If we gain complete control of the legislative and executive branches why should we do anything but reward our friends and punish our foes? What would Obama do?
No, seriously. Do we really think they’re going to learn a deep lesson by repeal?
How about punish and then repeal?
I’m not kidding. This is their world. They’re the fascist bastards dragging the rest of us into it. Are they really going to quit because of some minor rebuke? I doubt it. The only way forward is to teach a lesson about arbitrary whims and how they can ruin your day.
Bjork ’em blue.
it’s always very telling how Team Boehnerfag can’t cut National Soros Radio but we’re supposed top believe they’ll repeal obamacare
but
hope for the best plan for the worst that’s what you have to do in these waning days of failmerica
*to* believe I mean
A good bjorking is the only way they’ll learn.
Again, not kidding. We can’t keep playing a game where they transgress like this and we don’t punish them. It simply won’t last.
Now, if Mitt Romney ran on a platform of “Vengeance Shall Be Mine!” and “Punish the Wicked!”, I might even vote for the bastard.
It’d be rousing, ‘s all I’m sayin’.
“Let’s make them ask for repeal!”
What would qualify as punishment?
Besides 10-foot posters of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck on every conceivable surface, that is.
I’d be mighty happy if every lefty on this here Earth had their skin stripped and then was dumped in a Great Lakes-sized tub of acid, but let’s try to remember what planet we live on. It’s just gonna be same shit/different day Republicans 1.0. Version 2.0 is still in beta testing.
Repeal and laugh? Lustily? Yeah, I’m good with that. As long as we then defund the EPA. And laugh more.
I think here on this planet we maybe lost then.
On planet game theory we’d at least pretend we’d be willing to follow their rules and use a plausible deterrent.
I agree that we’re pretty much lost. There’s a segment of our party that is abundantly willing to snipe, but there isn’t a lot of testicular fortitude for what it would take to actually fight.
See, I’d take repeal Ocare and defund the EPA.
There’s some sting there. Some feedback they could learn from.
Repeal? ORomney has already replaced that first-day pledge with “replace”. We’re going to use common-sense reforms to reform what needs reforming in ORomneycare. Cause it needs reform.
Which, if you repeal and replace ORomneycare, is it still ORomneycare? The answer is we’re going to have to pass it to see what’s in it.
Man, that picture is so damn depressing.
Defund, eliminate, and do not transfer employees or agencies from (with two exceptions Secret Service to Treasury if they were moved and FBI to Justice), Departments of Commerce, Labor, HHS, HUD, Transportation, Energy, Education, Agriculture, Interior, and Homeland Security. Sell off all lands, buildings, property associated with these departments.
All Unions will have to collect their own dues and be subject to elections each year to renew their status as the collective bargaining unit.
All foundations are to either open their books publicly on precisely who gave what and where the funds went especially directed giving or they will relinquish their tax deductible status immediately.
The entire left/Democratic party need a colonoscopy exam of all the finances and prosecution of all who have broken the law. Small fish can get lighter sentences but not complete immunity for turning in their superiors.
The only way to break the left is to defund them and jail their crooks.
We got the government we deserved. With its own permaclass.
– The Progressives refuse to recognize the word “repercussions” and lack any sort of self preservation, so punishment wouldn’t seem likely to deter them or impress any sort of lesson on their dogmatic lunitic minds.
– If 75 years of Joe and 100 millions bodies didn’t do it, nothing short of total anihillation would work I don’t think.
– Lets just get them the fuck out of power and that will be the worst punishment we could hand them.
– Heres the sort of thing that spotlights the Lefts inability to think linearily, and with any self awareness:
“Several top Obama donors said privately that Mr. Obama’s attacks on Mr. Romney’s private equity career, the president’s handling of White House relations with business leaders and his criticisms of tax rates for the wealthy had made it harder for some of his allies to raise money on Mr. Obama’s behalf from the financial sector and other industries.
“He will not have the same level of support from the business community as last time — either in endorsements, money or support,” said one Obama backer who declined to be identified because of his relationship with the campaign. “That’s clear.”
Mr. Peebles, the Obama fund-raiser, echoed objections among some other Democrats, many with ties to the financial industry, over what he said were unreasonable attacks on the wealthy by the Obama campaign.
“I just got back from Rhode Island on my boat,” Mr. Peebles said, referring to criticism of Mr. Romney’s much-photographed vacation boating last week on New Hampshire’s Lake Winnipesaukee. “I can hold 12 people on my boat. I don’t feel that I’m out of touch with Americans or that I am a bad person. I find it offensive, and I’m a supporter.”
– He is such a true believer and ideolog, even his own people have to tell him to shut the fuck up and stop playing the goddamned class warfare card when they’re out there struggling to raise money.
– Today, like a trained seal, he responded by softening his “tax the rich” meme, speaking suddenly about ‘conciliation’, asking for bipartisan support to pass the Bush tax cut extention for the middle class ( now hes using 99% of America in his speaches) , and hes willing to ‘put off’ the rich thing, and talk about it later if he can get the middle class part passed. He’s clutching for something, anything he can use as push back against the dismal unchanging economic news.
– Obama is getting more and more exposed in his amatuer responses and inability to think beyond a telepromptor, and looking more desperate by the day.
Include stripping said employees of pensions and security clearances, along with a general ban on working for companies contracting or consulting with any remaining federal agency, and you might be on to something…
Howsabout some punishment for those gormless enablers of “bipartisanship” who are allegedly on our side? Team R needs a switching behind the woodshed.
Repeal OromnertsTax, abolish EPA and DOE (both E’s), replace SoSec with incentivized private RSAs, enact laws requiring health “insurance” to operate like actual insurance instead of like one of those extended warranties they try to sell you at the checkstand at Best Buy, and outlaw public employee unions nationwide.
They’ll scream bloody murder even louder than they would if they were all lined up, bent over, and swordfished sideways. Mainly because at least some of them would enjoy being swordfished.
Remove Roberts from the bench. No self-respecting Republic can possibly tolerate such a man in such a position.
Here’s the reason to agitate and agitate and agitate to get rid of Obamacare:
1. The nomenklatura will always get excellent care, regardless. So, why should they care?
2. The rest of us will be brutalised by the 50% + 1 who believe all the problems in health care are the doing of the “1 per cent,” and who vote the way the nomenklatura demand.
The sooner we fix this sucking chest wound, the better off we’ll all be.
Since we’re throwing out wishes, I’d like to see the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US. If I was running for president, that would be one of my top 5 goals and I think it would probably sell pretty well with the majority of people, who rightly believe that the UN is a corrupt institution. I mean come on, Syria and Iran on the human rights committee? I’d also really like to see them simplify the tax code to around 20 pages. I’d give up my deductions for something simpler and easier to understand.
Replace him with U.S. District Judge Benson Everett Legg.
This is a fun exercise as I am in the depths of despair about our little republic. Yesterday, Hillary announced she is signing on to the UN gun ban.
From my cold dead hands…
sdferr, the shock would rend the globe. Never, ever happen. Has about as much a chance is turning Holder out, or of holding a progg accountable for his or her crimes against said Republic.
We have other ways we prefer to die as the shadow of the formerly capable species we once were. Denial and self-delusion come to mind.
I think it’s wrong to say removing Roberts from the bench can never happen, since we know a Republic did once stand here. That should be proof enough that such a thing can happen again. This is not to say it will happen — to a moral certainty, as the saying goes — but merely that a Republic has been conceived many times in the past, and post-conception, been brought about many times as well. On the other hand, that we Americans are in need of rediscovering how to think as Republicans, I have no doubt.
Do you see Roberts removed from the bench in our times, sdferr, meaning in either an Obama era or a Romney era?
(In a Paul era, perhaps, and I understand that his nation is as energized and animated as ever and is motivated to do what it can in Tampa. But whether he’d survive a year in an Administration remains at least as questionable.)
Never is not too strong a word, whether in hindsight one day soon, or as a reasonable prediction standing here today. The Republic simply does not exist as such. Denial has become the national religion and classical liberalism its fleeting apostate class.
Never is a stupid word JHo, that’s the problem. If we should say we’ll never have a Republic then we are doing what we can to insure we will not have a Republic. If, on the other hand, we insist that we can have a Republic, then we are doing at least the minimum we can to form a Republic.
The problem I see is the same one dealing with Romney’s “repeal and replace” of Obamacare.
I have very low confidence the “replace” would be any better.
To remove Roberts he would have to be impeached, and if so on what grounds?
You haven’t answered the question, sdferr.
What you’ve replaced it with is the myth of the power of positive thinking as we head off to face Pilate, which is a stupid belief, as stupid as calling realism aid and comfort.
So, if you want to revise your argument from some faint hope of reform into instead the essential need for classical liberalism to regard a “minimum” standard of and for classical liberalism as it must, theoretically, remove a Roberts from the seat, have the courtesy to consider and wager the odds of that remaining modicum of sanity ever actually removing the enemy from its enclave.
Or, if you want to accuse realism of aid and comfort to the enemy, just say it outright.
I’d rather not claim to any of your attributions of my own intentions JHo, but stand with them simply as I’ve stated them, since I think they are clear enough as such. I might say though, I’m not fond of a dumb determinism in political matters, if that will help any.
If I could penetrate that and find a clear answer in it, sdferr, I suppose I’d say that divining intent from years of commentary is probably less of a challenge than refuting one comment’s fair realism.
Think of it this way JHo: After never, what? Why nothing, is all, since never!
I left my hammer in my other suit, sdferr.
Is Roberts impeachable or is Roberts not impeachable? Your projection; your odds.
Failure to uphold the Constitution — or to know the job of Justice is, first and foremost, not to protect the reputation of the Court from leftist media shamers?
Those are just two off the top of my head.
I don’t believe he is guilty of failure to uphold the constitution. The constitution allows for congress to levy taxes. You may disagree with his reasoning, just as i might disagree with that same reasoning , but i don’t recall any supreme court justices being impeached for faulty reasoning.
Come to think about it, caving to leftists probably isn’t impeachable either.
“. . . but i don’t recall any supreme court justices being impeached for faulty reasoning.”
And this is not a problem how?
Injudicious behavior, as demonstrated in the specious reasoning he used to apply the taxing power to uphold ObamaCare.
And yes, I know the same could have been said about a bunch of previous justices — their not having been impeached does not disallow impeachment in this instance.
The odds against the Senate convicting, however, are astronomical. To get 67 votes to convict, the Tea Party would have to win more seats this November than there are up for vote in any given election year. Possibly even twice as many.
There’s a first time for everything, as my grandma used to say.
Yeah, but I don’t want to be like them.
Articles of constitutionally-justified impeachment would first have to be drafted by a Congress wholly fascinated with its own utterly relative privilege, and then passed in that same body.
If Roberts caved to the left’s media, how will a bitter clinging and partisan House, forever aligned away from The Business of the American People™ fare?
You can almost hear Fox presenting dissenting hysteria already, just to keep it fair and balanced.
“And this is not a problem how?”
Because the faulty reasoning charge is subjective, please remember 4 other justices signed on to that same faulty reasoning.
What are you advocating, that we dismantle the Supreme Court?
Of a specific, enumerated sort.
He is guilty of expanding Taxing authority beyond constitutional limits.
This isn’t a “we’re all entitled to our opinions” relativistic moment. Roberts has said he wanted to save the reputation of the Court and find a way to save the legislation. That’s not his job.
You continue to allow the left to define the parameters of your thinking. That’s a mistake.
“Of a specific, enumerated sort.
He is guilty of expanding Taxing authority beyond constitutional limits.”
Then i suggest that one of the states sue the administration based on that argument, maybe get a do-over.
Indeed. His job — and especially his fucking reputation — would have stood in infinitely better light if he’d have deep-sixed the whole thing, letting a Romney-centric 113th rewrite the bloody travesty of constitutionally into its newly constitutional replacement.
I realize that makes no sense but this is 2012 Washington DC we’re talking about here. Downstream of the CJ reasoning like a four year old and keeping his job.
“What are you advocating, that we dismantle the Supreme Court?”
No, BT. I’m advocating a Republican form of government, as provided in the Constitution of the United States, which additionally supplies Republican remedies for such political ills as would work to the destruction of that Republic. Or, if you like in the alternative, that you yourself rediscover what it means to think like a Republican, and not as you seem to be want to think, as a positivist or radical Historicist. But that will be up to you.
Well then.
So when you were speaking of removing Roberts from the bench that was just philosophical waxing?
Because i just don’t see that happening in the near future.
“So when you were speaking of removing Roberts from the bench that was just philosophical waxing?”
No.
First we have to understand that he needs to be removed for the right and proper reasons under the Republican political order we adhere to. Then, following the remedies available to us within the frame of the Constitution, removed. This is politics (as Roberts himself seemed to point to us to pursue, if I’m not mistaken).
The strictly philosophical aspects of the thing were settled in the framing accomplished in Philadelphia during the summer of 1787.
Ah so first we need to pack the House and Senate with Right Thinking people and then we can impeach him.
Gee, I wonder how Justice Roberts will rule as the swing vote on his own prior ruling?
If I had to guess, I’d say he’ll call it a penalty at that point.
Return to the Federalist Papers BT. That’s about the best advice I can give you. What you do with them is finally up to you. If you choose to make of them a wrapper for servitude, who will say otherwise?
That is, purists.
These Hobbits just don’t know How Things Work™ in DC. Sniff. Sniff. Spit.
Then i guess it best to impeach his ass.
Whether it is practical or doable in the current environment — where House and Senate GOP leadership would really just like us to stop putting pressure on them and let them minimize the damage done by Dems (limit the rate of govt. growth! For FREEDOM!) — is a different question than whether or not it should be attempted in a country that claims to be governed by a fixed and stable set of principles, manifestations of which make their way into law.
If people who ostensibly claim to be on our side are more interested in politics than principles, what chance do we have?
sdferr could alternate between regaling and hectoring them. For the antiquity.
It is. Just isn’t going to happen.
The question is one of justice. Will the United States be governed by the whole people aiming at justice under a Republic form of government, or will it be governed by tyrants under a progressive scheme of expert administration? It’s not that difficult a matter to distinguish.
I just keep reminding my 20-something acquaintances of the reasons why they have no job, no house, no hope of paying off their student loans, and no future. Shouldn’t be too long before the NYT and the Beltway start worrying about their popularity with the other side.
Thomas Sowell has thoughts:
Seems we have precedent:
Only one Supreme Court Justice, Samuel Chase (one of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence), has ever been impeached. The House of Representatives accused Chase of letting his Federalist political leanings affect his rulings, and served him with eight articles of impeachment in late 1804. The Senate acquitted him of all charges in 1805, establishing the right of the judiciary to independent opinion. Chase continued on the Court until his death in June 1811.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_a_US_Supreme_Court_justice_be_impeached_and_removed_from_office
When debates like this flare up among the PW commentariat, lately I picture them boiling down to a chorus of “Sit Down, John” from 1776 — this time perhaps with Jeff and sdferr sharing the role of John Adams.
Which would make the scene where Adams dances with Blythe Danner a tad awkward…
Also of interest: in 1776 Adams referred to Samuel Chase as “Bacon Face.”
Steyn chimes in:
Saltpeter, McGehee.
Just guessing at the allusion McG, I think that’s one of a tiny few of Lenny’s works I’ve never seen nor heard. Sang as part of a chorus in this one though.
Ha! Seems I’ve confused 1776 with 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., so little did I know.
This discussion has prompted me to a obvious, but rarely discussed, source of our problem, as Constitutionalists.
Our politicians ambition, all oaths aside, have become a game of getting around the Constitution, probing it for weakness and exploiting openings. Lawyers have taken over DC, and they’re playing the lawyers game. All is fair, unless the judge, whom is assumed to be applying first principles and not current expediency, rules out the inadmissible. It’s an adversarial system, and purposely so…for a criminal court.
NOT FOR PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVES!
ALL of them need to be judges, IE, defer to first principles per their oath to defend the Constitution. Instead, we got 500 megalomaniacs taking an adversarial role to the Constitution, flexing as much power as they can, confident in the voters belief that the Supreme court will stop the inadmissible. This is all wrong.
EVERY Representative of the people should know and defer to the first principles of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, not do as they wish and smugly assert the voters can vote them out if they don’t like it, or the Supreme Court will keep them in check.
Fuck that, the Constitution says their duty is to defend and preserve the Constitution, and the voters assume that’s what you are doing as their representative.
I used to ask myself how we got where we are, how the government of the founders became so perverted that now government can force a church to provide products they preach against. How it can stifle commerce when it should expedite it. How it can fully and publicly attack the 2nd amendment.
I think I have a better grip on it now.
Yeeeeeouch, and I’ve only read the first page.
Wow Sdferr, that’s dynamite. Page four:
Don’t that sound familiar?