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

[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.

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.

all kidding aside... my con law professor did an amicus on brown v board of ed and was one of the assistant prosecutors at neuremberg....pretty smart guy. he'd have found levin's analysis inconsistent with any rational means of constitutional construction.

levin is smug and treats the constitution as if it were a rightwing tool. it isn't...wasn't and wasn't ever intended to be restrictively interpreted. it was supposed to be expansively interpreted so as to be the last bastion of protection between minorities and the tyranny of the majority.

treating the constitution as if the words don't have to be construed and defined would be appalling to him. i'm sorry he's gone. he'd have laughed at levin and his ilk. but i defy you to tell me what "equal protection" means absent the caselaw. i defy you to tell me what "unreasonable search and seizure" is absent the caselaw. i defy you to define protected "speech" absent the caselaw.

well, maybe he wouldn't have laughed ...he might have been saddened that everything he worked for was being trashed by pretenders.

 

[Liability]

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"?

given how you address me, you're lucky to get any responses at all.

as for liability... he and i get along fine.

butt out. thanks mucho.

I used to butt heads with Jillian ALL the time.

Then, one day, (probably her being decent), I saw her in a different light.

We still disagree a lot, but I don't get worked up over this shit and I take it she doesn't either. And she's right. We get along fine. I hate to out her, but she's actually pretty bright and a nice person.

Then they made her a maude, so now I really have to behave.

Fuck.

I hate behaving.

 

[jillian]

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

given how you address me, you're lucky to get any responses at all.

as for liability... he and i get along fine.

butt out. thanks mucho.

I used to butt heads with Jillian ALL the time.

Then, one day, (probably her being decent), I saw her in a different light.

We still disagree a lot, but I don't get worked up over this shit and I take it she doesn't either. And she's right. We get along fine. I hate to out her, but she's actually pretty bright and a nice person.

Then they made her a maude, so now I really have to behave.

Fuck.

I hate behaving.

You just outed yourself. Heh!

Now everyone knows you actually like a lib.

 

[Liability]

given how you address me, you're lucky to get any responses at all.

as for liability... he and i get along fine.

butt out. thanks mucho.

I used to butt heads with Jillian ALL the time.

Then, one day, (probably her being decent), I saw her in a different light.

We still disagree a lot, but I don't get worked up over this shit and I take it she doesn't either. And she's right. We get along fine. I hate to out her, but she's actually pretty bright and a nice person.

Then they made her a maude, so now I really have to behave.

Fuck.

I hate behaving.

You just outed yourself. Heh!

Now everyone knows you actually like a lib.

As the former mayor of D.C once said: "bitch set me up!"

 

[jillian]

I used to butt heads with Jillian ALL the time.

Then, one day, (probably her being decent), I saw her in a different light.

We still disagree a lot, but I don't get worked up over this shit and I take it she doesn't either. And she's right. We get along fine. I hate to out her, but she's actually pretty bright and a nice person.

Then they made her a maude, so now I really have to behave.

Fuck.

I hate behaving.

You just outed yourself. Heh!

Now everyone knows you actually like a lib.

As the former mayor of D.C once said: "bitch set me up!"

Talk to the hand

 

[Qball]

Though I've been a fan, if you will, of George Will for years, I have to echo Levin's sentiments. I find the arguments that the Supreme Court decision last week was a victory for conservatives to be part of the overall problem with conservatives today. It's too cute and clever by half. I'm not saying we can't make it work in our favor, but to be sure, this was a battle that we lost. Period.

 

[Liability]

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.

all kidding aside... my con law professor did an amicus on brown v board of ed and was one of the assistant prosecutors at neuremberg....pretty smart guy. he'd have found levin's analysis inconsistent with any rational means of constitutional construction.

levin is smug and treats the constitution as if it were a rightwing tool. it isn't...wasn't and wasn't ever intended to be restrictively interpreted. it was supposed to be expansively interpreted so as to be the last bastion of protection between minorities and the tyranny of the majority.

treating the constitution as if the words don't have to be construed and defined would be appalling to him. i'm sorry he's gone. he'd have laughed at levin and his ilk. but i defy you to tell me what "equal protection" means absent the caselaw. i defy you to tell me what "unreasonable search and seizure" is absent the caselaw. i defy you to define protected "speech" absent the caselaw.

well, maybe he wouldn't have laughed ...he might have been saddened that everything he worked for was being trashed by pretenders.

All joking aside, the question is not what some old senile law professor would find Levin's analysis to be.

The question is much more blunt.

Was Levin's analysis correct? It was.

There is absolutely ZERO credibility to the CJ's authored "opinion."

Get right down to it. Stop with all the lib sophistry.

If Congress can do this based on the taxing authority, then what things are out of reach to them now based on the taxing authority?

My Law School Professor in Con Law was a smart guy, too. Clerked for a SCOTUS Justice an e'ything. But I don't cite his thinking. And whatever addled bullshit half the fucking lib professors say is equally beside the point.

What is important is honest analysis of what the ObamaCare decision says and what it did.

 

[paulitician]

George Will has unfortunately become a soft RINO. It's his age, and his many many years being the Token Conservative at Liberal Media Outlets like the Washington Post & ABC. Time for him to hang it up and go away.

 

[Liability]

* * * * I am well aware of the fact that a conscientious judge must sometimes rule in a manner that he personally disagrees with. But the majority opinion appears to be a result looking for a rationale, which is the antithesis of what I ever thought would be the approach of John Roberts. One of his new admirers described his opinion as “incoherent but brilliant.” That’s the most depressing thing I have read in a long time. * * * *

-- excerpted from: The Roberts Opinion - Fred Thompson - National Review Online

It was incoherent. But it was far from brilliant. It was fucking dishonest and fucking stupid.

Shameful.

The Chief Justice SHOULD resign.

 

[Dot Com]

hey Liability. the Affordable Care Act can be repealed given the right circumstances. Robert's conservative precedent cannot.

 

[Liability]

hey Liability. the Affordable Care Act can be repealed given the right circumstances. Robert's conservative precedent cannot.

Partly true. ObamaCare is destined to get repealed provided the Senate flips to the GOP with enough non-Rinos to get the job done.

The clusterfuck very much non-conservative "precedent," however CAN be overruled.

The problem is, it will take a fair amount of time to undo the damage inflicted by his mindless and dishonest judicial activism.

 

[Si modo]

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

George Will is right.

 

[Liability]

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

George Will is right.

No. He isn't. He was flatly wrong.

Levin is right.

No need to shhhhh. We can shout it from the mountaintops.

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

and yet here you are posting on a website and he is still on ABC...funny that huh...


anyways i think Will is slightly right. I can certainly see his point without having to call him crazy. The right if they play this correctly could win out big come november.

I think this idea that it should have been struck down would have been great for the right short term, but would have backfired down the road. Obama could have played it up better while running.

So it would seem to me Roberts was thinking more longterm and not so much short term.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

George Will is right.

No. He isn't. He was flatly wrong.

Will is right.

No need to shhhhh. We can shout it from the mountaintops.

Whether you ssshhhh or ssshhhouuutttt, Levin is wrong and Will right.

 

[Liability]

George Will is right.

No. He isn't. He was flatly wrong.

Levin is right.

No need to shhhhh. We can shout it from the mountaintops.

Whether you ssshhhh or ssshhhouuutttt, Levin is wrong and Will right.

Nope. As always, poseur that you are, you have things bass ackwards.

Will was wrong.

Levin is right.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

George Will is right.

No. He isn't. He was flatly wrong.

Levin is right.

No need to shhhhh. We can shout it from the mountaintops.

Whether you ssshhhh or ssshhhouuutttt, Levin is wrong and Will right.

I'm going to bookmarked this for when SCOTUS uses it to overturn Wickard

 

[JakeStarkey]

Says L the poseur. All is good, Jonah. Stay with Will and a right of center GOP will be on track.

 

[Liability]

Says L the poseur. All is good, Jonah. Stay with Will and a right of center GOP will be on track.

Fakey, you remain entirely derivative in your cheap rhetoric.


Just because you have been fully exposed and recognized as being a fraud doesn't mean everybody else is.

The GOP needs to move BACK from your liberal Democrat fifth column direction, you phony.

Will says some smart things from time to time.

But pretending that the insidious decision by CJ Roberts in the ObamaTax case is actually a "good" thing is simply stupid and baseless.

There is nothing good in it. There is no silver lining.

It was a fucked up decision based on fucked up reasoning and an abandonment of actual conservative principles. It was lousy judicial reasoning. It was dangerous to the Republic and we are going to have to pay a heavy toll for the stupidity he inflicted on us.

You libs applaud that kind of thing, of course.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You, as a far right delusional reactionary, have a hard time understanding you have fallen again.

Get up and get moving.