Mark Levin vs. George Will: Radio Talker Lashes Out At Columnist...

[paulitician]

On his Thursday radio show, conservative talker Mark Levin, author of “Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America,” echoed a plea he made on his Facebook page earlier, attacking conservative syndicated columnist George Will for calling the Supreme Court’s Obamacare ruling “a substantial victory.” Levin called the article “the dumbest George Will article, certainly among them, that I have ever read”

Perhaps it’s more of a long-term view of the situation, but Will saw an upside in the announcement of a 5-4 decision declaring President Barack Obama’s 2010 landmark health care legislation constitutional.

In an article on the Post’s website, Will explained that conservatives got a victory with the decision, which he said has put the brakes on government expansion.

“Conservatives won a substantial victory Thursday,” Will wrote. “The physics of American politics — actions provoking reactions — continues to move the crucial debate, about the nature of the American regime, toward conservatism. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has served this cause. The health-care legislation’s expansion of the federal government’s purview has improved our civic health by rekindling interest in what this expansion threatens — the framers’ design for limited government.”

Will’s reasoning relies on the portion of Roberts’ opinion that has put boundaries around what the Commerce Clause allows the government to do.

You see folks,” Levin said, “conservatives are so used to losing — particularly conservatives inside the beltway that have been here for decades — then when we really, really lose, they claim that we’ve won. I don’t know if this is a psychological thing — I don’t know.”

Will said that this decision would reinvigorate small government conservatives, a premise Levin scoffed at.

“Well gee, they might as well start rounding us up because that will rekindle the effort that the framers started, too,” Levin declared. “This is so asinine that I’m stunned. This is as stunning to me as the John Roberts opinion”...

Read more: Mark Levin vs. George Will: Radio talker lashes out [AUDIO] | The Daily Caller

 

[demiurge]

Levin couldn't hold up Will's jock strap. He's the worst kind of idealogue - the one that makes his party look bad. There's some good ideas in Conservatism, but once somebody starts throwing around the term 'leftist' it generally indicates all critical thinking abilities have fled the building. It's the same blind ideology that derides Republicans as fascists.

 

[konradv]

The ruling does help the Republicans, because it allows them to run against ACA, instead of putting forth their own alternative. IMO, that shows Obama's and Romney's cowardice.

 

[Oddball]

Levin is right...Roberts' remarks on the commerce and good-n-plenty clauses don't have the force of law and set no legal precedent whatsoever....They were pure, 100% padding.

He's also correct in that those are about the dumbest remarks ever to come from any so-called "conservative" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean anymore) commentator whose name isn't David Brooks.

 

[paulitician]

Levin is right...Roberts' remarks on the commerce and good-n-plenty clauses don't have the force of law and set no legal precedent whatsoever....They were pure, 100% padding.

He's also correct in that those are about the dumbest remarks ever to come from any so-called "conservative" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean anymore) commentator whose name isn't David Brooks.

Yeah, George Will really has become a bit of a RINO wuss. He's vastly outnumbered in the Liberal Press he serves in, and it's clear that has effected his judgement & conviction. He's been the token "Conservative' at ABC for too long. He's become a lost soul. That happens with the tokens quite often. David Brooks is another prime example of it. Levin has every right to be disgusted.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Conservatives won a substantial victory Thursday,” Will wrote. “The physics of American politics — actions provoking reactions — continues to move the crucial debate, about the nature of the American regime, toward conservatism. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has served this cause. The health-care legislation’s expansion of the federal government’s purview has improved our civic health by rekindling interest in what this expansion threatens — the framers’ design for limited government.”

Will’s reasoning relies on the portion of Roberts’ opinion that has put boundaries around what the Commerce Clause allows the government to do.

This indicates Will’s tendency to not be an ideologue, and his observation is fundamentally correct. The limit is relatively narrow, however, and although it may curb government expansion with regard to certain specific issues, it in no way effects the current body of Commerce Clause case law.

As for “the framers’ design for limited government,” here conservatives have a lot of work to do, as what they say and what they do is considerably inconsistent. For example, what government is to be ‘limited’? The right bemoans the ‘tyranny’ of the Federal government yet advocates state and local governments violating citizens’ civil rights. We see the same hypocrisy with regard to privacy rights, due process for all persons in the United States, and equal protection issues such as same-sex couples’ access to marriage law.

If government is to be limited, it needs to be comprehensively limited, both Federal and state, where all are subject to the Constitution, which means allowing citizens to engage in activities conservatives may disapprove of.

 

[paulitician]

Stockholm Syndrome. That sums up George Will at this point. He's been the token "Conservative" at ABC for far too long. He now sympathizes with his Liberal Media captors. He should escape ABC as soon as possible.

 

[Jackson]

On his Thursday radio show, conservative talker Mark Levin, author of “Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America,” echoed a plea he made on his Facebook page earlier, attacking conservative syndicated columnist George Will for calling the Supreme Court’s Obamacare ruling “a substantial victory.” Levin called the article “the dumbest George Will article, certainly among them, that I have ever read”

Perhaps it’s more of a long-term view of the situation, but Will saw an upside in the announcement of a 5-4 decision declaring President Barack Obama’s 2010 landmark health care legislation constitutional.

In an article on the Post’s website, Will explained that conservatives got a victory with the decision, which he said has put the brakes on government expansion.

“Conservatives won a substantial victory Thursday,” Will wrote. “The physics of American politics — actions provoking reactions — continues to move the crucial debate, about the nature of the American regime, toward conservatism. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has served this cause. The health-care legislation’s expansion of the federal government’s purview has improved our civic health by rekindling interest in what this expansion threatens — the framers’ design for limited government.”

Will’s reasoning relies on the portion of Roberts’ opinion that has put boundaries around what the Commerce Clause allows the government to do.

You see folks,” Levin said, “conservatives are so used to losing — particularly conservatives inside the beltway that have been here for decades — then when we really, really lose, they claim that we’ve won. I don’t know if this is a psychological thing — I don’t know.”

Will said that this decision would reinvigorate small government conservatives, a premise Levin scoffed at.

“Well gee, they might as well start rounding us up because that will rekindle the effort that the framers started, too,” Levin declared. “This is so asinine that I’m stunned. This is as stunning to me as the John Roberts opinion”...

Read more: Mark Levin vs. George Will: Radio talker lashes out [AUDIO] | The Daily Caller

1. In a narrow sense there was a victory, not so much for Republicans but for the intent of the Consitution and limiting government interference into the lives of it's citizens. Roberts and the majority said the Commerce Clause has to be respected and cannot command a citizen to buy a product or service, especially nationally.

2. The good side on the Republicans turf is that it energized it's base and brought out more active supporters than ever before, while liberals were complacent with the victory at hand.

3. Since the "penalty" was ruled unconstitutional, it became a "tax." This means it can be repealed without the 60 vote majority, needed a simple majority of 51 from the Senate. Filibusters are out of the picture now which is an even better result of this ruling.

George Will has to accept the medicine that the Health Care Act is still with us and he cannpt spin it away. He might find that the medicine he takes now might prove to heal the patient down the road. Be up front without the spin. The original mandate was upheld, point goes to Obama, game not over.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I remember when I used to believe that Republicans were going to roll back the Progressive agenda.

LOL

It's like Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy

 

[paulitician]

I remember when I used to believe that Republicans were going to roll back the Progressive agenda.

LOL

It's like Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy

Unfortunately, Big Government Globalists control both Political Parties. They play for the same team in the end.

 

[Liability]

Levin couldn't hold up Will's jock strap. He's the worst kind of idealogue - the one that makes his party look bad. There's some good ideas in Conservatism, but once somebody starts throwing around the term 'leftist' it generally indicates all critical thinking abilities have fled the building. It's the same blind ideology that derides Republicans as fascists.

Actually, Levin is entirely correct and Will's bullshit spin was amazingly stupid and lacking even rudimentary logic.

No wonder you applaud it.

Let's clue-in Will and you:

An actual "win" would have been to NOT ONLY deny that the Commerce Clause could have theoretically justified ObamaCare and NOT ONLY deny that the Necessary and Proper Clause could have justified ObamaCare BUT ALSO to PROPERLY DENY that there's a fucking hint of authority found under the taxing authority that could justify the encroachment by the Federal Government that goes entirely OUTSIDE the bounds of their enumerated powers.

The absolute contortions that the CJ had to undertake to PRETEND to justify the Act on the basis of the Federal Taxation authority is stunning. It goes far beyond pretzel logic. IT goes all the way to fully dishonest.

The MANDATE was backed by a PENALTY said Congress, not accidentally and not by mistake. But No, said the CJ. It's REALLY a "tax." How do we know? HE said so, along with four liberally partisan jurists. (And by the way, the penalty did get imposed according to the terms of the Act as a tax, so the CJ had a very small basis to make the claim, but in order to make it he HAD to and he DID re-write the Act of Congress itself. That, boys and girls IS activism.)

IF it WERE a real tax, then why does it not have to be apportioned? Because, although the CJ intoned that the penalty is "really' a "tax," it's not that KIND of tax? How do we know this? HE said so, that's how.

And if it were actually a tax, then how can it even be the subject of a court case given the anti-injunction Act which limits the jurisdiction of the Courts under those circumstances? Well, it's still NOT that "KIND of tax. How do we know? The CJ SAID so, that's how!

This was NOT a conservative victory. It was a completely baseless capitulation to the liberal ideology. It was not judicial at all. It was lawless.

 

[paulitician]

The Token Conservative time has passed. George Will and others have been part of the Liberal Media for too long. Their Stockholm Syndrome disease has infected true Conservatism. Their desire to please their Liberal Media captors has rendered them irrelevant. George Will should no longer be a hostage. He should have escaped his Washington Post/ABC captors a long time ago. His credibility is shot.

 

[William Joyce]

Whoa! The Jew vs. the Israel Lover. What a contest!

 

[FJO]

I don`t get Mark Levin on the radio where I live, but I see George Will every Sunday on ABC.

Poor George! Getting more and more like he should change his name to Costanza.

Or just stick to baseball.

 

[demiurge]

Actually, Levin is entirely correct and Will's bullshit spin was amazingly stupid and lacking even rudimentary logic.

Will is one of the smartest guys in the Republican party. He understands what is actually going on.

No wonder you applaud it.

Let's clue-in Will and you:

An actual "win" would have been to NOT ONLY deny that the Commerce Clause could have theoretically justified ObamaCare and NOT ONLY deny that the Necessary and Proper Clause could have justified ObamaCare BUT ALSO to PROPERLY DENY that there's a fucking hint of authority found under the taxing authority that could justify the encroachment by the Federal Government that goes entirely OUTSIDE the bounds of their enumerated powers.

Wow, impressive use of capitalization! You really must be ardent in your beliefs! LOL.

In the meanwhile, get back to me on the Militia Act which forced individuals to purchase weapons and ammo or the act for the relief of sick and diabled seamen. Both of these things were done by the Founders under the necessary and proper clause. Of course, those were under specific other enumerated powers.

The relevant problem now is how the Commerce Clause has changed that into 'damn near everything' because of the arcane rulings by SCOTUS on that matter, including 'anything purchased for any reason' and even more ridiculously 'anything that could be used INSTEAD of something you would otherwise purchase.' Wickard vs Filburn gave a ruling that they could regulate wheat grown on your own farm for consumption by your own cows. We were well into the realm of insanity at that point.

That was back when FDR was stacking the deck. The US vs Darby Lumber was the most egregious example, when the Court ruled that the 10th Amendment 'was but a truism' and not a limitation on the Federal government in any way. Every fucking thing has followed that under the ridiculous abuse of the Commerce Clause.

And this is a significant step in nipping that in the bud. The Commerce Clause IS the greater federal government now.

It also hands a political grenade to the Republicans - because it forces the Dems to admit they are taxing you to provide other people with health insurance. That's a very big weapon in their arsenal for the election.

IF it WERE a real tax, then why does it not have to be apportioned? Because, although the CJ intoned that the penalty is "really' a "tax," it's not that KIND of tax? How do we know this? HE said so, that's how.

First, the four liberal judges said that the Mandate was OK under the Commerce Clause - because that gives them power to do anything due to precedent. The fact the majority opinion didn't reflect that is big.

As a tax, it doesn't have to be equally apportioned unless it is a direct tax. Indirect taxes are like sales taxes - the key legal distinction being you have a choice whether you do the activity that is to be taxed. That just has to be defined as equal through a geographical area (US vs Ptasynski).

So, believe it or not, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court actually knows more about the law than you do. LOL.

And if it were actually a tax, then how can it even be the subject of a court case given the anti-injunction Act which limits the jurisdiction of the Courts under those circumstances? Well, it's still NOT that "KIND of tax. How do we know? The CJ SAID so, that's how!

This was NOT a conservative victory. It was a completely baseless capitulation to the liberal ideology. It was not judicial at all. It was lawless.

Summary of Supreme Court health care decision - MarketWatch

The Anti-Injunction Act provides that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person,” 26 U. S. C. §7421(a), so that those subject to a tax must first pay it and then sue for a refund. The present challenge seeks to restrain the collection of the shared responsibility payment from those who do not comply with the individual mandate. But Congress did not intend the payment to be treated asa “tax” for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Affordable Care Act describes the payment as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Constitution, but it does determine the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not bar this suit.

More of that law stuff that upsets you so.

So, the end results:

1) We are going to get taxed. This will make it easier to beat the Mandate legally through Congress, and is more likely to get Republicans elected for that purpose.

2) Its the first significant repeal of the Commerce Clause in 70 years. That is a big step forward in scaling back the scope of the Federal government.

3) Most of the stuff in Obamacare is actually beneficial for the people. The only part of it that the majority didn't like was the mandate.

 

[jillian]

Actually, Levin is entirely correct and Will's bullshit spin was amazingly stupid and lacking even rudimentary logic.

hey... your law school con law professor called. he asked me to please smack you for believing levin's nonsense.

 

[Liability]

Actually, Levin is entirely correct and Will's bullshit spin was amazingly stupid and lacking even rudimentary logic.

hey... your law school con law professor called. he asked me to please smack you for believing levin's nonsense.

Your law school called to ask me to see if you were dropped on your head, repeatedly, at some point to be so dismissive about the correct analysis? They are mumbling something about wanting the degree back.

Understandable.

But all banter aside, you cannot articulate how Levin is wrong. He isn't wrong.

He is absolutely correct.

The CJ fucked this up, badly.

If you'd lay aside your liberalism for a second, and just think things through, you would be alarmed too.

There is no coherent basis anymore to deny the central Federal Leviathan authority to legislate on ANY topic they feel like addressing. The whole notion of limited enumerated powers is now a quaint historical footnote. Frankly, conservatives AND libs should be alarmed. Outraged, even.

 

[demiurge]

So we lived for 70 years where the Commerce clause was capable of determining what you DIDN'T buy (which this ruling threw to the side, another major win) and where SCOTUS explicitly stated that the 10th Amendment didn't matter, and NOW you are concerned that when these things have finally been kicked in the nuts that the ruling allows unlimited federal power?

Amazing. Go read some different blogs. The ones you are reading have nothing to do with reality. The reality is this is a good thing (tm), and about damn time.

 

[Liability]

Actually, Levin is entirely correct and Will's bullshit spin was amazingly stupid and lacking even rudimentary logic.

Will is one of the smartest guys in the Republican party. He understands what is actually going on.

No wonder you applaud it.

Let's clue-in Will and you:

An actual "win" would have been to NOT ONLY deny that the Commerce Clause could have theoretically justified ObamaCare and NOT ONLY deny that the Necessary and Proper Clause could have justified ObamaCare BUT ALSO to PROPERLY DENY that there's a fucking hint of authority found under the taxing authority that could justify the encroachment by the Federal Government that goes entirely OUTSIDE the bounds of their enumerated powers.

Wow, impressive use of capitalization! You really must be ardent in your beliefs! LOL.

In the meanwhile, get back to me on the Militia Act which forced individuals to purchase weapons and ammo or the act for the relief of sick and diabled seamen. Both of these things were done by the Founders under the necessary and proper clause. Of course, those were under specific other enumerated powers.

The relevant problem now is how the Commerce Clause has changed that into 'damn near everything' because of the arcane rulings by SCOTUS on that matter, including 'anything purchased for any reason' and even more ridiculously 'anything that could be used INSTEAD of something you would otherwise purchase.' Wickard vs Filburn gave a ruling that they could regulate wheat grown on your own farm for consumption by your own cows. We were well into the realm of insanity at that point.

That was back when FDR was stacking the deck. The US vs Darby Lumber was the most egregious example, when the Court ruled that the 10th Amendment 'was but a truism' and not a limitation on the Federal government in any way. Every fucking thing has followed that under the ridiculous abuse of the Commerce Clause.

And this is a significant step in nipping that in the bud. The Commerce Clause IS the greater federal government now.

It also hands a political grenade to the Republicans - because it forces the Dems to admit they are taxing you to provide other people with health insurance. That's a very big weapon in their arsenal for the election.




First, the four liberal judges said that the Mandate was OK under the Commerce Clause - because that gives them power to do anything due to precedent. The fact the majority opinion didn't reflect that is big.

As a tax, it doesn't have to be equally apportioned unless it is a direct tax. Indirect taxes are like sales taxes - the key legal distinction being you have a choice whether you do the activity that is to be taxed. That just has to be defined as equal through a geographical area (US vs Ptasynski).

So, believe it or not, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court actually knows more about the law than you do. LOL.

And if it were actually a tax, then how can it even be the subject of a court case given the anti-injunction Act which limits the jurisdiction of the Courts under those circumstances? Well, it's still NOT that "KIND of tax. How do we know? The CJ SAID so, that's how!

This was NOT a conservative victory. It was a completely baseless capitulation to the liberal ideology. It was not judicial at all. It was lawless.

Summary of Supreme Court health care decision - MarketWatch

The Anti-Injunction Act provides that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person,” 26 U. S. C. §7421(a), so that those subject to a tax must first pay it and then sue for a refund. The present challenge seeks to restrain the collection of the shared responsibility payment from those who do not comply with the individual mandate. But Congress did not intend the payment to be treated asa “tax” for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Affordable Care Act describes the payment as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Constitution, but it does determine the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not bar this suit.

More of that law stuff that upsets you so.

So, the end results:

1) We are going to get taxed. This will make it easier to beat the Mandate legally through Congress, and is more likely to get Republicans elected for that purpose.

2) Its the first significant repeal of the Commerce Clause in 70 years. That is a big step forward in scaling back the scope of the Federal government.

3) Most of the stuff in Obamacare is actually beneficial for the people. The only part of it that the majority didn't like was the mandate.

Nice wall of words. But Will is flatly wrong. There is no hidden conservative good news in the anti-conservative rape of the Constitution CJ Roberts just perpetrated on the Constitution.

We have not yet been the beneficiary of the penalty that isn't a penalty but is a tax. Thus, there is no basis to determine that part of the case yet. It was a lawless decision on that account.

It was not a repeal of the commerce clause. Don't be such a derp. Words have meaning except yours. The commerce clause is intact and simply found NOT to be a proper basis upon which the Congress could predicate the fucked up ObamaCare Act. Good. That much is true, but it does nobody any good if he magically substitutes TAXING AUTHORITY in place of "Commerce clause" and thereby effectively tells congress that there is nothing they cannot legislate on. Fuck that old silly notion of limited government and enumerated powers. But guys like you STILL think it's appropriate to go down on fucking Will. He is an old douche. He is flatly wrong. There is no conservative silver lining here.

If there are good aspects to ObamaCare, then pass them properly.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Actually, Levin is entirely correct and Will's bullshit spin was amazingly stupid and lacking even rudimentary logic.

hey... your law school con law professor called. he asked me to please smack you for believing levin's nonsense.

Your law school called to ask me to see if you were dropped on your head, repeatedly, at some point to be so dismissive about the correct analysis? They are mumbling something about wanting the degree back.

Understandable.

But all banter aside, you cannot articulate how Levin is wrong. He isn't wrong.

He is absolutely correct.

The CJ fucked this up, badly.

If you'd lay aside your liberalism for a second, and just think things through, you would be alarmed too.

There is no coherent basis anymore to deny the central Federal Leviathan authority to legislate on ANY topic they feel like addressing. The whole notion of limited enumerated powers is now a quaint historical footnote. Frankly, conservatives AND libs should be alarmed. Outraged, even.

Is it me or do all of Jilly's legal "arguments" sound like "nyah nyah foo-fooh"?