This OP from my post in different thread. Levin deserves own thread on this!

[CrusaderFrank]

It feels like we're very close to hitting "Ctrl Atl Del" twice and rebooting the whole enterprise

You'd almost think that all the "chatter" recently (from MANY of the States, their legislators, Governors and leaders) to the effect that State Sovereignty has actual, literal and real meaning (yes Virginia, even today) would make SOME kind of an impression on the liberal Democratics in the Federal Government who are busy trying to erase the Constitutional structure of the United States.

But alas. No.

These liberal Democratic dorks think it's all just meaningless political venting. They are seemingly incapable of divining that -- possibly -- this is the beginning of a real and powerful movement. They lack imagination and they lack foresight.

A Republican won the "Kennedy Seat" in a state where non-living Dem voters outnumber Republicans

 

[Liability]

It feels like we're very close to hitting "Ctrl Atl Del" twice and rebooting the whole enterprise

You'd almost think that all the "chatter" recently (from MANY of the States, their legislators, Governors and leaders) to the effect that State Sovereignty has actual, literal and real meaning (yes Virginia, even today) would make SOME kind of an impression on the liberal Democratics in the Federal Government who are busy trying to erase the Constitutional structure of the United States.

But alas. No.

These liberal Democratic dorks think it's all just meaningless political venting. They are seemingly incapable of divining that -- possibly -- this is the beginning of a real and powerful movement. They lack imagination and they lack foresight.

A Republican won the "Kennedy Seat" in a state where non-living Dem voters outnumber Republicans

Indeed!

While I'll grant anybody who demands the concession that Sen. Brown is not exactly a poster-boy for modern American conservatism, he is STILL, despite that, not a liberal Democrat, either.

If the nominal "leadership" of the liberal Democrat Parody in this nation cannot appreciate that such a result in Massachusetts of all places IS a "tell," then there is not much hope for anybody educating those assclowns, ever, on anything.

 

[Wry Catcher]

IF (and to whatever extent) a so-called self-effectuating "rule" method of "passing" legislation has been used in the past, the present day use of that "technique" would still not be justified.

"But, Mommy! You let Timmy do it that way!" Great fucking legal scholarship, libs.

By CONTRAST, for those who are willing to discuss the actual issue (and not resort to the limp theory of faux 'precedent' as justification),* here is a link to the current DRAFT version of the Landmark Legal Foundation Complaint in pdf format.

http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/Landmark Complaint (00013086-2).pdf



Of course, since the House has not yet acted, the complaint cannot yet have been filed. And it might get tweaked a bit before it does get filed, if the House does act in this glaringly unConstitutional fashion.


_____________________
* It is instructive to look at Mr. Levin's draft complaint at paragraph numbered "28" on this point:

"* * * * Thus far in the public debate on the constitutionality of the Rule, Plaintiffs have detected a marked silence on the legal merits by
[7]
those who would support the use of the “deemed approved” approach to “passing” legislation. The debate on the other side of the issue has been confined to a recitation of other recent occasions when a “deemed approved” procedure was utilized, the claim being that it was employed principally to avoid approval of bills raising the national debt limit and was done so by both parties whose Members wanted to avoid actually having to cast a yea or nay because it was politically expedient not to. Whatever relevance that might have to a political debate, it carries no weight before this Court in favor of the procedure." Levin draft complaint, pp. 6-7, paragraph 28.

Gee, what a surprise. Another RW 'nonprofit' plans to file suit. The irony, someone is harmed by a medical procedure and the RW screams about tort reform. Now, the RW supports takiing a political fight to the courts, and a radio talk show host hopes to win ratings, even if the legal reasoning is flawed.
Of course given the fact that the USSC has four RWers and one Wobbler on the bench,
special interestes only need to convince these five white male Catholics (and the Catholic Bishops have already made the case by claiming health care will pay for abortion).

 

[Liability]

* * * *

Gee, what a surprise. Another RW 'nonprofit' plans to file suit. The irony, someone is harmed by a medical procedure and the RW screams about tort reform. Now, the RW supports takiing a political fight to the courts, and a radio talk show host hopes to win ratings, even if the legal reasoning is flawed.
Of course given the fact that the USSC has four RWers and one Wobbler on the bench,
special interestes only need to convince these five white male Catholics (and the Catholic Bishops have already made the case by claiming health care will pay for abortion).

THIS is as good an example as any of why the above USMB member is known as Fly Catcher. What "catches" flies? Freshly deposited piles of dog shit!

There's not a hint of logic anywhere to be found in that gibberish.

"Tort reform" is one separate issue. It is not a general attack on the Judiciary nor on resort to Courts in proper cases for redress of legal grievances. So, there is zero "irony" in suggesting that the present "malpractice" litigation problem requires some attention (tort reform) while simultaneously suggesting that invalid legislation can be atacked -- for legal reasons -- in a Court of law.

The composition of the SCOTUS is also not a valid basis to attack those who would attempt to prevent the idiot House from violating the Constitution. Leave it to a lunatic lib like Fly Catcher to try to create a race and religion issue out of a problem that has nothing to do with race or religion.

 

[Wry Catcher]

* * * *

Gee, what a surprise. Another RW 'nonprofit' plans to file suit. The irony, someone is harmed by a medical procedure and the RW screams about tort reform. Now, the RW supports takiing a political fight to the courts, and a radio talk show host hopes to win ratings, even if the legal reasoning is flawed.
Of course given the fact that the USSC has four RWers and one Wobbler on the bench,
special interestes only need to convince these five white male Catholics (and the Catholic Bishops have already made the case by claiming health care will pay for abortion).

THIS is as good an example as nay of why the above USMB member is known as Fly Catcher. What "catches" flies? Freshly deposited piles of dog shit!

There's not a hint of logic anywhere to be found in that gibberish.

"Tort reform" is one separate issue. It is not a general attack on the Judiciary nor on resort to Courts in proper cases for redress of legal grievances. So, there is zero "irony" in suggesting that the present "malpractice" litigation problem requires some attention (tort reform) while simultaneously suggesting that invalid legislation can be atacked -- for legal reasons -- in a Court of law.

The composition of the SCOTUS is also not a valid basis to attack those who would attempt to prevent the idiot House from violating the Constitution. Leave it to a lunatic lib like Fly Catcher to try to create a race and religion issue out of a problem that has nothing to do with race or religion.

This board is not about logic dipshit, it's mostly about emotion, though it provides the best evidence of the hypocrisy of RWers, such as yourself. Each post you present is additional evidence you're a punk and a crybaby.
The source of your post is nothing but a RW piece of crap, that too is not logic - it's a fact.

 

[Sarah G]

IF (and to whatever extent) a so-called self-effectuating "rule" method of "passing" legislation has been used in the past, the present day use of that "technique" would still not be justified.

"But, Mommy! You let Timmy do it that way!" Great fucking legal scholarship, libs.

By CONTRAST, for those who are willing to discuss the actual issue (and not resort to the limp theory of faux 'precedent' as justification),* here is a link to the current DRAFT version of the Landmark Legal Foundation Complaint in pdf format.

http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/Landmark Complaint (00013086-2).pdf



Of course, since the House has not yet acted, the complaint cannot yet have been filed. And it might get tweaked a bit before it does get filed, if the House does act in this glaringly unConstitutional fashion.


_____________________
* It is instructive to look at Mr. Levin's draft complaint at paragraph numbered "28" on this point:

"* * * * Thus far in the public debate on the constitutionality of the Rule, Plaintiffs have detected a marked silence on the legal merits by
[7]
those who would support the use of the “deemed approved” approach to “passing” legislation. The debate on the other side of the issue has been confined to a recitation of other recent occasions when a “deemed approved” procedure was utilized, the claim being that it was employed principally to avoid approval of bills raising the national debt limit and was done so by both parties whose Members wanted to avoid actually having to cast a yea or nay because it was politically expedient not to. Whatever relevance that might have to a political debate, it carries no weight before this Court in favor of the procedure." Levin draft complaint, pp. 6-7, paragraph 28.

They might not need deemed approved but if they do, they will use it.

In their attempt to pass a sweeping health care overhaul this weekend, House Democrats are pushing a package of legislative fixes to lure undecided or opposed members of their party to the "yes" category.

Proposed changes to the Senate-passed health care bill include a scaled-back tax on high-cost health insurance plans – a provision that is widely unpopular with House Democrats – and more money to help states pay for an expansion of Medicaid, the state-federal health program for the poor and disabled. The new measure, called a reconciliation bill, also would take additional steps to close a gap in Medicare prescription drug coverage and to help low- and middle-income Americans purchase health insurance through new insurance exchanges.

9 major changes in the new health care bill - Health care- msnbc.com

/

 

[Liability]

IF (and to whatever extent) a so-called self-effectuating "rule" method of "passing" legislation has been used in the past, the present day use of that "technique" would still not be justified.

"But, Mommy! You let Timmy do it that way!" Great fucking legal scholarship, libs.

By CONTRAST, for those who are willing to discuss the actual issue (and not resort to the limp theory of faux 'precedent' as justification),* here is a link to the current DRAFT version of the Landmark Legal Foundation Complaint in pdf format.

http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/Landmark Complaint (00013086-2).pdf



Of course, since the House has not yet acted, the complaint cannot yet have been filed. And it might get tweaked a bit before it does get filed, if the House does act in this glaringly unConstitutional fashion.


_____________________
* It is instructive to look at Mr. Levin's draft complaint at paragraph numbered "28" on this point:

"* * * * Thus far in the public debate on the constitutionality of the Rule, Plaintiffs have detected a marked silence on the legal merits by
[7]
those who would support the use of the “deemed approved” approach to “passing” legislation. The debate on the other side of the issue has been confined to a recitation of other recent occasions when a “deemed approved” procedure was utilized, the claim being that it was employed principally to avoid approval of bills raising the national debt limit and was done so by both parties whose Members wanted to avoid actually having to cast a yea or nay because it was politically expedient not to. Whatever relevance that might have to a political debate, it carries no weight before this Court in favor of the procedure." Levin draft complaint, pp. 6-7, paragraph 28.

They might not need deemed approved but if they do, they will use it.

In their attempt to pass a sweeping health care overhaul this weekend, House Democrats are pushing a package of legislative fixes to lure undecided or opposed members of their party to the "yes" category.

Proposed changes to the Senate-passed health care bill include a scaled-back tax on high-cost health insurance plans – a provision that is widely unpopular with House Democrats – and more money to help states pay for an expansion of Medicaid, the state-federal health program for the poor and disabled. The new measure, called a reconciliation bill, also would take additional steps to close a gap in Medicare prescription drug coverage and to help low- and middle-income Americans purchase health insurance through new insurance exchanges.

9 major changes in the new health care bill - Health care- msnbc.com

/

That's silly. IF they alter whatever the Senate already passed in any respect, then all they will be doing is passing a different version than the Senate version. But they already DID that. No need to do it again. What they are NOW doing (or about to do) is to DEEM the version they passed (which was never in any way akin to the Senate version) to nevertheless have been the Senate version. And the REASON they want to engage in this fraud is PRECISELY BECAUSE they do not want to have to hammer out a "compromise" version also known as a reconciled bill. For if they do that, then both houses will AGAIN have to vote on the reconciliation version after it gets out of some joint committee.

No no.

The "deemed passed" fraud is undertaken so that they can AVOID having to now hammer out ANY changes at all. That way the fraudulent bill can be sent to the President for his signature. LATER ON, supposedly, there will be other bills to amend the bill already (by that time) passed and signed. Good luck House Members. The Senate will NEVER do that shit. It's a con job by the liberal Democrat House Leadership ON their own members!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

* * * *

Gee, what a surprise. Another RW 'nonprofit' plans to file suit. The irony, someone is harmed by a medical procedure and the RW screams about tort reform. Now, the RW supports takiing a political fight to the courts, and a radio talk show host hopes to win ratings, even if the legal reasoning is flawed.
Of course given the fact that the USSC has four RWers and one Wobbler on the bench,
special interestes only need to convince these five white male Catholics (and the Catholic Bishops have already made the case by claiming health care will pay for abortion).

THIS is as good an example as nay of why the above USMB member is known as Fly Catcher. What "catches" flies? Freshly deposited piles of dog shit!

There's not a hint of logic anywhere to be found in that gibberish.

"Tort reform" is one separate issue. It is not a general attack on the Judiciary nor on resort to Courts in proper cases for redress of legal grievances. So, there is zero "irony" in suggesting that the present "malpractice" litigation problem requires some attention (tort reform) while simultaneously suggesting that invalid legislation can be atacked -- for legal reasons -- in a Court of law.

The composition of the SCOTUS is also not a valid basis to attack those who would attempt to prevent the idiot House from violating the Constitution. Leave it to a lunatic lib like Fly Catcher to try to create a race and religion issue out of a problem that has nothing to do with race or religion.

This board is not about logic dipshit, it's mostly about emotion, though it provides the best evidence of the hypocrisy of RWers, such as yourself. Each post you present is additional evidence you're a punk and a crybaby.
The source of your post is nothing but a RW piece of crap, that too is not logic - it's a fact.

ROFLMNAO...

"A punk and a cry-baby..." and from what does this charge stem? Why the illicit use of a parlamentary ruse to undermine the deomocratic processes required by the US Constitution... OKA: A Legislative fraud.

And what have we learned from this little exercise; we've learned that the ideological Left and the Democrat Party; are proponents of deceit, theft and... fraud.

Harken back to the little discussion of a week or so ago on Plagiarism... recall that the Ideological Left found little to be concerned about where intellectual deceit is involved and sought to the extent of their means to belittle the notion of intellectual virtue...

Nothing new here kids... this is simply another example where the Humanists are demonstrating the foolishness that one can expect moral clarity from moral relativists.

As a recent US Executive once noted boys and girls; One is either with us or one is with the enemy... and what you see being demonstrated in the conspiracy between the present legislature and the present Executive and their comrades on this board; is indisputable evidence; conclusive proof; that they are decidedly NOT with US.

Anyone need any more than that?

 

[Liability]

* * * *
This board is not about logic dipshit, it's mostly about emotion, though it provides the best evidence of the hypocrisy of RWers, such as yourself. Each post you present is additional evidence you're a punk and a crybaby.
The source of your post is nothing but a RW piece of crap, that too is not logic - it's a fact.

This Board is very often about nothing but emotion. This explains the idiocy of your above quoted post, for example.

But many of us (certainly not you) post by resorting to facts and logic.

And, as is so often the case (i.e., almost exclusively) what you said in your closing spew is also incorrect. The source of my "quote" was the draft complaint. The material contained within the draft complaint is actually rather high caliber legal work; legal work which was itself predicated on an understanding (which YOU lack) of the Constitution and certain Constitutional case law.

Nothing you posted is a "fact." You are able only to voice your generally incoherent mere opinion.

 

[George Costanza]

...and it is quite evident that you silly, adolescent, liberal shitheads cannot discuss a topic without your puerile nature being exposed.

Liberalism is a mental disorder!

Anyone besides me see the irony of this post? Or, possibly, hypocrisy would be a better term.

 

[Wry Catcher]

IF (and to whatever extent) a so-called self-effectuating "rule" method of "passing" legislation has been used in the past, the present day use of that "technique" would still not be justified.

"But, Mommy! You let Timmy do it that way!" Great fucking legal scholarship, libs.

By CONTRAST, for those who are willing to discuss the actual issue (and not resort to the limp theory of faux 'precedent' as justification),* here is a link to the current DRAFT version of the Landmark Legal Foundation Complaint in pdf format.

http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/Landmark Complaint (00013086-2).pdf



Of course, since the House has not yet acted, the complaint cannot yet have been filed. And it might get tweaked a bit before it does get filed, if the House does act in this glaringly unConstitutional fashion.


_____________________
* It is instructive to look at Mr. Levin's draft complaint at paragraph numbered "28" on this point:

"* * * * Thus far in the public debate on the constitutionality of the Rule, Plaintiffs have detected a marked silence on the legal merits by
[7]
those who would support the use of the “deemed approved” approach to “passing” legislation. The debate on the other side of the issue has been confined to a recitation of other recent occasions when a “deemed approved” procedure was utilized, the claim being that it was employed principally to avoid approval of bills raising the national debt limit and was done so by both parties whose Members wanted to avoid actually having to cast a yea or nay because it was politically expedient not to. Whatever relevance that might have to a political debate, it carries no weight before this Court in favor of the procedure." Levin draft complaint, pp. 6-7, paragraph 28.

They might not need deemed approved but if they do, they will use it.

In their attempt to pass a sweeping health care overhaul this weekend, House Democrats are pushing a package of legislative fixes to lure undecided or opposed members of their party to the "yes" category.

Proposed changes to the Senate-passed health care bill include a scaled-back tax on high-cost health insurance plans – a provision that is widely unpopular with House Democrats – and more money to help states pay for an expansion of Medicaid, the state-federal health program for the poor and disabled. The new measure, called a reconciliation bill, also would take additional steps to close a gap in Medicare prescription drug coverage and to help low- and middle-income Americans purchase health insurance through new insurance exchanges.

9 major changes in the new health care bill - Health care- msnbc.com

/

That's silly. IF they alter whatever the Senate already passed in any respect, then all they will be doing is passing a different version than the Senate version. But they already DID that. No need to do it again. What they are NOW doing (or about to do) is to DEEM the version they passed (which was never in any way akin to the Senate version) to nevertheless have been the Senate version. And the REASON they want to engage in this fraud is PRECISELY BECAUSE they do not want to have to hammer out a "compromise" version also known as a reconciled bill. For if they do that, then both houses will AGAIN have to vote on the reconciliation version after it gets out of some joint committee.

No no.

The "deemed passed" fraud is undertaken so that they can AVOID having to now hammer out ANY changes at all. That way the fraudulent bill can be sent to the President for his signature. LATER ON, supposedly, there will be other bills to amend the bill already (by that time) passed and signed. Good luck House Members. The Senate will NEVER do that shit. It's a con job by the liberal Democrat House Leadership ON their own members!

Listen dipshit, as long as you choose to lecture on legal issues how about an explanation of the War Power Act in regards to the invasion and occupation of Iraq; or the Bush Doctrine as it relates to the invasion in 2001 of Afghanistan.
How about signing statements, or the attendees at Cheney's Energy Commission - explain where in the Constitution such actions are authorized.

 

[Liability]

* * * *

Listen dipshit, as long as you choose to lecture on legal issues how about an explanation of the War Power Act in regards to the invasion and occupation of Iraq; or the Bush Doctrine as it relates to the invasion in 2001 of Afghanistan.
How about signing statements, or the attendees at Cheney's Energy Commission - explain where in the Constitution such actions are authorized.

First of all, fuck yourself, pile'o'shit.

Secondly, suck shit.

Thirdly, drown in shit.

Now then: Whether a scumbag cockroach fucktard like you likes it or not, shit-hole, this happens to be a discussion board. And I'll discuss what I please when and where I please with or without your worthless okey-dokey, cockbite. Unlike you, however, you maggoty scum-sucking puke-licking ass-gobbler, I tend to stay on topic.

The topic of this thread, stupid, is not the War Powers Act nor is it the U.S. war efforts against the Islamofascist-goatfuckers. Likewise it is not "signing statements" which sub-moron dirtbags like you cannot appreciate anyway. And the topic has no connection to the efforts of the former Vice President to do something about our Energy needs and policies.

If I chose to "explain" to a sub-moron like you the Constitutionality (and actually the desirability) of a signing statement for example, there's not a chance on Earth it could penetrate all the way through your incredibly thick skull into that one living but woefully retarded brain cell anyway.

Finally, see first three points, above!

 

[Wry Catcher]

* * * *

Listen dipshit, as long as you choose to lecture on legal issues how about an explanation of the War Power Act in regards to the invasion and occupation of Iraq; or the Bush Doctrine as it relates to the invasion in 2001 of Afghanistan.
How about signing statements, or the attendees at Cheney's Energy Commission - explain where in the Constitution such actions are authorized.

First of all, fuck yourself, pile'o'shit.

Secondly, suck shit.

Thirdly, drown in shit.

Now then: Whether a scumbag cockroach fucktard like you likes it or not, shit-hole, this happens to be a discussion board. And I'll discuss what I please when and where I please with or without your worthless okey-dokey, cockbite. Unlike you, however, you maggoty scum-sucking puke-licking ass-gobbler, I tend to stay on topic.

The topic of this thread, stupid, is not the War Powers Act nor is it the U.S. war efforts against the Islamofascist-goatfuckers. Likewise it is not "signing statements" which sub-moron dirtbags like you cannot appreciate anyway. And the topic has no connection to the efforts of the former Vice President to do something about our Energy needs and policies.

If I chose to "explain" to a sub-moron like you the Constitutionality (and actually the desirability) of a signing statement for example, there's not a chance on Earth it could penetrate all the way through your incredibly thick skull into that one living but woefully retarded brain cell anyway.

Finally, see first three points, above! [/QUOTEmes]

Thanks for sharing shorty. btw, There is more about you in this post then you'd ever understand (and hypocrisy is one of your virtues, if one sought proportion).

 

[Liability]

* * * * /QUOTEmes]

Thanks for sharing shorty. btw, There is more about you in this post then you'd ever understand (and hypocrisy is one of your virtues, if one sought proportion).

LOL.

Sure.

Actual message you just gave is: You are unable to stay on topic. Check.

But we all already knew that about you.

New information derived about you from that post of yours:

You have no ability to properly use a simple quote function. And, you don't proofread your stupid blather before hitting the submit button.

Again, no surprise.

 

[Wry Catcher]

* * * * /QUOTEmes]

Thanks for sharing shorty. btw, There is more about you in this post then you'd ever understand (and hypocrisy is one of your virtues, if one sought proportion).

LOL.

Sure.

Actual message you just gave is: You are unable to stay on topic. Check.

But we all already knew that about you.

New information derived about you from that post of yours:

You have no ability to properly use a simple quote function. And, you don't proofread your stupid blather before hitting the submit button.

Again, no surprise.

No, I don't proof read. Why? As for staying on topic that is a forest and trees issue (again, I don't think you're bright enought to understand).

 

[Liability]

* * * * /QUOTEmes]

Thanks for sharing shorty. btw, There is more about you in this post then you'd ever understand (and hypocrisy is one of your virtues, if one sought proportion).

LOL.

Sure.

Actual message you just gave is: You are unable to stay on topic. Check.

But we all already knew that about you.

New information derived about you from that post of yours:

You have no ability to properly use a simple quote function. And, you don't proofread your stupid blather before hitting the submit button.

Again, no surprise.

No, I don't proof read. Why? As for staying on topic that is a forest and trees issue (again, I don't think you're bright enought to understand).

No need for you to "admit" that you don't proof read, nimrod. It's abundantly clear already!

And staying on topic is not a "forest and trees issue" in any way. What it is, instead, remains your inability to focus and/or your childish desire to deflect when you cannot coherently respond to a point that defeats your position.

I can understand why a person of your severely limited intellect is unable to cogently address the topic under discussion. No worries. It's understood: You are a retard. End of story.



NOW, out of Fly Catcher's realm, let's go back ON Topic:

For the rest of the USMB members who find their way into this thread: the topic isn't difficult. Mark Levin is prepared to take the Administration to Court to prevent them from trying to enforce the Health Care legislation should the House attempt to "pass" it by circumventing the clear requirements of Article I, Section 7.

I say Mark Levin and Landmark Legal are exactly right. In fact, I don't see how proponents of the "Slaughter Rule" can even manage with a straight face to pretend that it's anything BUT an intentional and devious attempt to circumvent the Constitution.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Listen dipshit, as long as you choose to lecture on legal issues how about an explanation of the War Power Act in regards to the invasion and occupation of Iraq; or the Bush Doctrine as it relates to the invasion in 2001 of Afghanistan.
How about signing statements, or the attendees at Cheney's Energy Commission - explain where in the Constitution such actions are authorized.

ROFL... Man ya can't hide ignorance... can ya kids?

Article 1 section 8 of the USC:

The Congress shall have Power ...

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water...

And Article Two Section 1; respectively;

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term,



Anything else...?