Quote: Frank Cannon wrote in post #25

---

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #23

---

Tell me, why is it that Ted Cruz is praised and exalted for offering an amendment to defund Obamacare although "he did not expect the amendment to pass" which, therefore, made his gesture symbolic, while House Republicans are despised because they "have symbolically voted to repeal Obamacare"............hmmmmm?

---

Because this isn't symbolic. The GOP controlled House controls the purse strings and can shut Obamacare down. Your bud Boner is afraid to do it because he might not get invited on another golf outing with Zero.

---

As unfortunate as it is, I'm afraid you're right about this, Frank.

The GOP run House could shut the Obamacare horror down, and yet Boehner is apparently more interested in being perceived as a compromiser (which the leftist media will never allow anyway), than to do the right thing for the country and its citizens and our future.

Quote: Palinista wrote in post #16

---

Quote: FP123 wrote in post #15

---

I thank God that at least he has his salvation.

---

I commiserate with you as a parent. My prayer is that my children will be rooted in their Christian faith because in the grand scheme of things nothing else matters.

May God bless your young son with wisdom and grace.

---

Thank you very much, and likewise for your children as well!

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #31

---

Here, let me simplify it for you because obviously that's necessary.

Ted Cruz: symbolism applauded
House GOP: symbolism condemned

See it now?

---

Simplify for me? Your response is that of a simpletons alright...

Ted Cruz: Symbolism applauded because it was the only thing at his disposal to go against Obamacare.

Boner: Symbolism mocked and derided because he has actual, tangible things at his disposal that can shut Obamacare down i.e.; defund the damn thing.

Quote: FP123 wrote in post #33

---

Quote: Palinista wrote in post #16

---

Quote: FP123 wrote in post #15

---

I thank God that at least he has his salvation.

---

I commiserate with you as a parent. My prayer is that my children will be rooted in their Christian faith because in the grand scheme of things nothing else matters.

May God bless your young son with wisdom and grace.

---

Thank you very much, and likewise for your children as well!

---

Thank you!

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #30

---

Quote: Frank Cannon wrote in post #25

---

Bo(eh)ner is afraid....

---

Speaker John Boehner is a ferocious warrior for truth, justice and all that is holy.

He fears nothing!

---

Yeah. He is the model of intestinal fortitude...

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #37

---

"The kind of man who wants the government to defund duly legislated laws is always the kind of man who posts idiotic graphics." -- H. L. Cedric

---

Thanks for finally outing yourself as an Obamacare loving, DC establishment toady. Now take your Statist ass back to DU, Polutico or whatever Progressive, Constitution hating site you crawled out of.

And before you come back at me and claim Obamacare is Constitutional because John Roberts says so, here is a list of other hits the Supreme Court saddled us with in the past that got flushed down the toilet later down the road...


1 The Slaughter-House Cases (1873). The very worst decision ever made by the US Supreme Court. Eviscerated the 14th Amendment only five years after its adoption. It is best known for reading the Privileges or Immunities Clause, which was supposed to be (and could have been) a vehicle for both incorporation and unenumerated rights, out of the Constitution. But it also wrote out the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause, though those two clauses eventually crawled back into existence, to a degree.
2 Katzenbach v. McClung (1964). It was tough to decide which of the various cases reading the Commerce Clause expansively enough to permit Congress to pass any law it desires, thus destroying the basis of the federal government as one of defined and limited powers to include. But McClung seems to be the most expansive in both its result and its holding.

3 West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937). Abdicated the Supreme Court’s responsibility to prevent states from violating “economic” rights. Unlike the Commerce Clause cases, which were weakly limited by Lopez and Morrison, the freedom of contract cases have never recovered from Justice Roberts’ despicable “switch in time.”
4 Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857). The Court almost always does a good thing when it invalidates a law as being unconstitutional. Not here, where Chief Justice Taney overturned the Missouri Compromise with its promise of some limitations on slavery, relying on a ridiculous, convoluted, and racist reading of the Constitution as mandating that all African-Americans forever be treated as property. Chief Justice Hughes was right to call it a “self-inflicted wound,” as it resulted in the stigmatization of the Court’s role in deciding the constitutionality of laws, in particular on substantive due process grounds.
5 Korematsu v. United States (1944). Held that the government could lock thousands of U.S. citizens in concentration camps because of military necessity. Introduced “strict scrutiny,” while demonstrating its patent inadequacy. On the plus side, Jackson’s and Murphy’s dissents are some of the best ever written.
6 United States v. Carolene Products (1938). Typical case of the post-’36 era ignoring the Court’s responsibility to decide the constitutionality of laws. But Footnote Four made it even worse. Justice Stone introduced the idea of levels of scrutiny, claiming that it was fine in some cases for the Court to abdicate its role as the arbiter of the Constitution but less so in others. Made “economic” rights count less than other rights – and ensured that no right would ever be upheld just because the Constitution guaranteed it. Rather, the Court should uphold unconstitutional laws as long as the legislature had a really good reason (only a not-totally-insane reason in other cases) for passing it.
7 Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). The Court decide that separate “but equal” was fine, and so refused to overturn blatantly unconstitutional Jim Crow laws for generations.
8 Shelley v. Kraemer (1948). The 14th Amendment – and the rest of the Constitution – impose limitations on what the government may do; that’s both in the text and the nature of what a constitution is. Shelley v. Kramer eviscerated the “No State shall…” language of the 14th Amendment, by invalidating private contracts as in violation of the Amendment.
9 City of Boerne v. Flores (1997). Bad for two reasons. First, it overturned the “ratchet” interpretation of Section 5 of the 14th Amendment given by Katzenbach v. Morgan, thus holding that Congress cannot prevent states from violating any rights the Court hasn’t already said the states can’t violate. Second, the particular law it overturned was the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, designed to restore Sherbert v. Verner‘s interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause over the Court’s interprtation of it in Employment Division v. Smith, where the Court held that laws of general applicability can constitutionally prohibit the free exercise of religion.
10 Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell (1934). Abandoned the Contract Clause, upholding a state law impairing the obligation of creditors to pay their debts.
11 Chevron v. NRDC (1984). Introduced “Chevron deference,” allowing administrative agencies to decide what the law is for themselves. Though higher courts review lower courts’ legal determinations de novo, administrative agencies get a much broader say in what the law is.
12 Buck v. Bell (1927). Justice Holmes upheld forced sterilization of the mentally ill, saying “three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

Quote: Frank Cannon wrote in post #38

---

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #37

---

"The kind of man who wants the government to defund duly legislated laws is always the kind of man who posts idiotic graphics." -- H. L. Cedric

---

Thanks for finally outing yourself as an Obamacare loving, DC establishment toady. Now take your Statist ass back to DU, Polutico or whatever Progressive, Constitution hating site you crawled out of.

---

I thought he was banned from FR.

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #40

---

Just never been a big fan of anarchy, Frank.

---

But you give Tyranny a big thumbs up?