ammo for sale All commissions earned are donated directly to the Second Amendment Foundation
Showing posts with label legal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legal. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

A glacier moves, slowly ...

.
... but it moves none the less:

...the law is now his. This is RobertsCare. And how we get there matters.

Until we start teaching that lesson — as I’ve been arguing here for years and years and years now — we’re doomed to repeat the kinds of foundational errors that, when nestled into the rules of “legitimate” hermeneutic procedures, will always and (irony!) intentionally move us away from individual autonomy and toward tyranny.

Jeff, once again, spells out what happened and why we need to be aware of what happened, something he's been preaching for a long time.

I may not have the intellect of a Jeff Goldstein but even I can see that a living constitution, though it can serve as a guide to government, can never be limiting of government the way it was intended.

pm

Monday, July 2, 2012

Could this ...

.
... be true?

So he read the newspapers and/or schmoozed, and after having taken the temperature of public sentiment--the liberal, east coast public sentiment--he decided the ACA had to stand at any cost. My guess is that Roberts originally wanted to strike down the mandate but keep the ACA by ruling the mandate was severable. But when the four dissenters would not go along with him on severability, he
So he read the newspapers and/or schmoozed, and after having taken the temperature of public sentiment--the liberal, east coast public sentiment--he decided the ACA had to stand at any cost. My guess is that Roberts originally wanted to strike down the mandate but keep the ACA by ruling the mandate was severable. But when the four dissenters would not go along with him on severability, he sided with the liberals and wrote a contorted decision to uphold the law. He was arguing backward from a desired outcome.sided with the liberals and wrote a contorted decision to uphold the law. He was arguing backward from a desired outcome.

If it is, then Roberts has to go. I have no philosophical argument with a justice changing his mind, but to reverse-engineer a decision? That's the kind of crap liberals pull.

Who among the current congress has the balls to call for his resignation?

pm

Thursday, July 14, 2011

I didn't realize you could do this

Search for all of Masaad Ayoob's articles, I mean.

Go to findarticles.com, type 'Masaad Ayoob' in the search box at the top of the page, and you get almost 1000 of his articles for your perusal.

I started at the end and am working my way forward. This is a worthwhile thing to do.

pm