The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Maybe The Cleanup Crew Can Work On Julian Pecquet’s Head After Zuccotti Park

Posted on | November 15, 2011 | 25 Comments

by Smitty

What a nauseating bucket of drool at The Hill:

Pecquet Smitty
Democrats on Capitol Hill are worried that the Supreme Court will rule against President Obama’s healthcare reform law. The SCOTUS will rule in favor of the Constitution and liberty. Liberty, Mike Foxtrot: do you speak it?
Over the last couple weeks, congressional Democrats have told The Hill that the law faces danger in the hands of the Supreme Court, which The New York Times editorial page recently labeled the most conservative high court since the 1950s. No the SCOTUS is supposed to protect the Constitution. Also, you seem to have conflated Appeal to Authority with Appeal to Clowns. You see, nobody that gives the likes of Krugman or Brooks the space to peddle idiocy has any credibility.
While the lawmakers are not second-guessing the administration’s legal strategy, some are clearly bracing for defeat. Why should the administration, which peddles policies of failure, of which ObamaCare is just a particularly egregious example, expect to do anything but fail here? Does the administration actually want to succeed, and have the ObamaCare albatross perch upon #OccupyResoluteDesk? BHO, admittedly, whitewashes everything, but I’m not sure this was the whitewash which he sought.
“Of course I’m concerned,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio). The justices “decide for insurance companies, they decide for oil companies, they decide for the wealthy too often.” What is that supposed to mean? If the Justices are deciding cases based upon anything other than law, in the service of justice, then, by all means: let the Justices be impeached. Or did you read such drivel in the New York Times, Brown? Sure, Kelo, but does anybody doubt that the main beneficiaries of ObamaCare are the crony capitalists friends of the Administration?

The Daily Pundit piles on as well.

A less idiotic take over at the WSJ, emphasis mine:

The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether ObamaCare is constitutional, granting certiorari in a case brought by 26 states shortly after that law was enacted in March of last year. In so doing, it will be ruling upon the very nature of our federal union.

One might be tempted to think that our leadership would agree. Yes, ObamaCare is a Big Biden Deal. So why did the Democrat-controlled Congress trie to back-door the legislation, and not offer an Article V convention? I sort of know the answer, but that is a rhetorical club with which these Progressive hacks should be flogged on a more or less endless basis.

Still more at Hot Air, which notes the following about Elena Kagan, whom I’ll dub #OccupySCOTUS:

Kagan has been exceedingly conscientious about recusals, perhaps more so than necessary. It’s safe to say that such scrupulous adherence to the judicial canon will work in her favor when she argues — or more likely her defenders, as Kagan is unlikely to directly address these calls — that she has no need to recuse herself in this case.

Ah, yes: play scrupulously by the rules, so that you have something at which to point when it’s time to cheat. The Lefty evil can at least be elegant upon occasion.

When the history of this administration is written, ObamaCare shall have proven the Battle of the Bulge. 2012 will be anything but boring.

via Instapundit

Category: #Occupy, Democrats, Health Care

Comments

25 Responses to “Maybe The Cleanup Crew Can Work On Julian Pecquet’s Head After Zuccotti Park”

  1. AngelaTC
    November 15th, 2011 @ 3:53 pm

    I really don’t know what to expect.  I never thought that the “most conservative court since the ’50’s” would rule against we the people in Kelo, but they did.  

  2. Adjoran
    November 15th, 2011 @ 4:08 pm

    I expect it will be ruled unconstitutional because it goes so much further in reaching into private economic transactions than any other law.  But even if it isn’t, that will be a shot in the arm to the repeal effort, which will take on new urgency.  Repeal is only possible if Republicans capture the Senate and the White House (because it would be filibustered/ignored/vetoed if Democrats have any chance to do so).

    But to those who say there is “no difference” between a Republican – lately they’ve picked on Romney, who was the most conservative candidate in the field in 2008, but it goes for whoever they don’t like at the moment – and Obama.  Justices and federal judges are LIFETIME appointments.  The 1-3 Justices and 200-300 lower federal judges the next President names will be having an effect on America and our rights for 25-30 years or longer.

    Y’all need to get over yourselves.  Whoever we nominate, even Triumph the Insult Comic Dog, will be a hundred times better than Obama.  If “your” candidate doesn’t win, you need to suck it up and do the right thing for the country – which is vote for the Republican nominee against Obama, PERIOD.

  3. Joe
    November 15th, 2011 @ 4:09 pm

    This plays into Althouse’s theory that the Obama Administration want a fall back position of how biased the Supreme Court is (if they lose) so Obama can run on that for re-election.  Althouse even goes beyond that and says she thinks it is more likely Obama might lose with the Supremes as a result (that does not make sense because it is unlikely the conservatives would vote down Obamacare to help Obama get reelected.  Seems to be they would vote on the merits).  http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/11/supreme-court-takes-obamacare-case.html?showComment=1321305622980

  4. Joe
    November 15th, 2011 @ 4:12 pm

    Supreme Court Justice Stevens reports that is the case he catches the most shit about at bridge parties he attends.  http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/retired_justice_stevens_identifies_and_defends_his_most_unpopular_decision_/

  5. Joe
    November 15th, 2011 @ 4:13 pm

    I will vote for Romney if he is the nominee.  Obama is that bad, not that Romney is that good. 

    Just shows how bad the candidates were in 2008. 

  6. Joe
    November 15th, 2011 @ 4:41 pm

    http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/11/does-asking-for-5-12-hours-of-oral.html  Althouse thinks the 5.5 hours of oral argument is to facilitate political legal theater. 

  7. omega_six
    November 15th, 2011 @ 4:47 pm

    Mike Foxtrot, heh…

  8. Anonymous
    November 15th, 2011 @ 5:02 pm

    Will you ever tire of throwing that mouse out there to scare the Elephants into settling?

    Any dog would be better than Obama or Romney.

  9. Anonymous
    November 15th, 2011 @ 5:23 pm

    What possible evidence can you point to that ORomney will appoint anything but leftists under bipartisan cover?

  10. AngelaTC
    November 15th, 2011 @ 6:19 pm

    Blah blah blah.  I’ve done it that way my entire life, and all I have to show for it is a huge government running up a huge debt.  I can’t get on an airplane without getting felt up, and if WalMart wants my house, it’s theirs.

    Perhaps you should “suck it up” and pick a candidate in the primary that I will vote for.  I won’t vote for Romney or Gingrich.  I will vote for Paul, Bachman, or Cain.      That’s my deal – take it or leave it. Makes no difference to me.

  11. Charles
    November 15th, 2011 @ 7:45 pm

    The spirit of Kelo may save the ObamaCare individual mandate, if the Supreme Court decides for the insurance companies doing a public good.

    Assuming Romney gets the Republican nod, a contrary decision would be just as embarrassing to Romney as Obama. So I think the establishment politics cancel each other out. Supreme Court Justices are nothing if not the establishment.

    And you need an impossible 67 votes in the Senate to convict on impeachment.

  12. Adjoran
    November 15th, 2011 @ 8:43 pm

    Nobody has to “settle” for anything – not a vote has yet been cast (although Florida and New Hampshire will begin “early voting” by mail in December). 

    I am saying people should resolve to support the nominee of the Party, chosen by a free and open process.  Nobody is forcing anyone on us, but whoever wins will be orders of magnitude better than Obama.

    I intend to keep banging that point from now until November 3, 2012, or until I’ve gotten through every single thick skull.

  13. Adjoran
    November 15th, 2011 @ 8:45 pm

    What evidence do you have that he would?  The man’s career was in business; he knows the effect of the federal government is generally damaging.

    What evidence that he would appoint judges as bad as Sotomayor, and Kagan, and the others Obama has?  NONE.

  14. Adjoran
    November 15th, 2011 @ 8:46 pm

    Not one word from you complaining about Obama after January 20, 2013, then, since you will have helped put him there, mmmkay?

    Just be honest enough to admit it.

  15. Adjoran
    November 15th, 2011 @ 8:47 pm

    In which cycle would you say we had a great field?

  16. Anonymous
    November 15th, 2011 @ 9:53 pm

    You have your work cut out for you sir.

  17. Anonymous
    November 15th, 2011 @ 10:10 pm

    Because he’s a sleeper agent for the SDs he has been trained by the other side. When criticized for some of the legislation he signed as governor he said that if he had vetoed the bad bills he’d have been over ridden. So what make them do it.
     Like a too often beaten dog who pisses his entire path to his master’s voice he’ll cave to bi-partisanship. When conservative demands for strict constitutionalists set the shrieking zombies to complaining, Mitt will select nice congenial “moderates” for our courts who will per script discover that our founding documents are indeed meant to mean something other than what the plain English words on those parchments say.

  18. Joe
    November 15th, 2011 @ 10:32 pm

    He will have a lot of help from Barack Obama, David Axelrod, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. 

    And the Supreme Court if they fuck up Obamacare and leave it in place. 

  19. Tom Callow
    November 16th, 2011 @ 1:21 am

    If the law is upheld at the SC, then goodbye to Federalism and hello to the next major economic boom.
    No, not for us, for the rest of the world as company after company will then see the sense in going John Galt on the USA

  20. Bob Belvedere
    November 16th, 2011 @ 8:46 am

    You’ve been on a Pulp Fiction tear lately, Admiral.

    Does this mean you’re read to go medieval on someone’s arse?

  21. Bob Belvedere
    November 16th, 2011 @ 8:52 am

    Justices Roberts and Alito were not on the SCOTUS back then.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London#The_court.27s_decision

  22. Bob Belvedere
    November 16th, 2011 @ 8:53 am

    He certainly deserves to.  Of course, he deserves to be consigned to the Ninth Circle of Hell.

  23. Bob Belvedere
    November 16th, 2011 @ 8:57 am

    Evidence? How about his record in the Bay State…
    http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/
    and
    http://www.rightspeak.net/2011/03/romneys-spotty-record-on-judicial.html

  24. Bob Belvedere
    November 16th, 2011 @ 8:59 am

    If Romney is the ‘whoever’ that wins, all we will be doing is prolonging the agony of our collapse.

    Maybe it’s time to bring things to a head if we can’t get a Palin in The White House.

  25. Romney Delenda Est: Rally ‘Round The Hair? « The Camp Of The Saints
    November 16th, 2011 @ 9:43 am

    […] the wimp he is, Romney would do as Adobe Walls predicts: …When conservative demands for strict constitutionalists set the shrieking zombies to […]