And they’ll cry a thousand more… if it’ll somehow erase that black bastard from ever existing in THEIR White House. Actually, scratch that, they’ll cry a thousand oceans either way.
Mark Steyn, National Weeping Child Brigade:
So the manly-men of manly National Review has been in perpetual fail mode since the ACA Supreme Court decision. Because nothing says stalwart intellectualism like weeping like a toddler because Mommy wasn’t willing to knock over a 7-11 for you.
But of all the responses, perpetual slimeball Mark Steyn has possibly the most ironically titled, so he wins the Kewpie doll.
Shorter (or the last port before Jungle):
- The Supreme Court barely avoiding making a mockery of the Court system in one single case is a violation of our constitutional right to win at everything!
The Affordable Care Act decision, much like the bill itself, has me feeling rather ambivalent. On one hand, the ACA is an important political victory for Democrats and may make small, but important reforms in how healthcare works in this country. Not to mention that the exchange part of the bill and the protections against pre-existing condition horseshit are extremely sexy. And the Supreme Court rejecting the “but we wanna destroy the black man” nonsense is possibly a sign that the Judicial Branch isn’t completely fucked yet…
Buuuut, the bill is also deeply problematic. It’s a conservative idea in the first place and mostly serves to entrench our dysfunctional insurance-based health care system and make it harder to get rid of on the day we decide to join the first world nations. Additionally it mostly papers over problems of lack of health care access by making it about “lacking health insurance” instead, which opens some big gaping doors to shady practices already going on in the insurance world of giving insurance on paper which is almost impossible to take advantage of in any real way.
And the decision itself was a narrow decision it had no reason to be and elides over the deep rot going on in our Judicial Branch and the need to fix it. Not to mention that for as much of a political victory this was, I imagine in a purely cold political calculation, running against the fuckers gleefully celebrating denying people health care would have been the easiest fucking campaign in the world and possibly one even Democrats couldn’t have fucked up.
But still, it’s probably a net good thing as any incremental change out of the horror show that was the state of our health care system would have to be.
And now that that’s all out of my system, let’s enjoy the most important thing about all of this. No, not the people who might receive better health care, that’d just be silly. No, it’s obviously wingnuts experiencing such extreme butthurt it can be heard from space.
Three months ago, I quoted George Jonas on the 30th anniversary of Canada’s ghastly “Charter of Rights and Freedoms”: “There seems to be an inverse relationship between written instruments of freedom, such as a Charter, and freedom itself,” wrote Jonas. “It’s as if freedom were too fragile to be put into words: If you write down your rights and freedoms, you lose them.”
Yes, actually writing out some sort of Constitution or Bill of Rights to protect the people from their government is the surest sign of an autocratic nightmare.
Why if you do that, you lose the ability to fuck over the people like you want and deny them rights if they start getting uppity about their lords and masters and what other freedom could possibly matter against that?
Also, is anyone at all shocked that Conservatives have gotten to the point where they are arguing against Constitutions and Bill of Rights?
For longer than one might have expected, the U.S. Constitution was a happy exception to that general rule
I need to include this line because we got the rubes all riled up on fetishizing the Constitution and our Founders as a pantheon of Gods and thus can’t immediately start passing out the armbands without popping the clutch.
— until, that is, the contortions required to reconcile a republic of limited government with the ambitions of statism rendered U.S. constitutionalism increasingly absurd.
Until… there was a Constitutional Convention to write the thing? Cause, yeah, that’s what the Constitution WAS. We tried the whole State’s Rights thing with the Articles of Confederation and it failed so hard it left impact marks in the ground. And so we deliberately wrote something where a central confab of cool cats got to rule over the states and actually get shit accomplished.
But hey, to all the Secessionist Wannabes, I gotta say, I’m finally to the point where my answer to you is:
Let’s let America balkanize into its constituent parts and see just how long the conservative ones can survive entirely on their conservative economic and social policies without the liberal states underwriting their mistakes and cleaning up the big messes when they happen.
I’m sure it will be illuminating.
As I also wrote three months ago (yes, yes, don’t worry, there’s a couple of sentences of new material in amongst all the I-told-you-so stuff)
As if he bothered to update the screed he’s probably had waiting on his desktop for months. I mean, if your job was to scare the rubes before and scare them after and you weren’t constrained by things like reality, would you bother updating anything or writing anything new?
“The United States is the only Western nation in which our rulers invoke the Constitution for the purpose of overriding it — or, at any rate, torturing its language beyond repair.”
Oh no! Not torturing its language! Why, is there anything worse than torturing language (by following explicitly written rights of the Legislature enumerated in the actual Constitution part of the Constitution)? Why that’s like double Hitler and is totally infinitely worse than actually torturing meaningless people in violation of International War Crime Law!
I mean, how can liberals sleep at night being party to such a thing!
Thus, the Supreme Court’s Obamacare decision. No one could seriously argue that the Framers’ vision of the Constitution intended to provide philosophical license for a national government (“federal” hardly seems le mot juste) whose treasury could fine you for declining to make provision for a chest infection that meets the approval of the Commissar of Ailments.
Philosophical License of the Constitution?
Well, yeah, without hitting the hash pipe with a piece of fucking paper, I’d definitely be unable to figure that one out.
Of course, I could ask my good buddy Alexander Hamilton when he wrote out the philosophical defense for the existence of a Federal government in the Federalist Papers (30-36 being the most apt).
I could also ignore that hand-wave and just look at the explicit Legal right written RIGHT FUCK THERE in the Constitution’s list of powers given to the Legislative. Specifically the clause allowing regulation of interstate commerce and allowing the setting of fines, levies, and taxes.
But hey, maybe Mark Steyn is a time-traveler from 1776 and thus assumes that the Articles of Confederation are the current Constitution.
Yet on Thursday Chief Justice Roberts did just that. And conservatives are supposed to be encouraged that he did so by appeal to the Constitution’s taxing authority rather than by a massive expansion of the Commerce Clause. Indeed, several respected commentators portrayed the Chief Justice’s majority vote as a finely calibrated act of constitutional seemliness.
Yeah, I know you’re just working the refs and all, but calling a routine aspect of the Commerce Clause a “massive expansion” doesn’t actually make it so.
Also, I’m not sure you get to bitch about any motion around Constitutional clauses. Yeah, maybe if you weren’t the fuckers inventing Free Speech Zones, deciding money was free speech, but free speech counters to money wasn’t, deciding that the right to a militia gave you the right to gun down kids without even needing a trial, or that you could decide rights to a fair trial just straight up didn’t apply to people you didn’t like.
But since not, fuck you and your weepy horseshit about something actually enumerated in the Constitution. If you didn’t like it, maybe you should have passed a constitutional amendment. Or hell, maybe you could have actually read the thing.
Just throwing out ideas, Marky boy.
Great. That and $4.95 will get you a decaf macchiato in the Supreme Court snack bar. There’s nothing constitutionally seemly about a Court decision that says this law is only legal because the people’s representatives flat-out lied to the people when they passed it.
Really? We can just strike out laws we don’t like if the people who passed it lied to get them passed? Cause if that’s the case, I’m rather looking forward to the last 30 years of conservative legislative victories being erased from existence.
Throughout the Obamacare debates, Democrats explicitly denied it was a massive tax hike: “You reject that it’s a tax increase?” George Stephanopoulos demanded to know on ABC. “I absolutely reject that notion,” replied the president. Yet “that notion” is the only one that would fly at the Supreme Court. The jurists found the individual mandate constitutional by declining to recognize it as a mandate at all. For Roberts’ defenders on the right, this is apparently a daring rout of Big Government: Like Nelson contemplating the Danish fleet at the Battle of Copenhagen, the chief justice held the telescope to his blind eye and declared, “I see no ships.”
So, lemme get this straight. Since Roberts only did his fucking job and didn’t make the Judicial Branch a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Branch in this single case when he was allowed to give credence to a right-wing scare-word to help out his party, that proves that your nonsense horseshit was correct?
But hey, taxes are also super legal according to the Constitution, so again how is this a bad decision that flaunts the Constitution and all that?
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but a handful of judges rule that it’s a rare breed of elk, then all’s well. The chief justice, on the other hand, looks, quacks, and walks like the Queen in Alice in Wonderland: “Sentence first — verdict afterwards.” The Obama administration sentences you to a $695 fine, and a couple of years later the queens of the Supreme Court explain what it is you’re guilty of. A. V. Dicey’s famous antipathy to written constitutions and preference for what he called (in a then largely unfamiliar coinage) the “rule of law” has never looked better.
Instead, constitutionalists argue that Chief Roberts has won a Nelson-like victory over the ever-expanding Commerce Clause. Big deal — for is his new, approved, enhanced taxing power not equally expandable? And, in attempting to pass off a confiscatory penalty as a legitimate tax, Roberts inflicts damage on the most basic legal principles.
Wow. Not even gonna try, are you?
Just going to roll in the dirt and scream until Mommy lets you have your way. Well, sorry Marky boy, but Mommy said fuck this noise and went into the alley with those 3 good looking boys from the local Community Center.
Also, wingnuts of the world, please do start a Scorched Earth campaign against the right to levy fines. I’m sure the Finance and Insurance industry would love you for that once you’ve completely destroyed the Car Insurance industry and prevented any means of banks to nickel and dime us to death.
I have great respect for George Will, but his assertion that the Supreme Court decision is a “huge victory” that will “help revive a venerable tradition” of “viewing congressional actions with a skeptical constitutional squint” and lead to a “sharpening” of “many Americans’ constitutional consciousness” is sufficiently delusional that one trusts mental health is not grounds for priority check-in at the death panel.
Oh how cute, the wingnuts are still pretending that death panels are a real thing.
Though apparently they no longer are the evil government forces that sentence little old ladies to death, but an actual physical place much like Auschwitz wherein the reaping of conservative souls will take place.
How very sad… that that somehow got out. Fess up, you bastards, who squealed?!?
Back in the real world, it is a melancholy fact that tens of millions of Americans are far more European in their view of government than the nation’s self-mythologizing would suggest. Indeed, citizens of many Continental countries now have more — what’s the word? — liberty in matters of health care than Americans. That’s to say, they have genuinely universal government systems alongside genuinely private-system alternatives.
So very much a deal. We will scrap this evil Obamacare in a nanosecond if you give us the European health care system and we all get free universal health care while you get to pay extra for the ambiance of specialness.
Just tell us where to sign. But remember, no takebacks.
Only in America does “health” “care” “reform” begin with the hiring of 16,500 new IRS agents tasked with determining whether your insurance policy merits a fine.
Oooooh, scary IRS people! Be scared of the IRS, they’ll break into your home and shoot your dog… wait… that doesn’t sound right.
It is the perverse genius of Obamacare that it will kill off what’s left of a truly private health sector without leading to a truly universal system. However, it will be catastrophically unaffordable, hideously bureaucratic, and ever more coercive. So what’s not to like?
God damn, would I pay money to live in the world wingnut’s imagine they do!
A world where the ACA, instead of propping up a dying private health care industry and making it nearly impossible to excise, actually did just straight up give us full government health care?
Where it was so amazing it made European systems look like American ones? Fuck, they couldn’t take my money fast enough for that to be true.
To give Chief Justice Roberts’ argument more credit than it deserves, governments use taxes as a form of incentive. There is mortgage tax relief because the state feels home ownership is generally a good thing. Conversely, not buying health insurance is a bad thing, so such anti-social behavior should be liable to a kind of anti-social tax. But, as presently constituted, the Supreme Court’s new “tax” is a steal — $695 is cheaper than most annual health-insurance policies. Especially when, under Obamacare, you’re allowed to wait till you get ill to take out health insurance, and you can’t be turned down. Which is why the cost of insurance is already rising, and will rise higher still down the road. Which means that in a few years’ time paying the penalty will look even more of a bargain, at least until you fall off the roof or acquire an uncooperative polyp.
This is an amazingly persuasive argument…
For a universal health care system and a rejection of the very watered-down bullshit your side fought to compromise to.
Again, we’re perfectly happy with a redo as long as you stick to these totally not disingenuous arguments and go fully behind a real universal government health care system.
Also, on a whole other note, OF COURSE YOU DON’T NEED HEALTH INSURANCE UNTIL YOU GET SICK, THAT’S THE FUCKING POINT!
You have health insurance or insurance in general so that when something catastrophic does happen, you’re not completely fucked over. It’s like how car insurance is useless if you never get into an accident or life insurance is useless if you never die.
Right now, many Americans are, by any rational measure, over-insured.
That will be far less affordable in the future. Some are already downgrading to less lavish-
No, don’t go on, what the fuck was that line? Americans are, by any rational measure, over-insured? Just plopped into the middle of a paragraph like it wasn’t a rotting log left in the middle of the dinner party?
No, Mark, you don’t get to do that. I demand an explanation.
That will be far less affordable in the future. Some are already downgrading to less lavish policies. Those with barebones policies might likewise find it makes more sense to downgrade to the $695 penalty. What Chief Justice Roberts sees as the Alternative Mandate Tax, millions of Americans will see as a de facto Alternative Minimum Health Plan.
Fine. Ignore me.
Who knows? Chances are I’m wrong
Yes, the chances are very high on that.
, and the justices are wrong, and the government’s wrong, and the consequences of Obamacare will be of a nature none of us has foreseen.
Wouldn’t that normally be the setup for a bad thing? I mean, I had my own wishy-washy bit up top, and at least had the sense to have the good stuff preceded by good-leaning rhetoric.
Have you spent so much time writing scare-tactic bullshit that your rhetoric is permanently stuck in “oogie boogie”?
Cause, wow… that’s actually legitimately sad.
I’m not entirely sure how to feel about the rest of your-
But we already know Obama’s been wrong about pretty much everything — you can keep your own doc, your premiums won’t go up, it’s not a tax, etc. — and in the Republic of Paperwork multi-trillion-dollar cost overruns and ever greater bureaucratic sclerosis seem the very least you can bet on. It should also be a given that this decision is a forlorn marker on a great nation’s descent into steep decline and decay.
And I’m back!
So let’s see here, on the false-o-meter how high we can go. Um, let’s see, since there’s nothing banning people with health insurance from having it, I’m not sure how the fact that National Review cheaped out and switched carriers is Obama’s fault. Ditto on premiums.
Hey, you know how you could have avoided having our shitty private health care system? Not fighting for it.
Don’t like the consequences of a private health care system that can jack up the prices, eliminate doctors and otherwise fuck with you like the peon you are, then maybe you should stop being utterly terrified that the pencil pusher in charge of your paperwork received a government salary.
Fuck, I’m not sure how any government involvement would be worse. We already have insurance pong whenever anyone is foolish enough to use their private insurance, thus forcing endless reams of paperwork fighting someone whose job consists of rejecting everything. At least the uncaring government bureaucrat has a job description of actually helping you rather than fucking you over.
And on a serious note, let this be yet another stone marker in how the successful right-wing campaign to turn words like government into religious evil words one must shun to prove membership in the tribe royally fucks over the tribe most of all.
He really really wants a government run system where he doesn’t have to fight through 12 companies just to pay for a routine checkup. But the government=bad so he’ll fight tooth and nail in service to the shit he’s stuck with now, mostly by using arguments against the shit he’s stuck with now.
If you ever wanted to know how religion convinced serfs to not rebel against their abusive feudal lords, look no further!
Granted the dysfunctionalism of Canadian health care, there’s at least the consolation of an equality of crappiness for all except cabinet ministers and NHL players.
How did we get on Canadian health care? Is it because you referenced the Canadian Constitution in your first paragraph, cause…
Not gonna lie, that’s a pretty big rhetorical stretch even for you fuckers.
Here, it’s 2,800 unread pages of opt-outs, favors, cronyism, and a $695 fine for those guilty of no crime except wanting to live their lives without putting their bladder under the jurisdiction of Commissar Sebelius.
Wow, that’s a lot of dog whistles in one place. It’s almost like this entire post was a giant temper tantrum. And brushing up against sanity by arguing against our broken current health care system and abuses caused by the All-Sainted Free Market, triggered your Cognitive Dissonance something fierce. So fierce, that you needed to let loose a meaningless explosion of random scare-words and right-wing boogiemen just to avoid rational thought.
But that would be craziness brought on by not having Kathleen Sebelius control my pee…
Actually I’m not entirely sure where that last dog whistle was going.
Do… do you think that your being oppressed by female watersports participants?
And the Constitution is apparently cool with all that.
I don’t think the Constitution really has an opinion one way or another on female watersports. I’d imagine it’s one of those things covered by the Ninth Amendment, you know, the one you wingnuts like to pretend never existed.
So be it. It’s down to the people now — as it should be.
Well, yes, it was a legislative victory, so the correct response was always trying to get your dystopian nightmare society passed by the Legislature, ideally by arguing on behalf of making things worse on the national stage.
But you wanted to do an end-run around all that and ask Daddy Supreme Court to make it all better so that the Republicans would have another victory to rub in the face of Obama for the 2012 election.
Maybe you should have tried not sucking. I hear it’s very popular among non-losers.
But, meanwhile, a little less deference to judges wouldn’t go amiss. The U.S. Supreme Court is starting to look like Britain’s National Health Service — you wait two years to get in, and then they tell you there’s nothing wrong. And you can’t get a second opinion.
Another health care system I’d love to have instead of what got passed. Damnitt, Mark, could you stop with the teases already!
Also… I’m not sure I can tackle all the fail in this.
Um, yes, if you demand to go onto a specialist’s waiting list in any country for an imaginary disease, you probably will be told that there’s nothing wrong, so stop wasting the time of people who are actually sick.
But hey, why bother pointing that out, because we all know that it was just a disingenuous “be scared of Europeans and their health care jab” already undercut by you admitting that those are vastly superior because they are more government run and cut out the useless private-industry middle-men who only make money when they fuck people over.
And yes, when you waste everyone’s time appealing to the Supreme Court rather than trying to build public support for “the shitty system we have now, but this time forever” you do get to be beaten like a chump with no do-overs. Again, downside of being a total chump loser.
If you didn’t want to look like a complete moron, maybe you shouldn’t have rested all your 2012 hopes on your trained seals throwing away the rest of their dignity to serve Party first and try and rescue your failed ideology from itself by giving you a meaningless win.
Seriously, if they had handed you the win, what was the follow-up plan?
To trumpet to the heavens how you showed that black bastard and denied everyone health care?
Cause… probably wouldn’t have worked out the way you hoped it would.
‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard. Ensuring a long fisking is completely derailed by my early ambivalence to the decision itself is inventing by me. We are aware of all Internet traditions.™