I know. Pointing this out is unhelpful and possibly paranoid and conspiratorial, and anyway, if Limbaugh would just learn to say things in a way that the left can’t take him out of context, he wouldn’t run into these problems to begin with. So really, if you think about it, it’s mostly his fault. For not being more careful with what he says. Like, for instance, Tony Snow was. And

Yes. Republicans. It is they who are ‘politicizing’ Martin’s death — they who are organizing marches, they who are putting out bounties, they who are selling hoodies and t-shirts, they who have scheduled mock Congressional briefings, they who used the bully pulpit to call for a national soul-searching because we’re somehow collectively complicit in a young man being shot to death while beating a neighborhood watch captain in Florida. Republicans.

Jim Pethokoukis: Given the tone and substance of today’s arguments, it looks like there’s a decent chance the Supreme Court will not only toss Obamacare’s individual mandate (a 62% chance according to Intrade), but all of Obamacare as well. But then what? It seems highly unlikely—to say the least!—that any sort of replacement would pass this year. So now we are talking about 2013, where the issue would get sucked

Well, “conservative” Justices. The liberal justices, some of whom would prefer it if they’d taken an oath to the Canadian or South African Constitutions, one imagines, believe there’s no need to wreck all the goodly social justice just because those well-intentioned, moral legislators who pushed it on us failed to include a severability clause and accidentally overstepped their authority with respect to the (hoary, flawed) Constitution. After all, what’s the

In the comments to my earlier post today, a commenter expresses quite succinctly a view I’m starting to see rather often now on the right from those who are, it seems to me, looking for a way to distance themselves from what I contend is an important fight.  It is a quickly-spreading trope, and one I’d like to address here now.  Argues mt_ molehill: I don’t take a single prosecutor’s

Let’s just say it: our system has broken down.  We are now held hostage by a toxic blend of mob bravado, faux-righteous indignation, and identity politics such that we’re largely impotent in the face of what is an assault on due process and duly-passed state law that is despised by both progressive anti-gun advocates and criminals (who don’t ever really worry about anti-gun laws) alike. That our President and members

Well, that’s what he said in so many words. Pardon me for sounding all Visigothy, Mssrs. Moran and Frum, et al., but it sure does seem to me that Obama is telling the Russians — in a message he wants passed along to Putin — that, once he’s re-elected, he can drop all facades and surrender the US strategic nuclear advantage.  Killing off Reaganism, as so many of his university-era

In other words, free riders continue to ride free! — Or, in other other words, the putative (though always disingenuous) reason for ObamaCare is not fixed by ObamaCare. CNS: President Barack Obama has justified the mandate in his health-care law that requires individuals to buy health insurance by arguing that it will eliminate free riders—that is, people who get health care (often from emergency rooms) but, lacking insurance, never pay

Let’s see: they weren’t witnesses to the shooting.  Nor is the shooting a national matter.  And besides, this is supposedly an “ongoing investigation” (though the police in FL seem to think they were correct in how they handled the case). So why in the world would Trayvon Martin’s parents be testifying before Congress? — mock or no mock? Oh, right:  Fast and Furious ended up arming Mexican drug cartels and

Nik0lai Wenzel, Wallace and Marion Reemelin Chair in Free-Market Economics at Hillsdale College and Visiting Assistant Professor of Economics in the Lutgert College of Business at Florida Gulf Coast University, says it is. Many “conservatives” will not recognize themselves completely in my critique. This is largely because there are so many “conservatisms.” I argue that each involves assertions of private preferences through public means–and that the imposition, in each case,