to hearing the arguments (And the Court allotted more time time for this than in any case in some 50 years) because there is "nothing there." She even questioned the "moral compass" of the 26 states that filed the original suits. Remember, she's THE Supreme Court expert of the over-venerated NY Times, and she didn't think there was even a case to be made for overturning it.
Kelo (2005) was an outrageous
Submitted by fscarn on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 3:00pm.
Kelo (2005) was an outrageous ruling, flying dead into the very text of the 5th Am. It, along with all the late 1930s rulings upholding the New Deal (and Filburn (1942)), was cheered by the left because it empowered government more and more over the people. The left and the media really do love the course of history whereby we are becoming subjects to be ruled, not citizens to be respected. That a sizable percentage of people do NOT like being stripped of self-government is beyond their ability to see.
The left thinks, "The people should love that the government is taking care of their health needs."
Yikes.
All this leftist thinking was reflected in the recent 2d Am. cases. "No, no, no, the 2d Am couldn't possibly protect an individual's right to firearms."
On slammin' cats~
Submitted by GG_NB on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 3:03pm.
Cats can actually be pretty darn analytical. So yes, let's not insult cats.;)
Sorry. Way off topic. It has been interesting to hear Kennedy's questions today...tiny ray of hope.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Savonarola
Submitted by Savonarola on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 3:13pm.
I was taught in school that our Constitution limits the power of government; and that our government has special powers. OK, which is it gonna be?
The Courts real function is
Submitted by jkwtrading on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 3:24pm.
The Courts real function is to determine if the law is good law, easy to understand, solid etc...when law which is written is vague or bad law the obvious reconciling is to return the law to the writers for a re- write.
It's function is NOT to fix the law.
I always thought the federal courts....
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 3:40pm.
I always thought the federal courts function, with regards to reviewing laws written by Congress, was to determine whether they were constitutional or unconstitutional.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
which they do by tossing back
Submitted by jkwtrading on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 3:45pm.
which they do by tossing back into legislatures hands to write until they are constitutional. same approach different language. the courts job over past 70 years has taken bad law and fixed it to be constitutional.. Roe versus Wade was a key occurrence.
I'm not going to get excited
Submitted by forest on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 3:25pm.
I'm not going to get excited about this.
These authoritarian statist types like Toobin and the rest of the media are so invested in this that they are losing their composure. It's their big chance to finally wipe out the Constitution and grant full power to the State. I mean, this is a BFD, man, and they are going to overreact to every twist and turn.
I'll just wait for the decision.
Holding my breath
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 4:27pm.
I'm not excited either, but am actually scared. Scared that the SCOTUS will uphold this travesty.
Toobin is correct...
Submitted by jdripper on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 3:37pm.
Just listening to the voices Clement ate Verrilli's lunch. Verrilli was not the equal of Clement and when the liberal judges went after Clement especially Ginsberg and Sotomayor it was almost sad to hear the two liberals. All I could do was ask how did these two lightweights ever get to the Supreme Court?
Jack
They were appointed by ...
Submitted by NL207 on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 4:48pm.
other lightweights. Kagan and Breyer are no better.
In defense of Obamacare
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 3:39pm.
brutal.
Ho long have they been working on this defense?
~Surely that can't be real..
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 4:04pm.
If it is, we've got this in the bag.
Bru~
Submitted by GG_NB on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 4:09pm.
Yeah, that's real. The guy stinks!
:)
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
~That SO makes my day
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 4:11pm.
I'd do a victory dance in my Breitbart shirt if only I could squeeze into it. LOL
Party~!
Submitted by GG_NB on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 4:15pm.
I will say that our side really seems to have it together...and that other dude...well, he couldn't convince me to buy a piece of pie from him.
:)
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
~There is going to be one hayell of a party around here
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 4:23pm.
if that Obamanation of a law is struck down. As much of a party as you can have without any alcohol or making enough noise to wake the children, anyway....
This will be a HUGE factor in the election if it happens. Not only will it be a black eye for Obama, but it'll cripple the Dem's biggest weapon against that Romney wretch. If ObamaCare is a moot point most of the sting will go out of RomneyCare's resemblance to it. They'll still use it, but people won't be pissed like they would be otherwise.
Health insurance CEO's will dance in the streets too, Bru...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 5:02pm.
if unburdened with the prospect of covering pre-existing conditions.
Thank God for Medicare in just a few more weeks. Yay Me! My heart goes out to the less fortunate.
Party on!
Jer
~My, being excited about not being forced out of business
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 5:14pm.
WOULD be heinous!
Health insurance companies average at about a 3% profit margin, so you can sell your sob story about how terrible they are somewhere else.
Oh, and Jer? I've never had health insurance. Still don't.
Jer?
Submitted by GG_NB on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 5:25pm.
Seriously?
This is one of these situations where I am too frustrated to even attempt to get my points across -- or try to bring out some things that you seem completely unaware of -- or try to reason or convince you of anything. And I swear I don't mean that in a witchy way. I'm just too darn tired. And it seems pointless.
More power to Bru for being able to take it to the mat until she finally has to feed her kids...or sleep...or just let it go because she may finally get tired, too.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
~Funny you should say that
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 5:46pm.
I'm going back and forth between my comfy chair and the kitchen, where I'm cooking down the spinach for a tomato, spinach, and feta quiche. The kids are out in the front yard enjoying sunny, 66 degree weather.
Full disclosure: I'm also kicking someone's butt on FB at the moment.
Hey Bru
Submitted by NOLAgirl on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 5:47pm.
that quiche sounds heavenly. Share the recipe, please!
~I made it up!
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 6:06pm.
Which is mostly how I cook.
Rough approximation..
1 onion, sautueed with 4 large, vine-ripened plum tomatoes
4 giant handfuls of fresh spinach, cooked down
sprinkled sea salt and fresh cracked black pepper over all
whipped 10 eggs from my flock with a big splash of whole milk, salt and pepper
broke a big hunk of feta cheese, about 6 oz, up and mixed it all together in a casserole
Popped it in the oven at 350, covered, I'll cook it for about 50 minutes and check.
I'd have put fresh basil in there if I'd had it, but mine isn't up yet.
Thanks!
Submitted by NOLAgirl on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 6:09pm.
that sounds just fabulous. I can't wait to try it out! It will have to be when the hubby is out of town since he doesn't eat spinach or tomatoes. I have yet to figure out how a true southern boy like him doesn't eat tomatoes but I digress...
~Mine didn't like tomatoes or spinach
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 6:10pm.
but he'll be the first to admit that I've never made anything he didn't enjoy.
I have some 'real' recipes I've written down; including a recipe for the PERFECT, tender, fluffy layer biscuit. I can PM it to you if you like.
that would be great
Submitted by NOLAgirl on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 6:15pm.
Thanks, Bru!
Umm, excuse me, but
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 6:46pm.
there's no need to be stingy with biscuit recipe now.
~Well, in all honesty, babe
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 6:49pm.
If I knew where to market it I'd be rolling in dough. :-D
It's in my FB notes, for all my pals to use, though.
I make better omelettes than Bru...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 7:00pm.
and because she's been so ornery on this thread I'm gonna learn how to make better biscuits, too.
Jer
~Jer
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 7:16pm.
Stop twisting my arm, I'll give you the recipe!
Frankly, I'm tired of liberals accusing me of of being some fat cat corporate bootlicker for not supporting ObamaCare. I've never given a thought to how much any of these people make, much less contrasted it with what I have or don't have.
I don't like the insurance industry so I've stayed out of it, and in doing so I make the choice to go without medical care except in cases of emergency, in which case we've got a wad of money sitting aside. Merely by not being insured, though, I'm automatically classified as a sort of freakish, irresponsible outlier.
So on the one hand I'm a pariah because I'm not in the system, and on the other hand I'm accused of being a shill for that same system.
It's annoying.
Have you ever looked into high deductible....
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 7:21pm.
WB, have you ever looked into high deductible disaster type policies? My wife and I were "uninsured" for about five years and we carried a $10,000 or $20,000 deductible policy that cost about $1,300 every six months, (still not cheap, I know, but it paid for our annual physicals so the cost was offset somewhat). It helped me sleep better at night knowing that I wasn't going to get wiped out if something catastrophic happened. (And I don't mean to pry. I only brought it up because you were talking insurance policies.)
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
~Actually, I have looked into those
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 7:29pm.
But I didn't like the ones that were available in my state. They all had a catch somewhere that I didn't care for, and none of them covered any maternity costs, which was one of the things I was looking for at the time. I solved that by bypassing the whole thing and having the kids at home.
I was thinking the other day about checking them out again, but wondered how ObamaCare is going to affect them and if it's even worthwhile getting one at this point.
Forced out of business, Bru?
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 5:51pm.
By whom? By all the new customers the companies would gain under Obamacare?
But your concern for the welfare of the CEO's is touching. Why poor Mr. Wise who heads up my health insurance carrier was forced to get by on a measly 17mil during '09 while my premiums were being raised to nearly 15 grand per year and benefits continued to be slashed.
I'll be sure to send him an assortment of canned fruit and soups right away.
Jer
So how much should he be paid and who gets to decide?
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 5:54pm.
The government? I think not.
~I don't give a flying rat's @ss about CEO's
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 6:00pm.
I also don't bear them such a grudge that I feel compelled to look up how much they make and whine about it.
You don't like it, switch companies. You won't have that option with government-run care.
Let me explain something, Bru...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 6:18pm.
With a pre-existing condition, you don't get to change companies. You are completely at the mercy of your insuror. And you pay out the ass for it.
Nice, huh?
As I said: Medicare is right around the corner. Yay me!
Jer
Jer
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 6:25pm.
My husband is self employed so we buy our own insurance. I have RA and my son had some bizzare inflamation so he and I can't switch companies. My husband and daughter on a different plan and pay far less.
But you know what? I still don't want Obamacare.
~Who is to blame for that, Jer?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 6:30pm.
Why are there so many restrictions on medical insurance companies and the choices you can make regarding them?
Jer, Oh please. My wife is
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 6:44pm.
Jer,
Oh please. My wife is pregnant and my job only gives me health insurance. No family insurance.
My wife and I have spoken with her Ob/GYN, we have spoken with the hospital and all other departments that will be involved in her delivery. We are paying out of pocket. I have a family of four, with the fifth one coming. I earn 60K a year. This is all of our income. We are paying out of pocket. We have made arragements, we shopped around which no one ever does in the healthcare system!
What have we done? Cancelled cable, stopped eating out as often as we did and all unecessary things are gone. Netflix is the only "luxury" we have.
I am tired of people who have cable, the latest car, the highest possible and thus costly cell phone services, people who eat out all the time, who go out to the movies every single weekend and then....they turn around and beg for government help.
My wife and I made a decission never to use contraceptives in our marriage. Natural Family Planning is the only way, which if done the right way and controling ones urges, it is as good as anything artificial out there. We chose to get pregnant and we are taking responsability for this decision. And YES, Pregnancy is considered a pre-existing condition, so no individual insurance would take her. So what!!! We aren't begging for government help.
Oh and as we discovered, thanks to Democrats in Illinois and around the USA, we can't shop for individual insurance outside of Illinois....thanks to who? Liberals! As a resident of Illinois, I can only buy individual insurance in Illinois.
the problem with healthcare insurance in the USA is that politicians have not allowed it to work in the free market. There are all types of regulations on these thanks to who? Liberals.
My father had prostate cancer, he was a department director in the IT department where he worked. He was laid off, lost insurance, had preexisting condition, instead of crying about how much insurance companies were charging him, he paid the monthly preimium. Today my father works for a start up IT company, he still has no insurance and he pays out of pocket. Again, taking responsability for his choices.
What a concept, eh? Liberals don't know it at all.
Liberallies...Wouldn't your father have preferred to be able
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 6:54pm.
to retain his insurance coverage? Anyway, he sounds like a dad you should be--and I know you are--proud of.
I paid my premiums, too...without crying. [But I confess to grimacing just a bit when writing out the check each month.] :-)
Jer
Jer, My father is an amazing
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 7:21pm.
Jer,
My father is an amazing man. I hope I can one day be half of the man he is!!!! he raised 7 boys and girls.
What my father wishes, when it comes to health care insurance, is what existed once long ago in the USA. Only catastrophic health insurance coverage and people paying out of pocket when it came to annual checkups and minor procedures and tests. It is not as expensive as people have been made to believe, if you shop around.
One of the reasons that healtcare is so expensive today is due to the fact that there is a health insurance coverage for everything and anything, from the most minor healthcare needs to the most and truly necessary healthcare needs.
Again, my wife and I pay out of pocket for her annual check up, which is a bit more expensive than mine due to the female things. Mine costs around $200 once a a year, hers is about $400. Again, we pay for her stuff out of pocket. But we shop around.
I have enough friends in the medical field to know that Obama is also pitting doctors against doctors. Something no one outside of the medical field is talking about. Obama is taking money away from medical research and pushing it to family practice and other medical fields. Again, dividing people, chosing winners and losers, Obama's favorite game.
My father understands why healthcare insurance is so expensive. His monthly premium is ridiculous! but he much rather pay a ridiculous monthly premioum than have the government impose itself on us.
My father, is not in favor of Obamacare, far from it. He knows what it will lead to, Venezuela.
~LL
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 6:55pm.
You can save a lot of money by not getting all the tests OB's recommend done. A lot of them are screening for fetal conditions that people are willing to abort for, so since you're not going to do that anyway, you don't need to have them done at all. Put your foot down with the doc that you just want the tests for your wife's needs and to leave the baby alone, and you'll save a bundle.
WB, My wife and i shopped
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 7:14pm.
WB,
My wife and i shopped around for a pro-life doctor. The person was recommended to us by a friend who goes to Catholic Mass everyday with him. On our first visit we made our wishes known and our beliefs. We are pro-life and do not want any type of genetic testing, don't care if the baby has Down Syndrome or not, so no need for extra ultra-sound tests, etc. etc.
We had a very bad experience with our first born, our son who today is 7. We were told during one of the ultra-sounds that he was a Down Syndrome baby and we should abort him. We were spoken to together, seperately, it was a huge pressure to abort him. Today, he is a VERY health 7 year old boy who is first in his class, one of the toughest private schools in Suburbs of Chicago.
Since our first experience, we decided never again to use non-Catholic hospitals and non-pro-life ob/gyn.
~Imagine all the babies aborted for false-positives
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 7:21pm.
on those tests. Horrifying.
After my first experience I stayed home to have the next three. It didn't cost a dime to have them.
As a woman who gives birth naturally, there just seems something wrong about paying someone thousands of dollars to watch me do all the work....
WB, We wish we could deliver
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 7:27pm.
WB,
We wish we could deliver naturally. However, my wife's first delivery ended up in an emergency c-section. We then made the mistake of scheduling a c-section for our second one and now, no ob/gyn will deliver my wife's baby naturally. Every single one that we spoke to said, c-section.
And yes, there are countless upon countless of false positives. All of my 4 sisters received false positives, every single friend who is married that I know has received false positives. Three of mys sisters were even given books on why one must be "responsible" and kill a Down Syndrome baby. Horrific! They ran as far away from the ob/gyn and the hospital they were affiliated with.
Truly, we are living in a culture of death. I fear God's Wrath and the day of reackoning will come. May God Have Mercy on all babies who have been murdered by abortionists and on the abortionists too.
~!!!!
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 7:40pm.
That's what makes me so mad about doctors, and lawyers! There's plenty of proof that VBAC's are safe, but doctors don't want to take a chance on getting sued so they insist on going the route that's safe for them, regardless of what kind of birth experience the mother would like.
My SIL was forced into two C-sections, the first because the baby was in breech position, and the second because the baby was 'so big, and you're so short'. !@#$#$!!
The baby was less than 9 lbs, for goodness sake!
A woman's height has got nothing to do with it, and it certainly wasn't a case of CPD. Basically, her doctor didn't want to be hassled, so she's never been able to birth her own baby. They're not planning to have anymore, so she's completely missed out on an experience that no woman should be denied if she wants it.
I hope your wife's pregnancy goes well; I've got a no fail cure for morning sickness if she needs it.
WB, My wife is lucky and
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 7:46pm.
WB,
My wife is lucky and all women are jealous of this fact. The ONLY symptom she gets is being tired during the first trimester. No morning sickness, no retaining water, just the belly growing and growing.
My wife is on her 4th trimester and due on September 6th!! YAY!!!
LL
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 7:49pm.
Congratulations. She'll be in my prayers for a safe delivery.
Radical, THANK YOU!!!! Yes,
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 7:56pm.
Radical,
THANK YOU!!!! Yes, keep her and my new baby in your prayers! This our third one, hopefully of many more to come. but it is all God's plan.
~Good!
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 7:55pm.
I only get morning sickness with girls, not at all with boys, and thanks to being 5'11" there's so much room for the baby that I don't have any of the other aggravations that plague pregnant women. Having them all young helps too, I'm sure.
I'm due with #5 on April 28th, myself.
WB, My wife is a petite
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 7:59pm.
WB,
My wife is a petite 5'0'', but she doesn't grow huge.
Congratulations on your 5! I will keep you in my prayers.
~Thank you!
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 8:40pm.
and ditto.
Wonderful! You do the pushing, dear...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 8:24pm.
We'll be pulling for you.
Jer
~You sound like my husband
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 8:37pm.
LOL.
Gonna have a
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 8:28pm.
Brunette this time, eh
~Probably not..
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 8:37pm.
..if this one is like the other 4 little blondies. LOL
I'd like for one to get my green eyes to go with that sandy blonde hair, though.
I seen those
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 8:44pm.
Little Towhead's before.
Beautiful
Bru
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 7:49pm.
My second was VBAC, just made it in under the wire of being acceptable. What a huge difference in recovery for me. I'm also convinced it's better for the baby to pass through the canal. Natural is usually the best way.
Part of the reason OB's prefer c-section is lawsuits. It's another reason they order so many tests. CYA.
~Yeah, I hear C-section recovery is hell
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 8:00pm.
I've been up walking, puttering around the house by the next day each time with my births.
(Ironically, infant mortality is actually higher with C-section births than natural birth)
WB, Yes, recovery is hell.
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 8:08pm.
WB,
Yes, recovery is hell. Well from what my wife and sisters say. My wife has had to stay in the hospital for two days, plus 6 to 8 weeks of no activities other than short walks.
My sister gave birth two days ago, emergency c-section. She won't leave the hospital until Thursday.
My mom already has 19 grandkids!!!
Infant mortality is higher with c-sections?! why? I did not know this.
~I'll tell that to my MIL
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 8:07pm.
Who thinks that a seventh grandchild is a LOT. She had two kids, herself, and is one of two kids, as is my FIL.
Buncha WASPS.....
WB, My older sister has 5,
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 8:19pm.
WB,
My older sister has 5, my older brother 5. The brother right before me 0, I have 2 and one on the way. One my other sisters has 2, the other 4 and my baby sister just have birth to her second one. I think that's 20, not 19. LOL
And all of us are planning to have more, of course, if that is God's Will.
I have never understood people who only want one or two and much less those who want none.
My C-section
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 8:07pm.
I must have had to much of a nerve block because I couldn't get out of bed for about 3 days, and was in the hospital for 5. With the second I was up within 8 hours (I delivered at night) and home in two.
I'm not sure the birth rates matter as much as the doctor being able to prove he crossed all his t's and dotted all his i's.
My dad used to complain about the testing he was required to do before cataract surgery. At that point people are old and are already under the care of at least one doctor. But instead of being able to use their records for tests, etc, he had to repeat them before surgery was performed.
Liberallies.....
Submitted by dyardley on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 12:25am.
God Bless you and your wife and your lucky children and prayers for happy healthy delivery of member number 5.
Jer, when a construction
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 6:48pm.
Jer,
when a construction company made up of only men is forced to carry in its group health insurance breast exam coverage, ob/gyn coverage as well as other things ONLY for women, yes, the cost of health insurance will go up.
But geez, you Liberals LOVE to ignore facts like these. Why? Because it has been stupid Liberal politicians who have forced all types of moronic regulations on health insurance companies and the businesses that buy these.
Nice of you to speak in half-truths, as a good Liberal.
Lol
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 4:42pm.
I guess there are no teleprompters in the courtroom!
~I'm suspicious
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 4:04pm.
The Dems are folding too easily; I'm reminded of this.
Yeah...
Submitted by GG_NB on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 4:09pm.
I am pretty much always suspicious now.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Yeah...
Submitted by GG_NB on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 4:13pm.
I am pretty much always suspicious now -- to the point of repeating myself.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
~LOL!
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 4:13pm.
I'm trying not to get my hopes up, but it's tempting.
Hope vs. disappointment~
Submitted by GG_NB on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 4:19pm.
I know. It's hard to get your hopes dashed over things that are important to you.
Well, let's compromise. We'll be happy and hopeful JUST FOR TODAY.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
suspicion is justified, ladies
Submitted by NOLAgirl on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 4:20pm.
Maybe they are folding so easily because they have something more heinous waiting in the wings.
Sorry for the paranoia but i just don't trust any of them.
~Something more heinous
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 4:25pm.
Like the executive order giving Obama & Co. martial law powers in peacetime? *sigh*
yep, Bru
Submitted by NOLAgirl on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 4:45pm.
you got it.
NOLA~
Submitted by GG_NB on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 4:28pm.
Well, I choose to be a little happy and slightly ignorant...just for today.
That statement is going to come back to bite me. I expect a troll any moment now.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
GG*
Submitted by NOLAgirl on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 4:43pm.
Don't worry about the trolls... You just bite 'em back :)
Well...
Submitted by GG_NB on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 4:45pm.
Although Jer didn't attack me, he DID show up right after I submitted that...coincidence?
Just kiddin', Jer.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Is there somewhere I can get
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 4:24pm.
Is there somewhere I can get a transcript of what is happening at the Supreme Court? I am stuck at work all day (unlike OWS) and I find it hard to keep abreast of what is going on.
~Here's one, Scoob
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 4:30pm.
http://www.npr.org/2012/03/27/149465820/transcript-supreme-court-the-hea...
I love Alitos comparison
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 4:37pm.
To burial insurance.
And Scoob, that nasty one percent is taking horrible advantage of you.
Transcript link
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 4:35pm.
Here's a link. It is transcript number(s) 11-398 Monday and Tuesday.
Thanks everyone for the help!
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 8:08pm.
Thanks everyone for the help!
Hmm...From 8-1 in favor..to at least 5-4 'against' in the space
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 4:28pm.
of a week. Nice work Judge Toobin. You've only had about three years to form an opinion on how the SC would likely view the constitutionality of this seminal legal issue. [Actually, considerably longer than three years since the "individual mandate" had been the linchpin of healthcare reform proposed and embraced by the GOP! for decades--until the party solemnly decided it instead represented a grave threat to the future of the republic.
Anyhow...so Toobin and liberal Linda Greenhouse and, according to the WSJ, quite a few "elite conservative lawyers":
To say that the case is not without merit is not to say that it will prevail. Greenhouse writes that she expects the court to uphold ObamaCare "by a wide margin," although she acknowledges that her prediction isn't guaranteed to pan out. Our sense from our own private conversations is that a considerable number of elite conservative lawyers agree with Greenhouse about the likely outcome of the case (if not the merits). It is quite possible that they, and she, will turn out to be right, but we are not at all convinced.
So who else? Most predictions I've seen had it a 5-4 split pro or con, with Kennedy the decisive vote.
Jer
I'm not celebrating yet
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 4:44pm.
I'm not going to start celebrating until I see the actual results and read the opinions. I know it's hard to believe, but the GOP isn't infallible and anyone in it who was floating the crazy idea of individual mandates with regards to insurance needs/needed to "get their mind right", and I mean right in the political sense.
I never saw any arguments from Toobin that were actually based on the law and on the constitution. As far as I could tell, his analysis was always based on his profound ability to "read the tea leaves" of the Supreme Court.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
~The GOP
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 5:10pm.
is a cluster**** of magnificent proportions.
Logic ???
Submitted by LionKing on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 7:12pm.
Cannot argue with logic like that since there was no point and hence, no logic.
~LOL!
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 7:16pm.
So you're happy with the establishment GOP and how well it represents you as a conservative?
Misunderstanding
Submitted by LionKing on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 7:41pm.
My apologies.
I concur. I find the likes of Boehner to be spineless.
Too many in the GOP are afraid to do the right thing.
~No worries
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 7:51pm.
I've got a theory about why the guys on "our side" are mostly Dem-Lite types.
I think that genuine conservatives as a whole are far too sane and normal to want to go into politics, so the types that are drawn to politics, regardless of which side of the aisle they're on, are predisposed to be power-grabbing elitists.
I mean, really, who would want to be a politician? *shudder*
The mere desire should be an automatic disqualification. LOL
One exception Bru
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 7:55pm.
Sarah Palin
I watched The Undefeated last night. Wow.
~Palin and West
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 8:02pm.
are the reasons I put "as a whole" in my comment about conservatives. Those two I can get behind, wholeheartedly.
Let's call it like it is, Kingfish...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 5:14pm.
The notion of an "individual mandate" for health insurance has always been a constitutionally tenuous proposition. But the strident opposition which coalesced around the provision in Obamacare has been motivated by politics, pure and simple.
Jer
Disagree Jer
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 5:17pm.
Unless by politics you mean individuals not wanting the government to be dictating our health care. That outcry from the Tea Party was not part of any political party, it was from people who saw government overreach into our lives.
You mischaracterize the opposition, Jer
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 5:27pm.
The strident opposition comes from the true conservatives and libertarians on the right, which only makes sense. The mushy, political opposition, even though vociferous as of late, comes from those that may have supported individual mandates in the past, but can feel the proverbial political breeze on their wet index fingers.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
There is also opposition from those on the far left, Kingfish...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 6:07pm.
who were dismayed that Obama abandoned the public option so readily.
And of course a comprehensive single payer system would have obviated the need for an individual mandate. The reason for the mandate--and why it at one time was so energetically touted by Republicans--was that it represented the most feasible mechanism for preserving market-based healthcare. That's why they were for it before they were against it.
Jer
By that logic....
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 6:42pm.
By that logic, should we be looking forward to a 7-2 or 8-1 decision knocking down Obama Care?
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Thanks~
Submitted by GG_NB on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 4:37pm.
Well, here's one bright star (Pam Bondi) we can thank in working her behind off (in numerous ways) in standing up to the WRONGNESS of ObamaCare:
http://myfloridalegal.com/pages.nsf/4492d797dc0bd92f85256cb80055fb97/1515ce372e59d1e885256cc60071b1c4!OpenDocument
I don't think the link works -- sorry.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
~Here ya go
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 4:40pm.
http://myfloridalegal.com/pages.nsf/4492d797dc0bd92f85256cb80055fb97/151...
Thanks, Bru~
Submitted by GG_NB on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 4:42pm.
MUCH better. I typed myself right off the screen!
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
You'll note she's a fellow Gator
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 5:12pm.
I think Pam Bondi has a bright political future.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
My take on Verrilli*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 4:39pm.
There is no way a lawyer, with ethics or pride , can stand before the Supreme Court and lie out his b**t. Hence, the obvious er,er, cough, cough ...
He will be the one to shoulder the blame if this law is knocked down. Obama and his sychophants must have a scapegoat for all their mistakes. And this one is a biggie, so look for Verrilli to be crucified by the media.
ObamaCare oppostion lawyers
Submitted by LionKing on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 7:08pm.
I have been underwhelmed by Clement and Carvin. Thankfully, the Justices are smarter than them and have filled in the missing pieces.
Again, I am overwhelmed by Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor for at least appearing to be concerned about the legitimacy of ObamaCare.
So, you're overwhelmed by their ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 7:46pm.
acting ability?
I doubt they are concerned, as liberals, about the legitimacy of anything Obama wants.
I believe Kagan should have recused herself on this one; and as an arbiter of what is 'fair' or 'constitutional', as opposed to what is liberal belief, Sotomayor is a freaking joke.
MD
Re: the pre-celebration and suspiciousness
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 5:10pm.
One- don't celebrate yet (but this baby's goin' down, to start the preparations, for sure), but I'm betting on 6-3 (men-women) that it explodes.
Two- the ONLY thing Obama stands to gain from this thing going down (and it will -did I mention that?) is some measure of sympathy from the media and hardcore ideological supporters of Obama (not Obamacare.) Here's why I think this: polls show somewhere near 70% of Americans want this thing sunk. The remaining 30% live in DC, LA and NYC. And most of those are in newsrooms. So the sympathy effect will be extremely limited. Even a lot of progressives don't like the plan because, well, Castro didn't sign off on it. Secondly, Romney's plan -which most of us deride him for- has stood the test of time from a legal standpoint. Team Obama has always wanted Romney to win to be able to say, "this is the guy who got us rolling on healthcare reform; this is his plan." Uh. Message terminated Plouffe/Axelrod/Messina.
Here's the ad: "Obama's signature achievement was unconstitutional." Nothing else needs to be said.
BK~
Submitted by GG_NB on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 5:12pm.
Bumping up my leerily happy quotient.
Thanks. :)
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Inbred
Submitted by needle on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 5:28pm.
Since so many journalists, as former CBS correspondent Bernard Goldberg has said repeatedly, don't really know people who are center-right, they generally tend to have very truncated views of what conservatives think, in part because they have no interest in seeking them out.
I call Liberal “journalists” intellectually inbred making them every bit as foolish as certain Appalachian inhabitants they often enjoy mocking.
- Looking forward to the self-annihilation of the Manipulated Stories Machine.
ObamaCare will be struck down!
Submitted by redbourn on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 5:33pm.
From a blog written back in August 24th, 2009
Can Congress Force People To Buy Health Insurance?
The short answer is, "No it can’t!".
The Constitution assigns only limited, enumerated powers to Congress and none of them, including the power to regulate interstate commerce, or to impose taxes, would support a federal mandate forcing a person to buy health insurance.
The Supreme Court has frequently interpreted Congress’s commerce power quite broadly, but this type of mandate could not undergo review without censure, regardless of the pressure exerted.
The federal government simply does not have the power to regulate Americans in this way, and in two key cases, United States v. Lopez (1995) and United States v. Morrison (2000), the Supreme Court specifically rejected the proposition that the commerce clause allowed Congress to regulate non-economic activities simply because, through a chain of causal effects, they might have an economic impact.
http://tinyurl.com/7j2c9qv
Nice thought
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 5:40pm.
But since when does this president (the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties) care about of something is Constitutional?
Truly Disconcerting
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 5:56pm.
I hope you are right, redbourn, regarding the mandate getting struck down. The truly disconcerting thing, to me, is that it will probably be decided by a 5-4 margin. In my eyes, that's just the luck of the draw. It's going to take consistent conservatives getting elected President,and consistent majorities of conservatives in the Senate, to uphold and build on that majority. The left has "packed" the court with relatively young judges who simply do not respect the original intent of the constitution. We are going to be stuck with them for a long time.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Incorrect, Kingfish...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 6:35pm.
The SC conservative justices are in far better shape from a prospective longevity standpoint that are the libs.
Jer
Tale of the tape
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 7:10pm.
Scalia 76 - Thomas 63 - Roberts 57 - Alito 61 Average = 64
Ginsburg 79 - Breyer 73 - Sotomayor 57 - Kagan 51 Average = 65
The wildcard of course, is Kennedy, who is 75. I could have thrown him in with the conservatives and raised their average but he is the proverbial "swing vote". If Kennedy was 60 I might tend to agree with you.
I wouldn't be surprised if Ginsburg retired before the end of Obama's first term and before the Dems get blown out of the Senate this fall.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Kingfish...Look at it this way:
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 8:11pm.
Scalia is 76 and shows no signs of slowing down. The speculation is that he will remain on the bench for another decade making life miserable for the libs.
Ginsburg is 79 with health issues. She will be stepping down.
For the remaining justices, let's arbitrarily establish 75 as the approximate age for projected retirement.
Breyer would be around for a little over a year.
Kennedy--center right swing man--would be leaving shortly.
Thomas..eleven years remaining.
Alito...13 years remaining
Roberts...18 years remaining
Sotomayor...13 years remaining
Kagan...23 years remaining
Under that scenario, there would be only TWO libs staying for more than fifteen months, while FOUR solid conservatives would remain for a minimum of ten more years. Granted, the dynamics change somewhat if a). Ginsburg retires before the November election, and b.) Breyer remains for an extended period.
Of course there are many other variables which could dramatically reshape the landscape in addition to the foregoing. But the bottom line: the conservatives ain't that bad off.
Jer
Ginsburg might retire before November
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 8:37pm.
especially since OCare is crashing and burning, but there's no way a new justice would be appointed in an Obama first term. The fact is, SCOTUS is the reason the left is going to see a mass suicide exercise commence once we take back the US from their progressive tentacles. Every single fundraiser Obama attends will be about that one thing- "Either reelect me or be prepared to lose the court for the next 20 years. Think, ahem, Roe."
I can feel the gasps from beyond the $38,500 plates.
I hope
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 8:46pm.
I hope you are right about the direction of the court. After the machinations that Congress went through to get ObamaCare passed, though, I won't put anything past the Dems and I could certainly see a two month whirlwind appointment of a new SC Justice as a possibility.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
I assume you mean "confirmed" instead of "appointed"...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 9:14pm.
in other words, any Obama nominee would be filibustered. Probably...certainly in the case of a lame duck or eve of election nomination. But if Ginsburg were to retire very soon, opposition by senate Republicans for, say, as long as six months might not inure to their benefit and possibly only serve to enhance their already-impressive resume` for obstructionism.
Anyway, I would suggest folks wait until Obamacare actually crashes and burns before writing the obit. Stumbling during oral arguments is not hugely consequential. The tenor of the questioning from the bench is a more reliable indicator, but it, too, is not foolproof. I definitely wouldn't be shocked if Obamacare were shot down, but it's not a foregone conclusion either.
Jer
BK...I take it back. Your use of "appointed" was not improper. I apologize.
⇒ Do some "Borking"?
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 9:16pm.
Gosh, it's been so long, I can't remember where that term came from? It's sort of like the term "high-tech lynching". I forget where that one came from also.
Not a foregone conclusion like, say, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 9:16pm.
the Republican's "already-impressive resume for obstructionism", eh?
I must have missed the news flash on the Democrats being the "party of agreement" with everything Republicans propose.
You funny guy, Jer.
MD
Jer
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 9:46pm.
Don't apologize, I have no idea which is more appropriate. Unless you were mocking me, in which case I hate you with a passion you fargin' bastage! ;-)
My point was just as you surmised though- there's no way the Senate confirms another Obama selection in his first term. I'm pretty sure I heard the decision on OCare wouldn't come until June and they've also got Arizona v. United States at the end of April. You'd know much better than I, but a look at the SCOTUS docket for the October 2011 term indicates a "Distribution Date of June 14th 2012, List: Summer List 2 (IPF), Conference: September 24th 2012" (whatever the hell that means), so it appears the current court may be tied up until September. My guess is Ginsburg wouldn't retire mid-session (though admittedly I don't know when the session actually expires) and it would seemingly be tough for Obama to nominate a replacement without at least as lengthy a selection process as is typical in recent history. Then there are the rounds personal interviews with the Judiciary Committee members which might be difficult to schedule during campaign season. Orin Hatch is running in a tough reelection - I suspect he might find it difficult to find time to interview a leftist SCOTUS nominee. And Jon Kyle is retiring - not sure he'd take a lot on interest in the issue. And no lame duck would ever confirm a new justice (I hope.)
So, unless Ginsburg has a medical conditio that requires she retire immediately, I can't see Obama getting another shot at this. His legacy will be Kagen and Sotomayor - only.
Dont count those chickens yet
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 9:16pm.
The leftist on the bench are commited. I dont think they were questioning the Mandate, as much as they were asking the Solicitor General questions.
From what I heard, the leftist Judges were asking questions, and at times letting the SG off the hook. The others were forcing the SG into contradicting himself. As Levin pointed out, the SG is in an indefensible position, thats why he sounds incoherent at times.
BTW Kagen worked as the Solicitor General to help with the implications of this Mandate. And like a true leftist, she refuses to recuse herself. Disgusting really,
And when the SG was stumbling, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 9:32pm.
ahh'ing and err'ing like Obama off teleprompter, Sotomayor hastened to pursue a different line of questioning.
MD
SCOTUs surprise
Submitted by LionKing on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 6:57pm.
I have to admit that I am shocked at some of the questions by Kagan and Sotomayor.
If they are truly being diligent, ObamaCare could go down in flames 9-0.
That would be a huge black-eye for Obama and the Democrats.
I'd settle for 6-3 (or even 5-4)
Submitted by Free Stinker on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 9:43pm.
. . . considering who's on the court. Then again, that EPA ruling was 9-0, so who knows?
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Don't forget about Medical Journalism too
Submitted by djwolf12 on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 7:28pm.
Remember, the stooge Eric Topol, you know, the guy who insisted that an investigation be made into Dick Cheney's heart transplant via twitter, is a lackey for HHS Comerade Sebilius. And lets not forget Dr. Nancy Snyderman's insisting how it was even possible that it occurred. And YES, both of these marxist scumbags are on, you guessed it, NBC and M-BS-NBC.
Solicitor General
Submitted by Vonu on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 8:17pm.
PWNED