Supreme Court

New York Times Pundit Can't Understand Why Libertarians Would Criticize Chief Justice Roberts

"It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."

|

Linda Greenhouse, chief legal pundit at The New York Times, can't seem to understand why some folks on the right don't agree with the deferential stance adopted by Chief Justice John Roberts in his 2012 decision upholding Obamacare. Writing this week at the Times, Greenhouse points with dismay at recent articles by Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett and Cato Institute legal scholar Ilya Shapiro, both of which fault the chief justice for his judicial passivity in the health care case. "Not so long ago, 'judicial restraint' was a conservative goal against which judicial performance was measured. Now it's an epithet hurled at, of all people, Chief Justice Roberts," Greenhouse writes. "Are conservatives at all abashed at taking the vocabulary they grew up with and flipping it so openly?"

Greenhouse seems to be under the mistaken impression that every single member of the conservative legal movement—including self-identified libertarians like Barnett and Shapiro—is required to march in lockstep support of judicial restraint. The reality, of course, is quite different. As faithful readers of Reason magazine are well aware, libertarian and conservative legal thinkers have been debating the pros and cons of judicial restraint for some time now. Broadly speaking, conservative advocates of judicial deference, such as Chief Justice Roberts, maintain that unelected judges should be extremely wary about overturning the acts of the democratically accountable branches of government. That's why Roberts wrote the following while upholding Obamacare: "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."

Libertarian legal thinkers, by contrast, have been fighting tooth and nail against judicial deference for the better part of three decades. Under the libertarian view, Roberts failed to do his judicial duty because it most certainly is the job of the Supreme Court to act as a constitutional check on the other branches of government—even when such judicial activity means that unelected justices end up thwarting the will of a democratic majority.

As I said, this debate has been going on in conservative and libertarian legal circles for quite a while now (and has even reached the U.S. Supreme Court on more than once occasion). If Linda Greenhouse ever wants to get herself up to speed on this particular issue, there's a certain book I'd be happy to recommend.

Advertisement

NEXT: EPA Finds Glyphosate Is Not Carcinogenic

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. No one should defer to Congress on anything. They’re idiots.

    1. Beyond that, the judiciary has a well-defined job description: Decide if the legislation is Constitutional. Period. Of course they can bring their own understanding of the Constitution’s meaning, that’s fine, and quite frankly inevitable, but nowhere that I’m aware of in the Constitution does it instruct them to “defer” in any way shape or form to the “wishes” of Congress. They’re there to make sure legislation comports with the founding document as they see it. End of story.

      1. Deferring to congress makes the court irrelevant. We don’t need them to tell us what congress wants, we have congress for that.

      2. I agree with your point, but there is a type of “deference” which is legitimate: not deferring to majoritarian opinion, but rather to the legislative process. That is, courts should not be writing laws (or re-writing them, as Roberts did), but merely expressing a judgement about the constitutional merits of the existing law. For example, the court ought to have ruled that the individual mandate *does* entail a civil penalty, which is unconstitutional. If the opinions wish to *suggest* a revision of the law (ie: the penalty should be called a “tax”), that’s fine. But, it isn’t the job of the jurists to write *new* laws.

    2. The US government ended with the Obamacare decision. Now it’s just thugs with guns.

      There is nothing they cannot do to people as long as a tax is involved. Don’t want to be forced to buy a gun? Fine, pay a $5,000 annual tax.

      Woodchippers are too good for the thugs.

  2. The New York Times can’t understand a lot of things, like why the whole country doesn’t think exactly like them on every single issue.

    1. That’s about what I came here to say – per Linda Greenhouse there is the liberal judicial consensus and everything else which of course is wrong. Why waste time on actually understanding the various errors? If they disagree with the liberal consensus that is enough.

  3. I’m with Greenhouse on this one. And Cato’s blind worship of the Flemming Rose idiocy gives them no credibility. They don’t understand the first thing about the First Amendment. As for Roberts, he puts himself in good stead to reverse Roe v Wade on ideological grounds. (Which I am not against in principle but it’s horrid law.)

    1. “the Flemming Rose idiocy”

      Defending free speech is stupid? I don’t get what you’re trying to say.

      1. He’s a patsy for the Western Secular Caliphate – his own country doesn’t have free speech. Now if he fought them I’d be impressed. Instead he hides behind them for protection not realizing that their laws are the justification for why he is threatened in the first place.

        1. Could you be more specific? In what way does he support suppression of free speech?

          1. Or is he guilty by association for the behavior of other Danes?

            1. He’s a total patsy – his job is to divert attention from the Danish Caliphate by punching Muslims in the nose with his ‘free’ speech: “See, at least we’re not as bad as them.” Yet they are far worse: “Denmark has significantly strengthened its military commitment to fighting the Islamic State group, following approval by the Danish national parliament to send a combined new land and air force to Syria and Iraq in the second half of 2016.” They kill lots more Muslims than the reverse.

              1. An…interesting…line of thought.

                1. And the government offers him ‘protection’ in return for him traveling the world bragging about how righteous is his caliphate. Cato fell for it. The value of free speech is protection from the government, not some wackos in the mideast who have nothing better to do than produce videos about how angry they are about the latest blasphemy – and even use the Western Caliphate prohibitions on speech as justification for their own.

                2. You forgot to ironize “interesting”.

              2. “He’s a total patsy – his job is to divert attention from the Danish Caliphate by punching Muslims in the nose with his ‘free’ speech”

                Wow.

        2. “He’s a patsy for the Western Secular Caliphate”

          This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen

          1. I think you mean ‘blasphemoust’.

          2. It is the same stupid bullshit “dajjal” says. I’m writing them both off as one deranged idiot’s sockpuppets.

            1. Smart – it’s always best not to respond because I thrive on the attention.

    2. And Cato’s blind worship of the Flemming Rose idiocy gives them no credibility.

      And yet we are supposed to find your opinions credible?

      1. XENUUUUUUI

      2. Welcome to America where you can believe whatever the hell you want. I’m not one of the people who say, “I’m all for free speech – but not religion because it limits free speech.”

        1. Welcome to America where you can believe whatever the hell you want.

          Yes, I said you do not have a right to free speech. You got me. Well played. Victory to the guy who does not think addiction exists.

          1. Yes, I said you do not have a right to free speech.

            Yes, I said you do not have a right to free speech. You got me. Well played. Victory to the guy who thinks addiction exists.

  4. Maybe Greenhouse could find examples of Barnett praising judicial restraint a few years ago, then triumphantly juxtapose it with his recent criticisms?

    No, probably not, because I think Barnett has been fairly consistently critical of the “judicial restraint” mentality.

    Well, for Greenhouse the next best thing is to say that Barnett’s remarks aren’t consistent with what *other conservatives* have said. After all, conservatism is basically a vast conspiracy against the public good, and the actions of any one member of the conspiracy can be imputed to all the other members.

    So if someone like Robert Bork denounces judicial activism, then Barnett, as a member of the same conservative conspiracy as Bork, is implicated. So when Barnett later criticizes judicial restraint, he’s being inconsistent!

  5. And of course, the Obamacare case was a question of whether federal of state power should prevail on the question of insurance mandates.

    Holding insurance mandates to be unconstitutional would still have left the states free to impose such mandates.

    This sort of conflict necessarily arises in a Constitution which divides power between state and federal authority. Deferring to the feds means overruling the states, and vice versa.

    1. This sort of conflict necessarily arises in a Constitution which divides power between state and federal authority. Deferring to the feds means overruling the states, and vice versa.

      Which is why the military was mostly the state’s militias. The federal government could assert their authority all they wanted but there was a hard limit on how far they could go in making their argument stick – they had to get at least some of the states to back them up against the others if push were to come to shove. Of course, that was back when the term “The United States” was generally understood to be plural, too. Also why some of us argue that the “federal” government is more properly referred to as the “national” government – the federation doesn’t exist any more. A federation is a group a sovereign state would be allowed to withdraw from.

      1. I would be happy to go back to having the state legislatures elect Senators – secession is a bit of an extreme remedy, hard to control.

      2. Not that it matters to most, but I consistently and solely refer to the name of this country as a plural — as in, “the United States are…”

        1. Excellent, you’re following the example of the Thirteenth Amendment – “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to *their* jurisdiction.” [emphasis added]

          *their* jurisdiction.

          But that was back in 1865 when everyone was a militant states-rights extremist. /sarc

          1. The CSA tried to put a stop to that States’ Rights nonsense but failed.

            1. You joke, but the Confederate government’s conscription policy provoked resistance by state governments in Georgia and North Carolina, on states’ rights grounds.

              Not to mention that the Confederate constitution provided that even if a state were to abolish slavery, out-of-state visitors would be able to keep their slaves in defiance of [hypothetical] antislavery laws. Also, states were forbidden from allowing aliens to vote.

  6. conservative advocates of judicial deference, such as Chief Justice Roberts, maintain that unelected judges should be extremely wary about overturning the acts of the democratically accountable branches of government. That’s why Roberts wrote the following while upholding Obamacare: “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

    It’s your fucking job to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority, idiot.

    The nine should be constitutionally required to sign off on the constitutionality of EVERY fucking bill PRIOR to it becoming law. Fuck this bullshit system where Congress passes whatever the fuck they want, knowing full well it’ll be struck down if challenged and knowing a challenge will take a fucking years.

    1. ^This. Francisco has identified the procedural flaw in the system.

    2. Assuming that even such pre-approved laws would be challengeable, I’m not sure what the point would be. It’s not like legislators don’t already have lawyers (or are lawyers themselves) that tell them how they *think* such a case would go down. Not to mention that many times issues come up later that weren’t imagined at the time.

      Not to mention what that would do to the process. SCOTUS review for normal cases, where the lower courts have been debating and ruling on the merits for y ears, still takes a year or so. Congress already moves slow enough, you want to add that much of a non-negotiable delay to their timeline? Not to mention what the increased work load will mean for the SCOTUS’s ability to hear cases.

      So I see the intent, but I don’t think the likely outcome services it at all.

      1. Congress already moves slow enough, you want to add that much of a non-negotiable delay to their timeline?

        Yes. The more hindrances to the legislative process the better. Unless you think 40k new laws every year is a good thing. In which case you’re on the wrong website.

      2. Congress already moves slow enough, you want to add that much of a non-negotiable delay to their timeline?

        You’ve stumbled on the ancillary benefit of such an amendment.

        Have you ever considered the possibility that we have enough laws?

      3. Fwiw, I wouldn’t expect the Supreme Court to be the ones tasked with this directly. There could be the equivalent of the CBO as a quicker “smell test” to triage the likely constitutionality. If necessary, this group could be given standing to challenge the laws.
        Although Congress does make some effort to make sure an important law is constitutional, some times they deem “doing something” more important (see GWB-era steel tariff)

  7. Look, you were drowning and you didn’t want me to pour a bucket of water on your head and now you’re on fire and you do want me to pour a bucket of water on your head. Make up your mind! Do you want the bucket or don’t you?

    Judicial restraint is letting Congress make stupid decisions as long as it’s within their constrained purview, declining to bite them in the ass when they step outside their bounds is not. Imposing a huge tariff on imports is a stupid move, but it’s an authority Congress has. Donating a thousand bucks to a church raffle is a nice thing, but it’s not an authority Congress has.

    1. “Look, you were drowning and you didn’t want me to pour a bucket of water on your head and now you’re on fire and you do want me to pour a bucket of water on your head. Make up your mind! Do you want the bucket or don’t you?”

      When you see an article in the media angrily accusing people of inconsistency, 50% of the time this is what it basically says.

      The other 50% of the time it’s “Person A said this, but person B said something different, yet persons A and B ought to be agreeing with each other, this is inconsistent!”

  8. There’s a lot of things NYT pundits can’t understand.

  9. “Judicial restraint” is a term that’s widely misused and misunderstood, chiefly because it sounds like the opposite of “judicial activism”, even though it’s not exactly. If someone is outraged by things like expansive judicial interpretations of “cruel and unusual punishment”, and talk about the “living Constitution”, then they naturally tend to think that “judicial restraint” is what they want, without realizing that such a stance can effectively mean the opposite of what they want — obliging the Court to allow traditionally accepted Constitutional civil liberties to not just “evolve”, but be significantly curtailed, because the legislators are assumed to have voted for a law after thoughtful deliberation on such matters (when, in fact, they’re unlikely to have read it at all).

    So not everyone who champions “judicial restraint” means the same thing by it, even if they’re otherwise philosophically allied. And, of course, there’s a lot of substantive disagreement under the banners of “Conservative” or “Progressive” anyway. As if all of the latter would necessarily agree on the meaning of “free speech” or the powers of the Commander-in-Chief.

  10. I’m getting confused by these terms. If judicial activism is where judges re-write laws from the bench (which I would say the penaltax is) how is it any different if judicial restraint is “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”? Those actually seem more like two sides of a two headed coin. Striking down unconstitutional laws doesn’t appear in either idea.

    1. Judicial restraint is refusing to assert yourself over the power of democracy.

      I agree that it wasn’t the Court’s responsibility to save us from Congress and the President enacting a system that was doomed to fail. The ACA cannot function as it was implemented, and the system is falling apart, in terms of rising premiums, insurance company losses, and companies exiting the exchanges, specifically because the system cannot function as the law was written.

      Judicial activism would be changing the law in court to make the system more functional. Judicial restraint is recognizing that the system will fail and letting the system be implemented anyway–even though they know it will fail.

      But judicial restraint is not sitting on their hands while the government claims the power to force people to eat broccoli. That isn’t judicial restraint. That’s dereliction of duty.

      1. The Court’s ruling should have read thusly:

        “We, the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, see no constitutional provision which furnishes the federal government with the powers it has attempted to grant itself in this instance. The Affordable Care Act is hereby ruled unconstitutional, null, and void. Any moves to enforce the Act, and any regulatory items enacted in furtherance of its dictates, are hereby declared treasonous crimes against the United States. The several states are within their rights to defend against implementation of this legislation by any means necessary, including the forcible expulsion of federal agents involved in the execution of duties instated by the Act.”

        1. They tried to absolve themselves by saying the government couldn’t imprison people only for not having insurance, too–which was a pathetic cop out. The IRS can make your life miserable without putting you in jail (or taking you to court), and they’ll do all of that if you don’t pay the penaltax, too.

          And it won’t be for not having insurance if they do take you to court; it’ll be for not paying the taxes you owe anyway.

          My biggest problem with the Court is its reluctance to strike down the awful decisions of the past. Some Court made an awful mistake during World War II, and we have to organize society around that bad principle until Jesus comes back–because the Court is too obtuse to right past wrongs?

          1. Because the Justices haven’t the courage.

    2. There’s judicial activism and there’s judicial restraint and there’s judicial deference – allowing the creative re-interpretation of a law in such a way that you can change it and claim you’re not changing it. Giving women the right to vote didn’t necessarily require a Constitutional amendment, all it needed was a Supreme Court creative enough to say that where the Constitution said “men” it clearly meant both men and women and women have had the right to vote all along. Or more relevant – sex discrimination by way of having separate bathrooms for males and females doesn’t need to be eliminated through a new law, Title VII of the CRA of 1964 already outlawed it – even though it does seem kinda odd that nobody seems to have noticed that little detail for 50 years. Now if SCOTUS agrees with this new interpretation of Title VII, are they engaging in activism by changing the law (as it used to be interpreted) or restraint by not changing the law (as it is now interpreted) or deference by deciding it’s not their place to interpret what the law means?

  11. “Not so long ago, ‘judicial restraint’ was a conservative goal against which judicial performance was measured. Now it’s an epithet hurled at, of all people, Chief Justice Roberts,” Greenhouse writes. “Are conservatives at all abashed at taking the vocabulary they grew up with and flipping it so openly?”

    This is like saying that if you supported the invasion of Afghanistan, you should support the invasion of every other country, too.

    Just because judicial restraint is often appropriate doesn’t mean it can’t be used inappropriately.

    Makes me think of Filburn again, too. If judicial restraint means the limits on federal power are somewhere south of forcing us to eat Broccoli or prohibiting us from growing wheat on our own property for our own consumption, then someone has applied the term too broadly.

    Just because I’m against the police indiscriminately shooting people doesn’t mean there aren’t any circumstances in which the police shooting people might be appropriate.

  12. Roberts’ folly was cataclysmic in its severity. The prime purpose of the federal judiciary is to restrain the excesses of government, especially ones wrought upon the republic by popular drive. The New York Times is staffed by retards.

    1. Hard to restrain that which writes your paycheck.

  13. Libertarian legal thinkers, by contrast, have been fighting tooth and nail against judicial deference for the better part of three decades.

    H.L. Mencken was on this case in 1930. Herewith a link to a pdf of an article from 1930 in which he chews up Justice Holmes’ judicial deference.

    https://www.unz.org/Pub/AmMercury-1930may-00122

    Sample quote,

    The weak spot in his reasoning, if I may presume to suggest such a thing, is his tacit assumption that the voice of the legislature is the voice of the people. He is, I take it, a democrat, and thus holds naturally that the people ought to have every right to make experiments and to change their minds. But there is, in fact, no reason for confusing the people and the legislature: the two, in these later years, are quite distinct. The legislature, like the executive, has ceased to be even the creature of the people: it is the creature of pressure groups, and most of them, it must be manifest, are of dubious wisdom and even more dubious honesty. Laws are no longer made by a Laws are no longer made by a rational process of public discussion; they are made by a process of blackmail and intimidation, and they are executed in the same manner.

  14. “…libertarian and conservative legal thinkers have been debating the pros and cons of judicial restraint for some time now.”

    That’s the thing – I think – that distinguishes the left and right today. Conservatives/libertarians are constantly in a state of debate. Less so on the left, because, I guess they believe they’re right (who recently said liberals have won? Some guy over at Harvard I believe it was) and possibly find the feuds on the right to be *cute* if not, as in this case with Greenhouse, incomprehensible.

  15. Have people entirely forgotten that the United States are a constitutional republic, with democratic mechanisms being definitively secondary, auxiliary components of the republican system of governance we were intended to have? Deference to majoritarian whims is precisely what the judiciary should avoid. Just as sheepish obeisance to a strongman-like executive is an abomination, so is allowing popular tyranny to take hold.

  16. If Congress passed a law to immediately arrest and execute all elderly women over the age of 75 to save on Medicaid, would the SCOTUS be obliged to sit idly by and let people feel the “consequences of their political choices”. If not, why not? SCOTUS either exists to strike down or affirm constitutionality, or it doesn’t.

  17. The troll in this thread might be the dumbest one yet

    1. The troll

      But wait, there’s more!

  18. RE: New York Times Pundit Can’t Understand Why Libertarians Would Criticize Chief Justice Roberts

    1. That’s because the NYT doesn’t understand anything libertarian.

    2. That’s because the NYT doesn’t understand anything about consequence of action.

    1. Umm. Linda Greenhouse also reported, bluntly that Justice Alioto was CORRECT to mouth “not true” in response to Obama’s lie on Citizen’s United.

      The NYT reported how Clinton had forced lenders to increase subprime mortgages. When lenders said that is impossible within Fannie and Freddie’s loan standards, Clinton pressured for lower standards, which the Times predicted COULD caused a massive taxpayer bailout like the 1980s, The Times then continued reporting efforts by the Bush Administration to regulate Fannie and Freddie.

      On the other side, the top story in today’s Fox News email is the guy who entered a woman’s restroom, strangled a young girl and was caught carrying her into a bathroom stall. Why was this the top story? I checked and was horrified to confirm my suspicion. Almost 100% of the comments came from dumbfucks claiming this would all be legal with transgender bathrooms … roughly half stating the guy must have “felt” female.

      When so many, both left and right, are so totally stupid, thus so easily manipulated, it’s far too late to Make America Great Again. Too many Americans are EAGER to be brainwashed and otherwise manipulated, Deep in their tribal caves. Land of the Free. Home of the Blowhards.

  19. Roots argument is a red herring. The argument ignores that Barnett et al argued that the Shared Responsibility Payment was a direct tax without apportionment. Chief Justice Roberts shot down that argument because federal taxation is invariably an excise tax. Roberts said the SRP was paid by “taxpayers” on their income tax forms. “Taxpayers” are those who are liable for a tax. Excise taxes are taxes on privileges. CJR was saying that those who are subject to an excise tax on privileged income-ie income derived from a federal privilege-are subject to the SRP. The libertarian/conservative establishment does not understand that most Americans are not liable for income tax because working for a living is not a privilege, but a right. “Compensation for services” is income from federal employment, or from investments derived from federal employment.
    Because the L/C establishment does not understand the income tax they will never reign in the government. The SRP is merely a means to make sure government employees, contractors, corporations, etc-those who exist by the government or with its permission-have health care. It has no effect on ordinary citizens who earn their livelihood in occupations of common right.

    1. Excise taxes have NEVER been paid on INCOME tax returns. Because … they aren’t income taxes!!

      Because the L/C establishment does not understand the income tax

      Funniest satire I’ve seen all year! PLEASE provide more yucks.

  20. Here’s a better headline: “New York Times Pundit Confuses Libertarians with Conservatives; So Does Damon Root”

    1. Libertarians are the ones who want a government big enough to force people to bake gay nazi cakes.

    2. An obvious disciple of the Paulista Cult. (I don’t mean Root)

  21. Who explains all this to Ron Paul. And how many hours will it take” If it’s even possible!

  22. Damon, Linda greenhouse is a hack reporter. Her task is not to elucidate. Her task is to discredit anyone who dissents from the liberal/democrat agenda. During the two Supreme Court Obamacare appeals she regularly vilified not only the law’s challengers, but accused the justices who voted to grant cert of being partisan political hacks.

    1. Conspiracy nonsense. The biggest example is when Obama said Citizen’s United overturned a century of legal precedence and Alito mouthed “not true.” She sided with Alito not Obama. (gasp)

      Justice Alito’s Reaction

      Her overall view is that more politicians should be on the Court — because politicians are more apt to seek compromise instead of rigid partisanship. One may disagree with that, but it’s hardly a liberal/democrat ideologue who argues against too much power by … liberal/democrat ideologues.

      People who foment hysteria using “agenda” are mostly rightwing trolls — — agenda being a synonym for conspiracy.

  23. Part 2

    Linda greenhouse is a hack reporter

    umm, she’s the Knight Distinguished Journalist in Residence and Joseph M. Goldstein Senior Fellow at Yale Law School. As a Seniot Fellow, she teaches three courses on the Supreme Court

    https://www.law.yale.edu/linda-greenhouse

    She writes now on the Times opinion blog, but won the Pulitzer Prize for Journalism as as a beat reporter for Times doing hard news on SCOTUS.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Greenhouse

    Many on the wacko right believe the Times news pages (which they never read) are as liberal as the editorial page — but their news pages are as independent of the editorial page as is the WS Journal’s.. They both, at times humiliate their editorial pages, as when a Journal reporter demolished the psycho lie that income tax revenues “skyrocketed” after the Reagan tax cuts. They increased by less than $50 billion through 8 years remaining in the rest of the 80s, ALL from capital gains taxes (personal and corporate both lost) . What skyrocketed was FICA taxes, which increased 6 times.

    1. I can’t imagine why Yale Law School, of all places, would like Greenhouse’s articles. /sarc

      1. How does that make her a “hack reporter” /sarc

        1. It doesn’t, it means she’s educated beyond her intelligence.

          1. (educated persons are able to understand the other side’s position, state it fairly, and then articulate a rebuttal which actually responds to the position they’re arguing against. Straw-manning is the resort of the uneducated)

            1. (note the time stamps of my replies. they MAY be positioned wrong)

              (educated persons are able to understand the other side’s position, state it fairly, and then articulate a rebuttal which actually responds to the position they’re arguing against.

              NONE of which you did here (OMG)
              All of which *I* did (lol)

              Straw-manning is the resort of the uneducated)

              Then why did you do it here? (laughing hysterically)

              1) Number 2 did a tribal strawman attack
              2) You replied with sarcasm, then admitted your reply was useless
              3) Then launched another strawman attack … NEVER FOLLOWING YOUR OWN RULE:
              understand the other side’s position, state it fairly, and then articulate a rebuttal which actually responds to the position they’re arguing against

              By YOUR definition, YOU are uneducated. I reject your definition. Not enough evidence. But there is sufficient evidence to conclude you are a tribal partisan thug, massive hypocrite (double standards), and nonstop bloviater

              Now …… tell us WHAT facts cause you to say she’s educated beyond her intelligence? (snicker)

              “There are no good guys. There are no bad guys. There’s just you and Linda and you just disagree.”

          2. How does that make her a “hack reporter” /sarc

            It doesn’t,

            So you were full of shit, and called out, then ….

            it means she’s educated beyond her intelligence.

            introduce an entirely different topic … on something you know nothing about … thus humiliating yourself even more.

            Then continue into total assholery …..,

  24. Well, this thread got a good corpse-fucking.

    1. (snicker) The article was posted less than 7 hours ago. So your standard “corpse-fucking” hysteria remains bat-shit crazy as always, just as you do.

      Before you unleash a typical torrent of hatred and bullying, consider the following is visible to all:
      Your whiny bullshit: 5.13.16 @ 11:22pm
      Publication: May. 13, 2016 4:38 pm

      But keep on bellowing!

  25. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out.

    This is what I do—————– http://www.earnmore9.com

  26. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out.

    This is what I do—————– http://www.earnmore9.com

  27. Greenhouse again makes deference the totality of the concept of judicial restraint. It is easy to find someone guilty of inconsistency when you define their terms differently then they do. The judiciary throwing out what the legislature wrote in order to get to the policy the executive wants turns the notion of judicial restraint on its head. Roberts went out his way to save the Democrats from what they had actually written in the ACA bill.

    1. Greenhouse again makes deference the totality of the concept of judicial restraint.

      You just lied about what she said. What did she miss … other than pissing off Scalia’s cult?

      The judiciary throwing out what the legislature wrote

      Which was what?
      Are you aware the exchanges were mentioned in more than one part of the bill?
      Or that has nothing to do with your opening sentence?

      What if the GOP had an actual, credible alternative …. (gasp) ….which they STILL do not have?
      Anti-gummint screeching (alone) is a MASSIVE failure for both conservatives and libertarians.
      Were losing on every major fiscal issue in public opinion … but it’s a libertarian moment! YEAH!.

      (Root quotes Greenhouse talking about conservatives, but HE rebuts by talking about conservatives AND libertarians … thereby missing the entire point. that libertarians are NOT conservatives … which would piss of the cult of Ron Paul who says the Court has NO power to overturn laws on constitutional principles.)

  28. Are you single tonight? A lot of beautiful girls waiting for you to http://goo.gl/pI9ucn
    The best adult dating site!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.