Supreme Court

Clarence Thomas Rebukes Supreme Court for Refusing to Hear Gay Marriage Cases

|

On Thursday the U.S. Supreme Court declined to halt a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit which had overturned an Arizona constitutional amendment banning bail for undocumented immigrants charged with serious crimes. As a result, the Arizona amendment is now invalid and cannot be enforced by the state, though state officials may still try to get the Supreme Court to hear their appeal. But even with an appeal pending, the amendment has no force.

Credit: C-SPAN

What's especially notable about this action by the Supreme Court is that Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, used the opportunity to rebuke his fellow justices for their refusal last month to hear any new gay marriage cases. Here is what Thomas had to say in today's denial of application for stay:

I join my colleagues in denying this application only because there appears to be no "reasonable probability that four Justices will consider the issue sufficiently meritorious to grant certiorari." That is unfortunate.

We have recognized a strong presumption in favor of granting writs of certiorari to review decisions of lower courts holding federal statutes unconstitutional. States deserve no less consideration…. Indeed, we often review decisions striking down state laws, even in the absence of a disagreement among lower courts. But for reason that escape me, we have not done so with any consistency, especially in recent months. [Citations omitted.]

Thomas then cites four cases where the lower federal courts invalidated state bans on gay marriage (in Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin, respectively), yet the Supreme Court refused to hear any of the appeals arising from any of those judicial invalidations. Those states, Thomas plainly suggests, deserve to have their appeals heard in full by a fully attentive Supreme Court.

This is quite a statement from Justice Thomas. Not only has he castigated his fellow justices for lacking a coherent judicial approach, he has also clearly signaled his own (and Scalia's) willingness to rule on the constitutional merits of this issue. In other words, Clarence Thomas threw down the gauntlet and publicly challenged the Court to take up a gay marriage case. We'll see if the other justices pick it up.

NEXT: Flashback: When Reason Tore Down the Berlin Wall

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Reason, do you really want Scalia and Thomas ruling on the matter?

    1. Versus whom?

    2. Yes. The greatest threat to libertarian values in the US is the complete collapse of the federalist structure of the US Constitution. Yes, I know that states make bad laws, and enacting libertarian reform state by state is a laborious and time consuming task. But it cannot be avoided. The cost of using the Supreme Court to create national abortion/birth control/gay marriage policy is to concede unlimited power to leviathan in Washington, DC. George Will is correct when he points out that opposition to gay marriage is literally dying. Sometimes, painful as it is, we need to let society evolve rather than forcing an issue. The best course for libertarians? Return the federal government to its constitutionally mandated limited role.

      1. You’re assuming that Scalia and Thomas will support a more restrained government in this case…I suspect that they’re more likely to support the states being allowed to come up with their own policy on marriage, regardless of what the 14th Amendment says on the topic.

        It’s not as if the gay marriage bans are being overturned on weak Constitutional bases. They’re being overturned by an application of the 14th Amendment that is directly in line with the original intent of its authors. I’m not sure what aspect of that Thomas and Scalia have a problem with, but I doubt it’s going to be more solid constitutionally.

  2. Just have him come to Reason. He can hear about all the gay marriage he wants!

  3. Wonder why he’s so eager to affix his name to a dissent on a landmark civil rights ruling.

    1. wonder why the likes of Ruth and Sotomayor and Kagan and Breyer are not. But I forgot; your argument is going to be principals, not principles.

    2. I wonder why you’re so eager to assume that the ‘conservative’ bench would necessarily rule against lower court decisions that bans are unconstitutional.

      The point – from a legal POV – is that the SC should give equal scrutiny to appeals *regardless of their underlying political popularity*

      Were it a different issue, you’d consider the court’s refusal to review ‘overly political’. Now that its a case where you think lower courts are right, you suddenly think SC review is unworthy.

      The point from the conservative side is that they should be above the temporal political considerations and treat all appeals fairly.

      Of course, this would never occur to you, given that you have no concept of what ‘integrity’ is outside of unthinking loyalty to TEAM UBER ALLES

      1. Uh huh. King v. Burwell pretty much lays plain how political the conservative bench is. It’s not like they were appointed because of their exemplary dispassionate objectivity. I don’t know whether you’re being naive or cynical, but it amounts to the same thing.

        1. If you support same sex marriage, you’d support a constitutional test.

          You’re just a scumbag who projects their amoral partisanship on everyone else and can’t conceive of a universe where objective legal review exists.

    3. Perhaps he’s eager to let the citizens of individual states democratically decide whether or not gays should be allowed to marry each other.

      I mean, that seems better than having the issue set aside as a special right in a sacred text, protected from democracy by requiring some kind of super-duper-majority in a representative democracy to prevent the tyranny of gay individuals, right?

  4. Aw, that’s so cute!

    The news that Senate Democrats are adding Elizabeth Warren to their leadership team raises an important question about the trajectory of the party’s most popular figure not named Hillary Clinton: Will she be co-opted by the establishment?

    The Atlantic hasn’t realized that Elizabeth Warren is a lying, crony-riddled stooge using the power of the state to enrich herself and her friends through things like supporting the Ex-Im bank!

    One day the Atlantic will grow up into a big boy magazine and we’ll look back on these moments and laugh at how naive it was.

    1. Hillary/Warren 2016. With Biden as Sec. of State. Obama ambassador to North Korea. Michelle Obama as Health and Human Services director.

      1. What’s the problem with that?

        1. Nothing, it’s a progressive dream ticket.

          Bill Clinton can head up a blue ribbon commission on sexual assault.

          Paul Krugman as Fed Chairman.

          Jonathan Gruber as head of the SEC.

          1. Sounds good to me. May I suggest Van Jones as Secretary of Energy or Administrator of the EPA?

            1. No. Naomi Klein as Secretary of Energy.

              We’d be living in caves by the end of the administration.

              1. No. Naomi Klein as Secretary of Energy.

                Negative. Sec. of Labour. It’s like you guys have never played this game.

              2. I always thought she would make a better Secretary of Commerce or Secretary of the Treasury.

            2. Funny you mentioned Van Jones… I was trying to think of a position for him, but I wasn’t quite sure where he’d fit. I kind of figured “assistant to Mr. Clinton” would suffice.

              You noticed we left out James Carville?

              1. He’d be Press Secretary

                1. Not in the Hillary administration he wouldn’t.

                  Donna Brazile would be Press Secretary.

                  1. What about Huma Abedin?

                    1. Before she got married, Huma once gave me a humma.

                  2. No way, Lena Dunham as Press Secretary.

              2. Oh c’mon people, Van Jones for National Security Advisor.

                1. Sheila Jackson Lee as Secretary of Education.

                  1. That spot is reserved for Jeb.

                  2. Sheila Jackson Lee as Secretary of Education.

                    Now you playin’.

                  3. Have to 2nd guess you again. Melissa Harris Perry as Secretary of Education.

                    We have to get this derp notched up a level or two to make a proper proglotard administration.

                    1. Have to 2nd guess you again. Melissa Harris Perry as Secretary of Education.

                      We have to get this derp notched up a level or two to make a proper proglotard administration.

                      Sheila Jackson Lee is 100x dumber than Melissa Harris Perry.

                    2. I actually think Lena Dunham would make a great Secretary of Education. After all, it is her right to shape the next generation.

                    3. All that access to pre-pubescent girls?

                      She’d be in hog heaven.

                    4. I actually think Lena Dunham would make a great Secretary of Education. After all, it is her right to shape the next generation.

                      No, she’d head up the new Ministry of Culture.

                    5. Have to 2nd guess you again. Melissa Harris Perry as Secretary of Education.

                      We have to get this derp notched up a level or two to make a proper proglotard administration.
                      Sheila Jackson Lee is 100x dumber than Melissa Harris Perry.

                      Buy only Melissa knows that everyone owns everyone elses’ kids and that this is a desirable thing.

                  4. Well, maybe she’d get some bo osmosis.

                2. Oh, and Martha Coakley for Atty General and Kamala Harris as Presidential Counsel.

                  1. Sugarfree as poet laureate.

                  2. You know what’s the funniest thing about all these suggestions we are making? They’re probably the exact same thing that Democrat leadership are thinking.

                    1. No spots for Matt Damon, Alec Baldwin and George Clooney?

                    2. Don’t worry, there’s an endless supply of new bureaucracies in proggie heaven.

                    3. No spots for Matt Damon, Alec Baldwin and George Clooney?

                      Damon would probably actually be sec. of education because of his history of good work with teachers. Baldwin would be Sec. of Defense and Clooney Ambassador to France.

                    4. I think Clooney would prefer Ambassador to Italy.

      2. Bill Clinton is going to be Secy of State.

      3. Imo, Obama would be the Attorney General in that mix.

        1. No way, man. Obama gonna be King of da Murl, King of da Murl!

    2. “Will she be co-opted by the establishment?”

      What has she been doing all this time, living on the res?

    3. Senate Democrats are adding Elizabeth Warren to their leadership team

      Derpity Derpy Durrr!!!

      When your derp ain’t derpy enough, add a touch of White Squaw.

    4. One day the Atlantic will grow up into a big boy magazine

      Why in the world would you make such an assumption?

      -jcr

    5. What would you guys consider the least worst Democrat?

      1. Kucchini

  5. Buuuuuuuuuuuuut on which side of same-sex marriage licensing does the court likely fall?

  6. Thomas made an excellent point without ever saying “gay marriage.” As in the Virginia case, the lower court’s overrule of the state constitution–no matter what the subject–should merit the Supremes hearing the state’s appeal.

  7. Sheila Jackson Lee declares that she will set herself on fire for Barack Obama.

    We will circle the president on fire. We will be on fire for rightness and justice.

    1. If they want to barbecue themselves….

    2. I’ll be happy to bring the lighter fluid.

      1. And the ghost of Robert Byrd will bring the cross.

    3. That says to me that she supports the President on pure emotion and not much logic/critical thinking. I respect liberals who at least are able to question their own party and identify bad policies, or hypocrisies, etc.

  8. Mark Cuban is an American hero:

    Mark Cuban ?@mcuban 6h6 hours ago

    2. In my adult life i have never seen a situation that paralleled what I read in Ayn Rands books until now with Net Neutrality

    1. Really? He’s not trying very hard if this is the first time

      1. The rolling blackouts in CA were straight from the book.

    2. This is the most blatant example in my recent memory.

  9. Perhaps I’m reading this wrong, but this looks like “you won’t let us rule on our thing, so we won’t let you rule on your thing.” There may be nothing legally or even ethically wrong with this from either party; however, it seems to me like petty gamesmanship rather than a principled stand that should be applauded.

  10. How about another helping of that guy Pelosi can’t remember?

    “Fourth Jonathan Gruber Video Says President’s Goal For Obamacare Was Not To Cover Uninsured”
    […]
    “And that’s why even though the bill that they’re debating today is 90 percent health insurance coverage and 10 percent about cost control, all you ever hear people talk about is cost control.”
    Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.c…..wRxlMj6.99

    Thank you, Mr. Weinstein. Keep those hits coming!
    I’m sure Tony will be here soon to explain that he wasn’t fooled; he was just repeating lies!
    Necessary lies for our own good.

    1. Look, everyone knew these promises were oversold and not entirely truthful.

  11. And:

    “Rep. Jim Jordan: We May Have Jonathan Gruber Testify Before Congress”
    […]
    “On MSNBC, Wednesday morning, Politico health care reporter Jennifer Haberkorn quipped that the White House would love it if Jonathan Gruber would just stop talking and added that they would probably put a gag order on him if they could.
    House Republicans, on the other hand, are reportedly buzzing about hauling Gruber before Congress so he can talk some more.”
    http://nation.foxnews.com/2014…..y-congress

    1. It’s amusing that someone who clearly considers himself a genius-level strategist and deceiver, has made the cartoon villain’s mistake of explaining his plan to the victims before he’d really won.

      1. Well, as far as I can tell, I don’t think he thought he was explaining to his victims. He thought he was explaining it to his groupies.

        My impression is that this is an academic who got brought in to bring a little bit of intellectual legitimacy to the plan. My guess is that he was the architect in that he worked out the details on what the political leadership had already decided to push. But, this gave him the impression that he was a TOP MAN with access to all the important people. And fellow academics no doubt treated him as a minor rock star. And all this went to his head. He was boasting thinking his words were safe.

    2. Gruber is clearly a dick but I’m not sure what would be accomplished by bringing him up to congress

      1. Pretty sure the news bureaus could no longer avoid any mention of the ways in which O0care was foisted on us.
        As far as the SF Chron is concerned, Gruber doesn’t exist, and I’m sure it is not alone in stonewalling the story.

        1. “However, the clip of ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber using those exact phrases in talking about the passage of the Affordable Care Act has yet to be reported on ABC or NBC’s evening or morning shows. The sum total of Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) network coverage was a 2 minute, 50 second segment on Thursday’s CBS This Morning – six days after the tape was first discovered. On the print side the Washington Post offered a front page story on Gruber on Thursday. But the Gruber comment has yet to show up in the pages of The New York Times, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times or even the Associated Press.”
          http://www.mrc.org/media-reali…..cans-video
          Yep, stonewall.
          Here’s poor Tony trying to craft the lies and excuses to cover for those slimy pols all on his own!
          Maybe I should have sympathy….
          NAAAAAAAAAAAAAH. Screw ’em.

    3. Why do they need to haul him before congress in an Orwellian display?

      Why not just give him a radio show and let him radiate cancer to the Dems that way?

    4. Here Gruber says Obama was in the room when the Cadillac tax was hatched, and asked for them to obfuscate it.

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_e00NjQvFM

      1. The New York Times editorial board is having a meeting right now, trying to decide just how to get rid of this story.

      2. That vid has 1500 views, is it yours?

        If so, the audiosync is terrible. But an interesting find

        1. It was published by Jim Hoft who is an actual well known blogger.

  12. Maddow blog on Gruber: FAKE SCANDAL!!!!!!!

    art of the problem with the Jonathan Gruber “stupid” story is that it’s a shiny object for the political world to stare at for a while. It offers more heat than light. It’s a bouncing ball for political insiders to chase after, despite its relative insignificance.

    But since it’s likely to soon be the subject of congressional hearings, and since your crazy uncle who watches Fox News all day will be talking about nothing else at Thanksgiving, let’s grudgingly tackle this week’s Most Important Story Of All Time As Agreed Upon By Republicans And The Beltway Media.

    [break]

    Republicans are running around screaming, “Obamacare’s architects think Americans are stupid!” but it’s the law’s opponents that have spent the last several years misleading the public, creating baseless fears, and exploiting public confusion in order to help sabotage the American system for craven, partisan reasons.

    So where does that leave us? With a sideshow. The Affordable Care Act is working extremely well and every Republican prediction ? literally, every single one ? about the law’s failings has turned out to be wrong. Instead of talking about that, the right has decided what really matters is a year-old panel discussion in which an economist Americans haven’t heard of raised a legitimate policy point in a clumsy and offensive way.

    1. Do you think mad doe believes what she says?

      1. Auto correct FTW!

    2. If it’s working extremely well, why have they withheld numerous parts of the act, including that part that caused the Republicans to ‘shut down’ the government?

    3. “the law’s opponents that have spent the last several years misleading the public, creating baseless fears, and exploiting public confusion in order to help sabotage the American system for craven, partisan reasons.”

      I see no cites here.

      1. Also, apparently ‘craven, partisan reasons’ need not apply to, say, people lying about healthcare bills.

        1. Also, apparently ‘craven, partisan reasons’ need not apply to, say, people lying about healthcare bills.

          Craven, partisan reasons also doesn’t apply to leftist blogs claiming it isn’t a big deal when the government blatantly lies to the American public.

          Incidentally, progs are constantly explaining how wonderful Democracy is, and yet they always have to lie in order to implement their policies. Question: How can you have a functioning Democracy when the public is constantly being lied to by its own government and therefore does not have enough information to make accurate decisions?

          Similarly, how can you have a Democracy in a progressive state where 80% of all decisions are made by federal agencies staffed by people no one voted for?

          It’s almost as if progs hate Democracy and want to get rid of it through backdoor methods, all while assuring us they simply adore the right to vote.

          1. You know who else perverted democracy to establish another system…

            1. Godwin!
              What did I win?

            2. What progs are really doing is establishing the perfect system of bread and circuses. All the actual decisions get made by unelected bureaucrats, thereby making elections increasingly irrelevant. Meanwhile, people fight each other over who gets to ‘lead’ a bureaucratic apparatus over which they actually have no control.

              That’s some Kafkaesque shit right there.

            3. Julius Caesar?

          2. Democracy is useful for providing a fig leaf to the erosion of your liberty, nothing more.

            Not only do they not want people to get involved in intellectual discussion of ideas, they are openly hostile to anything that could cause people to think outside progressive orthodoxy.

            Hence the hostility to: religion, private schools, capitalism, gun ownership, internet freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, etc.

    4. Idiot.

      1. I was responding to Maddow. Reason’s reply system sucks donkey clit.

        1. Donkey’s have clits???

    5. But since it’s likely to soon be the subject of congressional hearings, and since your crazy uncle who watches Fox News all day will be talking about nothing else at Thanksgiving,

      Why does no one talk about my crazy lesbian aunt who watches MSNBC all day?

      1. A well planned Thanksgiving extravaganza is when you can get the crazy liberal aunt and the crazy republican uncle engaged in a vicious verbal duel to the death …best spectator sport evah!

    6. Yup. There is it. It seems that the talking point the Dems are going with. What about all the lies the Republicans told? Thanks for giving us faith in the system, Rachel. Now let’s all lean forward.

    7. every Republican prediction ? literally, every single one ? about the law’s failings has turned out to be wrong.

      Either the Republicans didn’t criticize the law very well, or Maddow is lying.

  13. “An administration official also noted to TPM that ? while Gruber is often described as an “architect” of Obamacare because he was a key consultant to the administration and was heavily involved in developing the Massachusetts health reform law that served as a starting point for the ACA ? “he did not work in the White House or play the same role in developing the Affordable Care Act.””
    http://spectator.org/blog

    Note that last sentence; VERY careful work on someone’s part. Factoids dripping with innuendo.

    1. Here Gruber says Obama was in the room when the Cadillac tax was hatched, and asked for them to obfuscate it.

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_e00NjQvFM

      1. I think that’s spelled “lie”

        1. He’s articulate…for a …Prez.

  14. OT: Having a normal business-hour job, I do not get to comment on everything I would like to. But I finally made it to the Stossel thread, and this bothered me.

    Tony|11.12.14 @ 1:20PM|#

    Are you referring to the same document that explicitly allowed for the ownership and lifelong unpaid exploitation of human beings?

    Ugh. Initially, the Constitution that created the US was moot on the issue by neither allowing, nor prohibiting slavery. Incidentally, slavery predated the document that, initially, simply granted certain powers to the common government of the States that formed the Republic of the united States. In closing, citing the Constitution is not an argument against the concept of “Free Markets”, nor that markets equal ‘slavery’ because of said Constitution.

    1. “In closing, citing the Constitution is not an argument against the concept of “Free Markets”, nor that markets equal ‘slavery’ because of said Constitution.”

      Tony has tried that crap before.
      The fact is that slavery REQUIRES a strong government to enforce slavery; there is nothing ‘free’ in the case of someone coerced into slavery by ruling of a government.
      What’s more, since Tony constantly justifies gov’t theft as it is law, Tony explicitly accepts slavery, since it too was law.
      Plus, there was no need to “outlaw” slavery; all it should have taken is the revocation of the coercion franchise to slave owners.
      Tony is a fucking hypocrite.

      1. Tony explicitly accepts slavery, since it too was law.

        I agree. Also, anyone who accepts that it is ok for the gov’t to force commerce between/among people actually endorses slavery in the strictest sense of the word. Though, they do not realize it.

      2. What’s more, since Tony constantly justifies gov’t theft as it is law, Tony explicitly accepts slavery, since it too was law.

        Tony is also constantly blathering about the wondrous glory of majority rule, but it never quite occurs to him that the majority of the south totally thought slavery was okay and later that Jim Crow was okay.

        Therefore, given Tony’s mindless love of majoritarian government he should argue that there was no justification to end slavery since it had majority support.

        1. By what libertarian means should we have employed to end slavery?

          1. Tony|11.13.14 @ 9:55PM|#
            “By what libertarian means should we have employed to end slavery?”{

            Can’t you read, asswipe?
            “Plus, there was no need to “outlaw” slavery; all it should have taken is the revocation of the coercion franchise to slave owners.
            Tony is a fucking hypocrite.”

            Remove the power of the state to enforce it, in case that’s too difficult for you to understand.

          2. I love how you never offer a rebuttal whenever someone catches you in an obvious contradiction.

          3. War. Which is why I’m in favor of the Civil War.

            Oh, I’m sorry. Did you think I was going to argue against the Civil War? Because the way I see it, slavery is one of the greatest conceivable infringements upon human liberties, and therefore fighting to end it drastically increases the freedoms of those involved.

            Therefore, fighting to end slavery is tremendously libertarian, and I have a difficult time figuring out why some libertarians fail to see that. Thankfully I’m not one of them, so your attempt to tar me as some sort of neo-confederate fails.

            Incidentally, I don’t even consider myself really libertarian. I’d say I’m more of a ‘liberal’ in the original meaning of that term, so I’m hardly bound by libertarian orthodoxy.

            1. Doesnt that justify Afghanistan/Iraq/Vietnam/etc/etc/etc?

              1. Those wars were retarded for reasons quite unrelated to our supposed desire to ‘liberate’ them. Iraq and Afghanistan were obviously going to end in chaos, just like our intervention in Libya was obviously going to end in chaos.

                Those were moronic wars because of the specifics of those wars and the region in which they were fought.

                1. “Iraq and Afghanistan were obviously going to end in chaos”

                  ….unlike the Civil War. Hahahaha!!!

                  1. There was an opportunity for actual Reconstruction post Civil War which was botched for obvious political reasons.

                    We were never going to be able to ‘Reconstruct’ an Islamic society half-way around the globe with a completely different culture than our own, particularly given that it would take 50 years to do so.

                    Yes, Reconstruction actually could have worked effectively, whereas no such policy would have ever worked in Afghanistan and Iraq.

                    1. There was an opportunity for actual Reconstruction post Civil War which was botched for obvious political reasons.

                      US army required to prop up the existing governments from guerilla attacks, Corrupt Republicans, Democratic opposition and public weariness leading to Democratic victories. Doesn’t sound like the Middle East at all.

                2. No, invading a foreign country to liberate its people is moronic enough, no other reason is needed.

            2. Good answer.

              And I don’t think we should have waited around for a majority of Southerners to agree to end slavery. So people can stop saying that now.

            3. Although slavery was the root cause of the Civil War and the war ended slavery, the North did not enter the war to end slavery, but to preserve the union.

            4. Therefore, fighting to end slavery is tremendously libertarian, and I have a difficult time figuring out why some libertarians fail to see that.

              Oh, I see that. Only 1) Lincoln didn’t enter the war to free the slaves, 2) I don’t see how that legitimizes a draft, which is itself slavery, and 3) I’m sure we could have figured out how to end slavery without killing 3/4 of a million people.

          4. Way to dodge the poster’s original point. The whole reason slavery existed is because the government used its power to allow the owning of people. You’ve repeatedly justified injustices based on the democratic process. The poster pointed out that slavery enjoyed popular support in the South, therefore by your own reasoning it was perfectly acceptable. Of course, by libertarian reasoning, the theft of someone else’s labor is never acceptable, no matter what level of popular support exists. It’s called logical consistency.

            1. Shouting “you’re being logically inconsistent” at slavers is not going to end slavery. You guys are harassing me about supporting democracy on the basis that slavery existed, and then offering no alternative except fairy farts.

              1. I’m not calling you logically inconsistent for supporting Democracy, I’m calling you logically inconsistent for supporting majority rules without limits.

                You argue that if people like something the government should implement that thing. You argue this quite literally all the time.

                What’s particularly hilarious is you using slavery as an example of the government doing good when the institution only existed because the government said the buying and selling of human beings was totally okay.

                So the government implemented enslavement, passed laws helping southerners track down and re-enslave runaways, and then this major fuck up on the part of the Federal Government was only rectified by killing hundreds of thousands of people and turning the south into a chaotic horror show of poverty and destitution.

                Yeah, Tony. That’s quite a ‘success’ you’ve got there.

                1. Don’t waste the glutamic acid in your neurons even trying to respond to him; Tony never argues in good faith.

                  Never.

                2. I’m calling you logically inconsistent for supporting majority rules without limits.

                  Which I’ve said about a million times is the opposite of what I support.

                  The question is what should be beyond the scope of simple majorities. (Of course literally everything should be subject to some type of majority, 2/3rds, 3/4ths or whatever–we do not have a society based on sacred texts.) Those things, I and the constitution agree, should be matters that involve the potential subjugation of minorities. If you don’t allow minorities a voice at all, then you don’t really have democracy anymore. Slavery is evil by itself sure, but it’s unacceptable and worthy of a constitutional amendment (beyond the reach of simple majorities) also because when people are enslaved, they are not asked for their consent in their government, and consent of the governed is what confers legitimacy on it.

                  1. What a bunch of circular nonsense. “Literally everything should be subject to some type of majority” pretty much is an admission of what everybody above just said that you argue. No matter how odious the policy, if enough people are ok with it it’s all good. Good to see you own up (albeit unintentionally) finally.

                    1. No, people are accusing me of favoring simple majorities for everything, which is not true, and I’ve said it’s not true every single time this comes up.

                      But you amend the constitution with supermajorities. You have a constitutional convention with a supermajority. There is nothing that is completely beyond the reach of a large enough majority. What possible alternative do you think is so superior? Which sacred text are we supposed to devote ourselves to forever without any possible escape? Do make an attempt to explain please.

                    2. The alternative that is superior is realizing that using force or fraud to violate others is always wrong, no matter how many people agree with you.

                    3. It’s understandable that you can’t come up with a suitable answer, because there is none. I won’t fault you for that.

                    4. You don’t have a suitable answer, Tony. Do you even realize that?

                      You just keep saying “let democracy decide” over and over again. Sure, you, personally, thought that the war to free the slaves was great. But, how, exactly, is that “letting democracy decide”? Why doesn’t “letting democracy decide” explicitly require waiting around for the southerners to figure it out on their own? Or having the federal government wait around for a century or so before they figure it out?

                      Sure, you come up with these great policy mechanics that you think are an answer “constitutional amendments”, “super-majorities”, etc. But, these are just the simple mechanics of how you do a government. They don’t address the essential questions: which rights are protected? Which are not?

                      And again, we always come back to the same short-circuit, thinking-without-thinking answer: democracy. Which brings us right back where we started: a constitution, with amendments, and super-majorities, under which the institution of slavery did flourish for quite a long time.

                      It’s an answer, that’s not really an answer. This is why libertarians focus on the issue of what rights we should and should not have. It’s really encouraging that government and democrats finally got the idea that slavery was wrong, about 2000 years after people focused on rights and morality figured it out. It’s great that government can, in some ways, become consistent with justice, but that doesn’t make it equivalent to justice.

          5. Nullification of the Fugitive Slave Act, you dumb shit.

            -jcr

          6. Tony:

            By what libertarian means should we have employed to end slavery?

            Since you’ve already pointed out how the constitution in the US established a republic in which people vote for representatives, and which allowed slavery, it seems that the evidence suggests that democracy alone doesn’t really make slavery go away. Sure, through democracy, people can decide to use government force to free slaves. They can also enact slave codes and enforcement measures to establish and maintain slavery.

            It seems that ending slavery requires a group of people to have some decency and respect for indviduals, which is a primary focus of libertarianism.

            In other words, libertarians can claim that, according to their principles, slavery has always been and will always be horribly wrong. Meanwhile, democrats have to explain why their party historically supported the institution of slavery, in a manner completely consistent with democracy, their party’s namesake principle.

    2. Constitution also allowed for ending the overseas slave trade which congress did at its first opportunity

    3. Dammit, mute*, not “moot”.

    4. Reason should have a Stossel thread every Thursday night. Many of us need our daily fix of snark.

    5. I remain totally persuaded by Frederick Douglas:

      http://teachingamericanhistory…..i-slavery/

      https://reason.com/archives/200…..y-document

  15. Guess they haven’t gotten to Wiki yet:
    “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
    In 2009?10 Gruber served as a technical consultant to the Obama Administration and worked with both the administration and Congress to help craft the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, often referred to as the ACA or “Obamacare”.[5] The act was signed into law in March 2010, and Gruber has been described as an “architect”, “writer”, and “consultant” of the legislation. He was widely interviewed and quoted during the roll-out of the legislation.[6][7][8][9][10]”
    You’ll have to look; skwerilz don’t like the link

    1. Her tweet ended with “That is all” so I am pretty sure that is the end of that.

      Senior Editors who write like teenagers…the vox way!

      1. Her tweet ended with “That is all” so I am pretty sure that is the end of that.

        Senior Editors who write like teenagers…the vox way!

        The entire Journalistic Caste is filled with very mediocre people of very mediocre intellect who think they’re smart because of their proximity to power.

        It would be like claiming lice are intelligent because they’re so close to a person’s brain.

    2. I’m always surprised these people don’t at least check their past statements

      1. Nothing is forever on the internet, everyone knows that.

      2. Progressives have no history. The past is down the memory hole with them. All they have is the Now.

      3. Plot twist: “Right to be forgotten” laws being considered by U.S. Dems.

        -source: joking (I hope)

  16. OT: I hate not having a ‘Stossel’ thread.

    Two attractive young lasses are duking it out over “Affirmative Consent” and “Rape Kulture” on ‘Stossel’.

    1. Yes, a Stossel thread on Thursdays to cure my snark withdrawal.

  17. The spin is getting dizzying:
    “Was he in the administration, was he in the Congress, did he draft provisions of the law?” said Chris Jennings, a health care consultant and former White House aide on health policy. “The answer to all those questions is no, so just by definition he was not the architect of the law. He wasn’t a member [of Congress], he wasn’t an elected leader, he wasn’t [a] staff member to those members, he was not a political or career appointee to the administration. He was a private consultant.”
    Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/…..z3J0N6Ew00

    He was not the “architect”, so the fact that he crafted the lies to sell the merch doesn’t matter.
    Sort of…

    1. Architects work as consultants when they design something.

      1. And arguing whether he was the “architect” is nothing other than a distraction from the lies he formulated to sell it. With admin approval and involvement.

  18. OT: Most interesting gun crime stat ever

    Nor was gun control in England a response to any firearms murder crisis. Over a period of three years near the end of the 19th century, “there were only 59 fatalities from handguns in a population of nearly 30 million people,” according to Professor Malcolm. “Of these, 19 were accidents, 35 were suicides and only three were homicides — an average of one a year.”

    30 million people and 1 gun homicide per year- all with no gun control

    http://www.jewishworldreview.c…..112602.asp

  19. Bill Moyers and Thomas Frank on “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” and why people vote against their own economic interests:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zOVKTU4TJI

    Warning: Stage 5 Derp

    1. why people vote against their own economic interests

      “People can’t make their own choices!” I do not even need to click on it to know it is total bs.

    2. I still love that they use Kansas as their example even though Kansas has had an unemployment rate lower than the national average every year since 1990.

      California, meanwhile, has had an unemployment rate higher than the national average every year since 1990.

      You’d think they’d at least be smart enough to pick a Republican state that actually does suck, like Mississippi or something. The fact that they picked a Republican state that’s actually pretty successful really shows how fucking stupid Thomas Frank is.

      1. Funny thing is, Mississippi is only slightly poorer than the UK:

        http://www.independent.co.uk/n…..93240.html

        1. It’s actually not poorer than the UK.

          The original article on this subject made a mistake. They used purchasing power parity but only used America’s purchasing power vs. Britain’s purchasing power.

          However, America is so large that there are gargantuan differences between the cost of living in different states. They didn’t adjust for that fact. Once you actually adjust PPP by state rather than just by country, Mississippi is actually wealthier than Britain.

          1. cost of living in different states

            Which makes any national minimum wage an arbitrary number.

          2. I worked in Switzerland in 1991. As Europe goes, it is rich. It didnt seem it to me, I wasnt impressed.

            PPP was the reason, because prices were high. I was talking with my boss one day about this, and he didnt think prices were high compared to US from his experience living there. I asked where he had lived…Bay Area of California.

            No wonder he didnt find his million dollar house to be outrageous.

    3. Was the entire answer: principles?

      Because it should be. However, following principles is in my own interest (economic and otherwise). Morality is all about valuing principles over self interest.

      And there is no higher economic value than the health of my soul.

    4. Why isn’t the electorate more corrupt, they mean.

  20. Here’s your daily anti-free speech shenanigans.

    The bill from Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) is the latest attack against the team, which Democrats say is using a racial slur.

    “Continued use of the current team name and mascot is not only inconsistent with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office decision, but what’s even worse is that U.S. taxpayers must bear the burden of subsidizing a multibillion-dollar industry and its use of a racial slur for profit,” she said Monday.

    The bill attempts to attack the Redskins indirectly, by going after the tax-exempt status of the NFL. That status has also been criticized separately by both Republicans and Democrats in Congress who say the NFL is clearly a for-profit entity.

    While NFL teams pay taxes, the league office does not.

    Now, the NFL’s non-profit status is patently ludicrous, but they are clearly attempting to punish the NFL for using speech they dislike. Fucking fascists.

    1. It’s great that at least one of our noble leaders is attacking the really important issues of our times.

      While some small little minority of crazy whiners are worried about things like the economy, it’s great to hear that at last someone knows what is important in the real world.

    2. Now, the NFL’s non-profit status is patently ludicrous

      Is it? Most trade organizations are non-profits.

    3. Why should the NFL team’s profits be taxed twice,if they are taxed at the team level?

  21. Anybody that would not allow two strangers to marry is an ASSHOLE !!!

    1. ‘Anybody that would not allow two strangers to marry is an ASSHOLE !!!’

      True. Proper introductions are in order.

  22. Guy from Institute for Justice dismantles Krugman’s temper tantrum about SCOTUS and the Burwell ACA case

    Notice none of the Huffington Post’s thousands of devoted readers commented on that article. Either it was buried where no one could find it (I got the link from IJ’s Facebook page) or they don’t like having their biases challenged.

    1. If you want comments from the Fluffpostians, you have to post an article that they have a group think supplied trigger for. Let’s see here:

      Krugman’s Obamacare-Inspired Attack on ‘Corrupt’ Judges Should Be Laughed Out of Court

      Ok, word check:

      Koch Brothers: nope

      Big Oil: nope

      Republicans: nope

      Climate change deniers: nope

      Right wing extremists: nope

      Sarah Palin: nope

      Well, looks like this one won’t be getting many posts.

      And, BTW. How the fuck did that ever get posted on HuffPo?

      1. Zero comments thus far.

    2. Huffpost lost zillions of commenters, including me, when it went Facebook-only. It’s so depressing the middling homespun dreck its comments board has become. I much prefer a thread saturated by trolls to the wisdom of your common Facebook user.

      1. Of course you would.

      2. Tony|11.13.14 @ 9:46PM|#
        …”I much prefer a thread saturated by trolls to the wisdom of your common Facebook user.”

        Some people are happy to see you here for the same reason.
        I’m not one of them…

        1. Yet you respond to me probably more than anyone else.

          I find you to be completely without substance and would be more than happy if you refrained.

          1. Tony|11.13.14 @ 10:38PM|#
            “Yet you respond to me probably more than anyone else.”
            Yes, calling you on your constant lies is something enjoy.

            “I find you to be completely without substance”
            That’s because you’re both a liar and an ignoramus.

            “and would be more than happy if you refrained.”
            Quit lying and I’ll quit calling you on it.

            1. I’m not lying Sevo, the fat men shilling for Republicans are the ones lying to you. I guess you’ll just have to choose since you like all of your brethren never learned how to figure out what constitutes a reliable source and what is bullshit propaganda.

              1. Tony|11.13.14 @ 10:55PM|#
                “I’m not lying Sevo,”

                Tony, you ADMIT you’re a liar.
                One more lie.

      3. You have made a very strong case for Reason using Facebook for commenting.

        1. You have made a very strong case for Reason using Facebook for commenting.

          Don’t even joke about that. Facebook comments are the devil.

          1. Reason advocated for Obama. Anything is possible.

            ESPN ruined its comments threads too by going FB only. And what kind of total nonsense is that anyway? What’s the benefit to them?

            Meh.

            By far, in my opinion, the best threads I’ve come across in over a decade of observing them, is Reason.

            That’s why state-sock puppets like Tony come back here. THEY KNOW.

        2. Have you seen the Reason Facebook comments? The net neutrality one last night was a particular winner.

      4. Can’t be as bad as Youtube commenters.

    3. There have been some hilarious arguments from the left about this.

      My personal favorite was Jonathan Chait arguing that the government can ‘interpret’ a law in the way that seems most ‘reasonable.’

      Got it? What a law actually says is irrelevant. The government lawyers can unilaterally declare that a law means something different than what it says by saying ‘we think this is more reasonable.’

      1. Ah, “reasonable”- one of those lofty magic words like “common-sense”, “for the children”, “small business”, “family farms”, and “fair share”.

      2. Chevron is the most applied precedent in US courts, at about 1,000 times per year.

        The law actually says subsidies are available for all exchanges. It was just a typo (if you like) in that one sentence. But the law doesn’t make sense interpreted the way you want. It both self-contradicts and undermines its entire purpose. The only plausible explanation for why SCOTUS took it despite no circuit split is that the conservatives hate the law and want to kill it. Do you think that’s an appropriate use of judicial power?

        1. Ah, no. The subsidies were a carrot to get the states to set up their own exchanges, which was one of the goals.

        2. Please quote the relevant sections that say what you say they say. We’ll wait.

          1. Let’s start with the fact that interpretation means reading the whole law and not just one sentence, as Alito put it:

            “a reviewing court should not confine itself to examining a particular statutory provision in isolation. . . . The meaning?or ambiguity?of certain words or phrases may only become evident when placed in context.”

            The following are different ways “exchanges” are defined in the act:

            “Exchange established pursuant to this title” in section 1303(a)(1)(D);
            “Exchange established under this Act” in section 1312(d)(3)(D)(i);
            “Exchange established under section 1311,” in, for example, section 1331(e)(2);
            “Exchange established by the State under 1311,” in section 1401(b)(2)(A);
            Finally, “Exchange” without modification used throughout the statute.

            Section 1321 describes how in the absence of a state exchange, the feds “shall . . . establish and operate such Exchange within the State.”

            Note the “such.” The Act taken whole is clear that exchanges, whether state or federal, are meant to be treated as equal with respect to administration by the HHS and subsidies made available.

            1. Thus saith His Honor Tony.

            2. The fact that the architects of the act at the time it was passed made it clear that state exchanges were the only ones that qualified for subsidies would argue against your interpretation. Clearly courts take into consideration the writers expressed intent.

              As to your citations, why have you not listed the entire relevant passages?

              1. “As to your citations, why have you not listed the entire relevant passages?”

                Because the page he copied and pasted didn’t.

              2. I’ll be happy to do so for you, since you likely won’t want to bother.

                Number one (section 1303(a)(1)(D))does not define exchanges. Section 1303 (a)(1) deals with abortion services.

                1312(d)(3)(D)also does not define exchanges. It deals with the rights of consumers not to participate in exchanges for the purchase of insurance.

                1331(e)(2)also does not define exchanges.

                1401 is particularly interesting. “the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in the individual market within a State which cover the taxpayer,taxpayer’s spouse, or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”. “The State” clearly refers to the preceding “a State”, therefore it describes exchanges set up by “a state”, clearly not the federal government, which is described differently. Your citation does not illustrate what you claim it does, like all the rest of them.

              3. No they didn’t.

                1. Didn’t what?
                  What lie are you pitching now?

                2. No they didn’t.

                  What does this even mean in this context Tony? They didn’t what?

                  Of all your many annoying personality quirks, and they’re too numerous to properly catalogue, there are two that annoy me the most:

                  1) Your tendency to corpse fuck dead threads. You get obliterated by the posters in a thread, vanish, and then appear to get the last word 4 hours later – as if you somehow win by shouting into an uncaring void when there is no one around to contradict you anymore.

                  2) People will post literally a dozen refutations of arguments you make, and you respond by at best only responding to one of those arguments, although you usually don’t even bother with that. ‘No they didn’t,’ for example, is not an argument given that Contrarian just explained why everything you previously argued is a lie.

                  1. Sorry, that was a response to: “The fact that the architects of the act at the time it was passed made it clear that state exchanges were the only ones that qualified for subsidies would argue against your interpretation.”

                    No they didn’t.

                    So I am corpse fucking but you’re coming back to ogle? I do have a life and sometimes get away from this site for four hours. Sue me.

                    I am not required to respond to every argument, nor am I able. From where I sit the cogent arguments are punishingly few and far between. For what it’s worth you’re one of the few who can make one.

                    1. Tony|11.13.14 @ 10:53PM|#
                      “Sorry, that was a response to: “The fact that the architects of the act at the time it was passed made it clear that state exchanges were the only ones that qualified for subsidies would argue against your interpretation.
                      No they didn’t.”

                      OK, so that’s the lie you’re pitching here.
                      That’s a lie; they did exactly that. Liar.

                    2. It’s not what he’s saying. Of course we have a life but if you’re make a comment or present an argument (in your case the usual state propaganda inspired gibberish), expect a response. We all check in soon after we make a comment.

                      But in your case he’s just pointing out how strange it is you do so four hours later when everyone has moved on. That way, you get the last word and look like you stumped Reasonoids.

                    3. ‘you make’

                    4. Speaking of corpse fucking old threads…

                      https://reason.com/blog/2014/11…..nt_4900877

                      …Herc?

            3. Which one of those passages refers to subsidies?

        3. The Oklahoma judge, Ronald A. White, said the provision of insurance subsidies through the federal marketplace rested on an “invalid implementation” of the law, noting that the law only approves subsidies for insurance purchased through “an exchange established by the state.”

          http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ju…..rketplace/

          1. Apparently the judge can’t read, while Tony’s comprehension is advanced. I’m sure he’ll provide the relevant citations any time now, rather than reciting unsubstantiated talking points.

            1. (Arms crossed, toe tapping)

          2. “no subsidies for federal exchange” is a google autocomplete suggestion.

            This should be a clue.

        4. Chevron is the most applied precedent in US courts, at about 1,000 times per year.

          Here’s what Chevron says: “[I]f the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific question, the issue for the court is whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.” This statute is not ‘silent’ or ‘ambiguous.’ It explicitly says something which the government now seeks to ignore.

          The law actually says subsidies are available for all exchanges. It was just a typo (if you like) in that one sentence. But the law doesn’t make sense interpreted the way you want. It both self-contradicts and undermines its entire purpose. The only plausible explanation for why SCOTUS took it despite no circuit split is that the conservatives hate the law and want to kill it. Do you think that’s an appropriate use of judicial power?

          Typo? Tony, why did Gruber explicitly say that states wouldn’t get tax credits if they didn’t set up their own exchange? So your argument is that a) there was a typo and b) Gruber accidentally said the exact same thing which exists in that typo?

          1. Gruber recanted. You don’t get to use words he disavows. The statute is ambiguous–quite–in how it defines exchanges. Even without the explanation above as to why exchanges end up being defined as to be treated equally, Chevron would still require deference to the administration.

            1. Tony|11.13.14 @ 10:17PM|#
              “Gruber recanted. You don’t get to use words he disavows.”

              No, asswipe, it doesn’t work like that.
              IF he had recanted BEFORE it was an issue that was tossed back in his face, there MIGHT be some validity.
              Now, he’s just one more lefty liar like you, Pelosi, Obo and a host of others.

            2. If it was a mistake, why would there be any statement to recant? Where would Gruber have gotten the idea that that provision did something its authors should not think that it did?

              1. Ask him. Random people’s remarks are not legally binding.

                1. Tony|11.13.14 @ 10:40PM|#
                  “Random people’s remarks are not legally binding.”

                  “Random people” aren’t the ones lying.

                2. No they aren’t binding. However, if your argument is that it was a ‘typo’ then clearly the stated opinions of someone involved in the drafting of the law is legally relevant.

                  For example, let’s say I drew up a contract. I argue there was a typo in the contract that should render it void since I did not know what it said. Then video surfaces of me admitting that I knew what it said when I signed it.

                  Would you argue that that video is legally irrelevant?

                  The point is, you’re claiming it was a typo. Gruber’s statements directly contradict that argument and are therefore highly relevant.

                  1. There are plenty of people involved in drafting the law who’ve made statements in support of the other interpretation.

                    1. Now that it’s become an issue, yes.

                    2. Tony|11.13.14 @ 10:50PM|#
                      “There are plenty of people involved in drafting the law who’ve made statements in support of the other interpretation.”

                      Only AFTER they had incentive to do so. IOWs, like Gruber, you, Pelosi and Obo, they are lying in the hopes of gaining from the lie.
                      When there was no incentive to do so, they did not make such claims.
                      Now, your family may be dumb enough to nod at such obvious bullshit, but few here are.

                    3. And they have every reason to be honest at this point.

                      Why the possibility doesn’t even exist that they downplayed there issue, keeping their statements to rosy promises about free health insurance, while omitting some of the more ornery details. And, when their bluff is called and states don’t create exchanges, now they certainly don’t have any motive to lie about their original intentions, based on incorrect presumptions about how states would behave, creating unintended consequences.

                      Because, damnit, they intended lots of people to get subsidies. Sure, they didn’t come out and say, specifically, that the Feds would kick in if the states didn’t do their part. But, they didn’t say they wouldn’t. And, clearly, they wouldn’t have written the bill that way if they knew what the real consequences would be.

                      So, yeah, it has to be a typo. No other explaination is possible, really.

                3. He’s not random, he is one of the authors.

        5. It was just a typo

          “Typos” still mean what they say in law and, because it is law, it requires going through the legislative process to be amended.

        6. It was not a typo. It was the intended policy, or at least the intended threat of a policy. Except the states disregarded the threat and called the bluff.

        7. “It was just a typo (if you like) in that one sentence.”

          No, it was not a “typo” and no, I don’t like to be told blatant lies.
          It’s insulting, especially from such an ignoramus.

          1. I’m honestly astonished by this typo argument. It’s literally half a sentence that explicitly says ‘these will only be given to states that set up exchanges.’ How can that conceivably be considered a typo? Generally a typo is an instance where there is some other meaning a sentence is supposed to have, but there is a minor mistake or mis-type.

            In this instance there is nothing else that sentence ever could have meant.

            1. It doesn’t say that. Don’t use quotation marks on non-verbatim language. If you’re insisting on a sweeping outcome based on extreme obsessive pedantry, you don’t get to change the order of the words around.

              The statute essentially says that federal exchanges are “exchanges established federally which are established by the state.” Totally inelegant sure, but it’s the obvious fair reading.

              1. How can it be established both by the state and the fedgov?

                And isn’t interesting that a federal judge disagrees with your interpretation?

              2. Tony|11.13.14 @ 10:18PM|#
                “It doesn’t say that.”

                Let’s see the quote, Tony. Not ‘essentially, the QUOTE.

                1. Here’s the applicable section:

                  enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311

                  Here’s the Chevron decision:

                  First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court as well as the agency must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress

                  Congress has directly spoken. They said ‘established by the state.’ Chevron does not apply.

                  1. Chevron is about judicial restraint. Even if the language in question appears to undermine the law (whose stated purpose is to approach universal healthcare coverage), there is surely enough ambiguity to apply Chevron and not have unelected judges taking away the healthcare of 6 million people for no good reason.

                    1. Please explain how denying subsidies equals “taking away the healthcare of 6 million people”.

                    2. When people can’t afford things, they generally can’t purchase them.

                    3. Tony|11.13.14 @ 11:10PM|#
                      “When people can’t afford things, they generally can’t purchase them.”

                      So yachts are ‘taken away’ from those who can’t afford them?
                      Fail.

                    4. When your act drives up the prices to the point of being prohibitively expensive, while restricting the types of products that can be offered, then you bitch that the plans cost too much, that’s a level of silliness that I can’t believe even you can’t see the obvious issue.

              3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..n-krugman/

                According to Krugman, the claim in King is based upon an “obvious typo.” In other words, Krugman thinks this is a case of sloppy legislative drafting that should be corrected by the courts. This is a popular argument among pundits, but it’s not made by the government or more knowledgeable legal experts ? and for good reason: It’s a weak argument. In order for the government to prevail in arguing that a statute does not mean what the plain text says ? that, there is a “scrivener’s error” or a statute would produce “absurd results” ? the government has to show that there is no conceivable possibility that the text was deliberate. For reasons I explained years ago (literally) this argument fails, as most thoughtful commentators on the other side have conceded. The government’s strongest argument is not that there is a typo, but that the entire statute, construed as a whole, allows for what the IRS did, even if only because the text is sufficiently ambiguous to allow for the IRS’s interpretation.

                Shut up idiot.

          2. Leftism is built on a big ol bucket of lies, as big as an ocean. Now tell me, Sevo, what’s one more little lie in that bucket make a difference? Another FAKE SCANDAL!

            1. “Now tell me, Sevo, what’s one more little lie in that bucket make a difference?”

              Over in the Pelosi thread, Tony claims he was not fooled by the lies; HE isn’t one of the ‘stupid voters’.
              And yet he posted each and every one of them here and defended the postings when reasonable people tried to point out that you can’t spend millions without adding to the deficit, regardless of various schemes.
              So now we have a question before us:
              Was Tony lying when he proposed that happy horseshit?
              Or is he lying now?
              Or both?

              1. He mispoke and now he’s recanted. ‘Recanted’, lol, just like what’s his face, Gruberman? Grubworm? Something like that. Gruberworm, Tony, Obama, just another in a long line of shameless lying assholes.

                1. “just like what’s his face, Gruberman?”

                  Spelled N-I-X-O-N.
                  “Richard Nixon:
                  “I don’t give a shit what happens. I want you all to stonewall it, let them plead the Fifth Amendment, cover up or anything else, if it’ll save it, save this plan. That’s the whole point.”

      3. That’s totally what John Adams had in mind when he said the US was going to be a ‘government of laws and not of men.’

        Because democracy turns the whims of bureaucrats into the sacred will of the people!

  23. This is the problem I have with the “limited Government” party.

    Yes, they want limited government intervention. That is, to assure that conservative policies are applied and enforced by the “limited Government”.

  24. Sowell’s “Black Rednecks and White Liberals” in full.

    The steamboat part is hilarious:

    http://youtu.be/j2HshZlPA6E?t=29m30s

    1. Great find. That book came out around the time I discovered Sowell and I remember reading it at the bookstore because I couldn’t afford it at the time (I was in my early 20s)

  25. Is anyone else incredibly excited to see what happens to the ‘OBSTRUCTIONIST RETHUGLICANS!’ meme when the Republican House and Senate start passing dozens of bills and force Obama to veto them?

    1. Easy, they’ll stop talking about obstructionism and pretend like they never talked about it.

      Obama is like Hitler in his bunker when the allies were bearing down on Germany. Every bit as insane and hell bent on destruction. He’ll gladly take every democrat in congress straight to hell with him. The guy is 100% incapable of compromise. He is right and if everyone else has to be wrong to prove it, then so be it.

      I think Obama and Putin are a lot more alike than what people realize. Two crazies running amok with nuclear weapons. Lucky us.

      1. At least we’ll hear the Russians coming. That bomber they use is not a jet. The turboprop has counter-rotating propellers that break the speed of sound, resulting in a constant sonic drone.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95
        Fighter pilots escorting the fuckers said they could hear the drone over their own jet engines.

        1. That was the source of my comment yesterday that they’ll be cited for noise pollution by the NYC cops…
          That model of the SS bomber held by Putin is a model because there aren’t any real ones.

    2. If they know the bills will be vetoed, then it is a waste of their valuable time. They should be crafting bills in a bipartisan manner in order to get things done. So yeah, that’s being obstructioninst. They should be busy compromising with the Democrats, and by compromising I mean the Republicans shed all principles and make legislative sausage.

      1. I like your handle…

      2. Well, I hear they’re going to pounce on Keystone and the Democrats are defecting to support them.

        Be interesting to see Obama sacrifice what’s left of his party on the altar of global warming.

        1. How many Democrats are needed for a veto? Not many. Right?

          1. About 35 in the House, 13 in the Senate.

            1. 13 in the Senate

              Is this 13 counting the expected loss of Landrieu?

  26. Black man protests affirmative action; progs go berserk.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MfvY1LWQ1M

    1. “Affirmative Action” is racist by definition. It forces one to judge another on the basis of race because “Diversity” (of skin tone). I recall reading about this guy being banned from speaking at a school by “good”, “tolerant”, progs. His presentation was entitled: “Off the Plantation” or something to that effect.

    2. Now listen up here, you… you… you… Uncle Tom! We done told you what’s good for you, now get back on the porch!

      /the white proggies.

  27. The typo argument is bullshit for another reason:

    The only reason a typo could survive is that they didnt take reasonable time to debate the bill after publishing it.

    Give 1 day per page of the bill for debate and typos of any importance cant survive.

    If you have to pass it to find out whats in it, you should have to live with any typos that exist.

    Not that this was one.

    1. My prediction is that the typo argument will next be used on the 2nd amendment.

      The “not” in there is clearly an quillo.

    2. My prediction is that the typo argument will next be used on the 2nd amendment.

      The “not” in there is clearly an quillo.

      1. Exactly. If half a fucking sentence explicitly saying something can be written off as a ‘typo’ then you could use that argument in order to change the meaning of literally any law.

        1. This.

          Especially if when the notion of, um, negative typo surfaces.

          “This critical paragraph was unintentionally omitted from the official version.”

          “Very well. The law is deemed to have always contained it.”

      2. an quillo

        That is an example of a typo.

          1. I started writing “inko” but then I changed it to “quillo” and forgot to change the “an” to “a”.

      3. Nah. You just don’t see the invisible ink that only an Ivy League Law School graduate can see while wearing a magical black robe. In the 2A there’s notes about the children and people who feel uncomfortable and forcing their insecurities upon everyone. But I don’t know for sure, being that I went to a state school, didn’t study law, and certainly don’t have any magical black robes (that I will tell you about).

  28. Behold the glory of college kangaroo courts:

    http://youtu.be/WHyvRHrYYBA?t=18m

    Kafka would be proud.

  29. Obumbles is going to get his ass handed to him on Keystone. This is going to be very interesting.

    1. I thought you were going to say it’s based on petrified camel turds.

    2. It is encouraging to see that even their insanity has limits.

        1. Isn’t charging interest also illegal under Sharia?

  30. This was supposed to be a gay marriage thread. People, I’m not defending a I particularly like. I’m saying that it’s plainly true that at least 4 members of the SCOTUS hate the law and are unsophisticatedly buying in to a flimsy argument from anti-ACA activists because of that, and they want to use their power to rewrite the law in an attempt to fatally weaken it. You guys are allowed to hate a law and also call out judicial activism when you see it.

    1. Adjectives and adverbs are not arguments.

      1. Neither is typing ‘no they didn’t’ after someone gives you a point by point rebuttal, but that didn’t stop the Tonester from engaging in just that sort of stupidity upthread.

    2. Well, if you aren’t liking the direction of the thread, then you should have noted that it also contains one of your other Holy Grail issues. Didn’t you see the posts about Keystone?

      No one cares if you get gay married or not, Tony. There aren’t any anti-gays around here, or at least not among non-trolls. Most people here believe that the government should just get the fuck out of marriage, period.

    3. And you’re allowed to actually respond to arguments instead of engaging mindless bluster and foot stamping. A great deal of evidence has been provided that your claims are wrong, several of them from respected legal authorities including a federal judge. You blatantly lied about what the law actually said (as contrarian’s point by point rebuttal showed and to which you still have not effectively responded) and maintain this ludicrous fiction that it was a ‘typo’ despite the fact that the government isn’t even bothering with such an absurd argument.

      Tony, if the federal government is not bothering with the argument that it was a typo, and none of the actually intelligent people on your side are arguing that it was a typo, then why do you persist in making an argument no one outside the most malarial sort of leftist fever swamp still believes?

      1. here. Articles explaining that people involved in the making of this law intended the subsidies to be available on all exchanges.

        I guarantee you there are vastly more legal experts who think the plaintiff’s argument is hogwash than the conservative think-tank guys who think it has merit.

        Contrarian is either trying to get something over on us or is not reading correctly. The citations were indeed differing references to exchanges, and the point is to show that the law is rather ambiguous as to the definition of an exchange, though contextually it is clear that all exchanges are meant to be treated equally with respect to the matters at issue. I had to look through the damn law to figure out he was lying.

        I’m using type as shorthand. The actual legal argument is annoyingly complex. I prefer to simplify things. You guys are free to hate this law and not march lockstep with CATO’s agenda to get judges to write law. Usually you guys give lip service to judicial restraint.

        1. References to exchanges, yes, but they did not define exchanges as you specifically indicated they did. Or perhaps that was a typo on your part that we should all ignore?

          1. “Or perhaps that was a typo on your part that we should all ignore?”
            See below; Tony is well out of his depth.

          2. That little email tidbit doesn’t mention subsidies at all.

        2. Tony|11.13.14 @ 11:10PM|#
          “here. Articles explaining that people involved in the making of this law intended the subsidies to be available on all exchanges.”

          “Articles”, Tony? Why, yes, of course “articles” define the law, that’s the reason “articles” defending slavery were so important, right Tony?
          Oh, and, you really aren’t getting any help for your pathetic efforts:
          “ABC, NBC Continue to Blackout Gruber Video; CBS Ignores Clip of Pelosi Praising Gruber in 2009”
          http://www.mrc.org/biasalerts/…..ruber-2009
          Poor moral cripple, stuck with a task far beyond his abilities…

    4. Tony|11.13.14 @ 10:44PM|#
      “People, I’m not defending a I particularly like.”

      You’re doing exactly that, even reading the booze-fail “typos”, and you’re doing it poorly.
      To be honest, this is the first time ‘ve had the least bit of sympathy for you. Not a single one of the other lefty assholes has shown up to help and as is visible here, the pros haven’t either:
      ” has yet to be reported on ABC or NBC’s evening or morning shows. The sum total of Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) network coverage was a 2 minute, 50 second segment on Thursday’s CBS”
      http://www.mrc.org/media-reali…..cans-video
      As a moral cripple totally incapable of forming individual thoughts or acting as a moral agent, it is sad.
      You are put in the position of an infant trying to comprehend the world. It can’t be fun.

  31. Great Moments in free inquiry: libertarian student newspaper at Yale repeatedly stolen and trashed.

    http://youtu.be/WHyvRHrYYBA?t=40m22s

    There may have been a time when colleges really were dedicated to open discussion. Now most are essentially left-wing seminaries.

    1. Well, when you can’t win an argument…

    2. Considering the 3 “editors” of said newspaper were “played” by women, I’m declaring it as much as a hoax as the moon landing.

      1. They’re all slight variation clones from Postrel’s kidney cells, duh.

        1. That’s actually kinda hot.

  32. Someone remind Clarence Thomas that he is the affirmative action justice. On strictly merit he was and is unqualified .

    1. And Sotomayor?

    2. Palin’s Buttplug|11.13.14 @ 11:04PM|#
      “Someone remind”…

      Hey, turd! How about that O-care that isn’t going to affect the debt?
      How about that, turd? How about it’ll be forgotten and it will have no effect on the election?
      Tell us that one again!

    3. Sorta,kinda a bit like Kagan or Sotomayor you clueless idjit.

      1. I don’t see why any one of them are “unqualified.”

  33. Looks like Landrieu is a goner. I love that pic of her with Hillary. They look like the Miss Piggy twins.

    Buh Bye

    1. Was there a run-off because the result was close on election day?

      1. Louisiana law requires a candidate get a majority of the vote.

    2. It’s the Mail, so take it as you please but:
      “Reputation on the line: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton posted a disappointing record on Election Day, with losses raining down on six of the nine Senate candidates she stumped for; a Landrieu win could diminish the feeling that her star is on the wane just as the 2016 presidential season gets ready to kick off”
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..z3J0y9B1WM

      I’m beginning to hope Shrillery doesn’t get anywhere close to the nomination; Biden TAKES IT!

  34. I have a question: Was Tony whining about ‘judicial activism’ when judges overturned state gay marriage bans? After all, it seems to me that overturning those bans was a far better example of judicial activism than interpreting a law using the actual words that law contains.

    Why the double standard?

    1. I think a double standard is too generous. It implies that he has any standards to begin with.

      1. I’m in the weird position of excusing Tony (cringe!)
        I don’t think he has as yet claimed “judicial activism” WRT O-care.
        If he has otherwise, I take it back in a New York minute!

    2. I’m not one to pretend that judges are apolitical or don’t write law. They are and do all the time. “Judicial activism” is pernicious rightwing Luntz-speak for “rulings conservatives don’t like.”

  35. So will there be an article on Obama new immigration EO? Do libertarians put principles ahead of principals?

    1. I’ve worked with a lot of Mexican dudes in the timber industry, almost all hard working, family oriented and real good guys. Some were not legal so I’m sympathetic to people like the guys I know.

      I’ve also seen the ghettos that immigrants shack up in even in Humboldt county filled with less motivated folks that show no ambition to learn English or become productive. I really don’t know what the numbers of either sub group are. I’ve no problem with the former, but the latter group drains a lot of resources from taxpayers.

      True progs are maybe 20% of the voters, I’d assume die hard socon numbers are similar. The majority in the middle are going to go crazy if Obumbles goes full on retard, which would hardly surprise me. If retard goes down, unless the party of stupid fucks up even more (possible) Obumbles could cost his Team the W in 2016. I have come to the conclusion that he is so narcissistic that he doesn’t care about his fellow Teammates.

      I’m not a Team member, but it will be interesting to see it play out. The average guy or gal will get fucked, that much is certain.

      1. “I’ve also seen the ghettos that immigrants shack up in even in Humboldt county filled with less motivated folks that show no ambition to learn English or become productive.”

        Do you reckon they’re gaming the welfare system? Some other way of making a living?

  36. Uh, Oh. Beginning to look like Obo needs a big bus:

    “The Affordable Care Act was publicly debated over the course of 14 months, with dozens of Congressional hearings, and countless town halls, speeches, and debates,” White House spokeswoman Jessica Santillo said in a statement. “The tax credits in the law that help millions of middle class Americans afford coverage were no secret, and in fact were central to the legislation. Not only do we disagree with [Gruber’s] comments, they’re simply not true.”
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

    I hope Gruber has his own vids; he’s gonna need them.

    1. The US destroyer is equipped with the most recent Aegis Combat System. It is an integrated naval weapons systems which can link together the missile defense systems of all vessels embedded within the same network, so as to ensure the detection, tracking and destruction of hundreds of targets at the same time. In addition, the USS Donald Cook is equipped with 4 large radars, whose power is comparable to that of several stations. For protection, it carries more than fifty anti-aircraft missiles of various types.

      Meanwhile, the Russian Su-24 that buzzed the USS Donald Cook carried neither bombs nor missiles but only a basket mounted under the fuselage, which, according to the Russian newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta [2], contained a Russian electronic warfare device called Khibiny.

      As the Russian jet approached the US vessel, the electronic device disabled all radars, control circuits, systems, information transmission, etc. on board the US destroyer. In other words, the all-powerful Aegis system, now hooked up – or about to be – with the defense systems installed on NATO’s most modern ships was shut down, as turning off the TV set with the remote control.

      The Russian Su-24 then simulated a missile attack against the USS Donald Cook, which was left literally deaf and blind. As if carrying out a training exercise, the Russian aircraft – unarmed – repeated the same maneuver 12 times before flying away.

      1. Voltaire Network is run by a 9/11 truther. I’m going to need a bit more than their word about this one.

        Other possible reasons for the electronic blackout include the destroyer commander shutting them off to prevent the Russians from gaining intelligence from them, which I find far more likely.

  37. While it would be an amusingly sick irony to watch the only black member of the Supreme Court argue against a decision supported by the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, I’m glad the Supreme Court chose not to hear the case. The reasons for overturning the bans in the lower courts are generally consistent and have a solid Constitutional basis…if the Supreme Court upheld, there’s not much more they could add, and if the overturned I think it would likely be a bad ruling.

    While I generally like and respect Clarence Thomas, and sort of agree with him on the smaller point about the Court weighing in when it comes to overturning state constitutions, I think he’s wrong in this instance.

    1. if the Supreme Court upheld, there’s not much more they could add

      Right now there’s a circuit court split on the issue. If they upheld, the split would be resolved and their ruling would apply to all states equally.

    2. A black judge must concur with any decision purported to be based on the equal protection clause, despite such basis being perhaps preposterous in his eyes, or else it is ironic?

      There is a lot of queston begging there.

  38. My classmate’s mother-in-law makes $73 every hour on the computer . She has been without work for five months but last month her check was $14391 just working on the computer for a few hours. why not try this out.
    vi?????????sit hom?????????epage ????? http://www.jobsfish.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.