Justice John Roberts Cements Position … On The DC Party Circuit

Healthcare, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Law, The Courts

Did you expect anything different from Justice John G. Roberts Jr.? Why? This is the chief of the country’s legal politburo of proctologists, who had previously rewritten Obama’s Affordable Care Act, and then proceeded to provide the fifth vote to uphold the individual mandate undergirding the law, thereby undeniably and obscenely extending Congress’s taxing power.

What did this “conservative” jurist do NOW? Reports Lyle Denniston of the SCOTUS Blog:

… a divided Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that subsidies to help lower-income Americans buy health insurance will remain available in all fifty states.

That, the Court concluded by a six-to-three vote, was what Congress intended when it passed the sweeping overhaul of the health insurance market five years ago. If the subsidies are not available across the nation, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., wrote for the majority, that would bring about “the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid.”

Had the ruling in King v. Burwell gone the other way, to eliminate subsidies in thirty-four states, at least 6.4 million Americans likely would have almost immediately lost the insurance coverage that many of them have for the first time. And, given the way Congress wrote an interlocking law, the cascading effect of the loss of subsidies for so many probably would have collapsed the whole arrangement — a point that Roberts embraced in foreseeing the potential for a “death spiral” for the ACA.

The Chief Justice’s twenty-one-page opinion was an often technical interpretation of many arcane provisions of the ACA, but it was clear that the outcome had been driven in considerable part because the majority had accepted the centrality of the subsidy scheme to the law as a whole, and had found persuasive the dire predictions of the impact of sharply paring down that scheme.

The decision closely tracked most of the arguments that the Obama administration had made in defending the nationwide availability of subsidies, in the form of tax credits. …

MORE.

“A Romp Down Memory Lane With Justice Roberts” will show that Roberts has always been about the moves. With his affirmation of the right of the state to compel the individual into a purchase, Justice Roberts moved into the DC party circuit. Roberts’ smooth moves, today, on behalf of The Powers will cement his position on this circuit.

TPA (Updated: 4/22/016): Republicans Cede Some More American Sovereignty

Barack Obama, Federalism, Labor, Outsourcing, Republicans, Trade

“Some” would call it treason. OK, I would call it treason. Republicans—who boast of their respect for the republican value of limited authority, and who vowed to keep Obama in his Constitutional place—banded together to give President Barack Obama yet MORE executive authority. “[T]he Senate voted 60-38 to grant final approval to the fast-track bill, reports the Washington Post.

… The trade promotion bill now heads to Obama’s desk for his signature. It gives the executive branch additional powers for six years and authorizes the president, and his successor, to present trade deals to Congress for a vote on a specified timeline without lawmakers being able to amend the terms.

What is the TPA? Also via the WaPo:

… Trade Promotion Authority, or TPA. This is also known as “fast-track” authority because it gives the president the ability to negotiate a deal that will receive only an up-or-down vote in Congress. Without fast track, Congress can amend the terms of the deal. You can remember that TPA is “fast track” because when you T.P. a house, you are on the “fast track” to juvenile delinquency. Or you can just call it fast track, which is easier.

Fast-track authority doesn’t apply to only one agreement. In the past, it has spanned presidencies, beginning in 1974 and lasting until the Clinton administration. It also existed during parts of both terms of George W. Bush’s presidency. From the president’s standpoint, fast-track authority is critical to negotiating agreements because he can negotiate in good faith — what he says to his negotiating partners he’s confident will be part of the final deal (if Congress approves it).

Broadcaster Mark Levin, who exulted in the Republicans’ mid-term victory only to find himself needing to trash these traitors daily—spoke to Sen. Ted Cruz on voting against the fast track deal.

“Enough is enough,” Cruz had written at Breitbart.com. “I cannot vote for TPA unless McConnell and Boehner both commit publicly to allow the Ex-Im Bank to expire—and stay expired. And, Congress must also pass the Cruz-Sessions amendments to TPA to ensure that no trade agreement can try to back-door changes to our immigration laws. Otherwise, I will have no choice but to vote no.”

As commendable as a Cruz vote against the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) is—Levin failed to point out the following:

No bit of legislation should ever cede US sovereignty to signatory nations—not on immigration, not on self-defense, not on sentencing, not on anything.

UPDATE (4/22/016):

UPDATED: American Hate Group (SPLC) Issues Hit List Of Conservative Women

Ann Coulter, Critique, Fascism, Islam, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim

America’s premier hate group, the Southern Poverty Law Center, has drawn up a hit list of conservative women, clearly meant to intimidate and endanger these ladies should they continue to speak their minds.

SPLC

Shamelessly masquerades as a hate-groups monitor, the SPLC is actually a radical, left-liberal, conformity enforcer, operating with state-imprimatur. One of the SPLC’s mandates has been “to ‘educate’ police on the ‘dangers’ posed by all of us critics of unlimited government interventionism,” explained Tom DiLorenzo in his expose, “Racial Racketeering for Fun and Profit: The Southern Poverty Law Center Scam.”

Note how the women have been caricatured to look demonic. And even Diana West, described “charitably” as “a relatively calm critic of Islam, at least compared to some of her fellow travelers,” makes this list.

Dr. DiLorenzo has exposed the revenue-rich, “racial racketeering” of the SPLC, by going to the source of its funding, “The Department of Fatherland Security, and probably other parts of the [state] bureaucracy.”

The responses to the SPLC’s despicable stunt are overwhelmingly in defense of the ladies. Writes “Liberal News,” 4 days ago:

Thank you for this great list of patriots. I will follow the ones I didn’t know before. Funny how [author] Mark Potok thinks he knows more about Islam than those whose grew up in it, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Brigitte Gabrielle.

Check out the comments.

UPDATE: Oh, I almost forgot: The clincher as to the depravity and lack of credibility of the SPLC is the fact that the org listed pediatric neurosurgeon Ben Carson as a hater; an extraordinary man who had dedicated his life to healing babies.

Coulter On Courting The Hispanic Vote

Ann Coulter, Democracy, IMMIGRATION, Republicans

It’s the Sailer Strategy that Ann Coulter articulates, and brilliantly so. No wonder she doesn’t have a television show: she outsmarts the other hosts and higher-ups. We can’t have that in the house.

Indeed, Bill O’Reilly looks decidedly unhappy, as Ann darts around him like Muhammad Ali around Joe Frazier:

“… The way Republicans win is by driving up the white vote. It’s not by appealing to women, to blacks, to Hispanics. How about for once appealing to your base? The Democrats don’t obsess on, ‘How do we get gun rights voters to support us a tiny bit more? How do we get pro-lifers to support us? Let’s get a slice of the evangelicals.’ The Republicans have been tricked into a suicidal electoral strategy,” said Coulter. “Had Romney won 71 percent of the Hispanic vote, he would still have lost. Had he got four points more of the white vote, he would have won. What should Republicans be going for?!”

Ms. Coulter added that “the strategy she favors led to a landslide victory for Ronald Reagan,” who got the smallest black vote of any president between LBJ and Obama, and WON.

About the polls stating that the country wants amnesty, Ms. Coulter, who analyzes this particular deception in “Adios!”, comments that “these polls are not meant to quantify opinion but to move it. Usually the questions present two options neither of which exists in the real world: shackling and deporting illegal aliens or rounding them up at gunpoint. Are you a nice person or are you mean. But the most important way polling gets the desired results is by polling ALL adults (Jessie Waters’ World), when you desired samples is likely voters. Not to mention oversampling Democrats.

As always, and before a smart Alec libertarian somehow infers from this post that I want Republicans elected:

1. Nowhere have I argued anything of the sort.
2. The conditions that would lead Republicans to lose elections FOREVER are the same set of conditions that would cause libertarians to potentially lose, too, were they the second party in the duopoly.