Support NeoGAF

[WayneMorse]

Considering Durbin is next up for re-election in 2020 and he'll be 76 then he'll probably retire. Durbin's retirement is what Schock is betting on, but 2020 will also be an election year in solidly blue Illinois so I don't know what he's thinking.

Maybe he's betting on a Bruce Rauner run for President? I would be shocked if Rauner makes it that far as Governor without losing re-election or winding up in jail to be honest.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Dunno how a Senate election in Illinois would be competitive in a presidential year. Mark Kirk barely won in a midterm against an actual member of the mob.

 

[WayneMorse]

Who'll be next in line for Illinois Senate in 2020? Rahm?

 

[Hobbestetrician]

Bunch of Senators on Parks & Recreation tonight. Boxer, Gillebrand, McCain, Hatch and Booker. Since this season is set in 2017, guess that means they get reelected. And it means Hatch and Booker form a Polynesian folk band called 'Across the Isle'. Madeline Albright was on, too.

 

[Oblivion]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...-that-the-Obamacare-law-suit-is-full-of-holes

I know we've discussed this topic in quite a bit of detail, but did SUPER FIGHTING ROBOT, METAMAN!! ever offer a defense for why, if the Obamacare architects allegedy wanted to use the threat of state depriving subsidies for unruly Republican states, they decided to make said threat so utterly cryptic that it wasn't even discovered until several years after the law was written?

Jon Stewart is retiring from the Daily Show later this year.

So what's the point of watching Comedy Central now? South Park? LOL.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I know we've discussed this topic in quite a bit of detail, but did SUPER FIGHTING ROBOT, METAMAN!! ever offer a defense for why, if the Obamacare architects allegedy wanted to use the threat of state depriving subsidies for unruly Republican states, they decided to make said threat so utterly cryptic that it wasn't even discovered until several years after the law was written?

I think I like SUPER FIGHTING ROBOT METAMAN!! even more than Mephistopheles.

To answer your question, no. Instead, I explained why the question misses the point:

There is actually a rule of statutory interpretation that's roughly as you describe. However, that rule can't transform a lack of authorization into an authorization. Simply because Congress can state an ultimatum in the way that it did with Medicaid doesn't mean that it must. If the text of the statute only authorizes subsidies on the state exchanges, it doesn't matter that Congress doesn't expressly negate subsidies on the federal exchanges.

The key to interpreting a statute is the text of the statute. The title of my previous post is how I view things like Baucus' amicus brief filed with the D.C. Circuit. You may find it helpful to build your argument by looking at what this or that person says the law is; I find it critical in determining what the law is to look at what Congress said the law is--which is to say, the text of the statute itself, which is what Congress voted on and the president signed into law. The other stuff--speculating as to why the law says what it does--is less important to me, though it certainly doesn't hurt that a proffered interpretation of a statute is independently plausible.

[W]hen I talk about Congressional intent, I'm referring to Congressional intent as shown in[ t]he text of the statute. I have no idea what individual members of Congress subjectively believed, but that's beside the point. We aren't governed by the subjective beliefs or intentions of members of Congress--we're bound by the statutory texts they enact.

I believe that IRC s. 36B only authorizes tax credits for those who have enrolled in an insurance policy on an exchange established by a state, and not on an exchange established by HHS. I believe this because that’s what the text says. This interpretation is not “tortured,” despite that resort must be made to several definitions to understand the section. Instead, my interpretation is the only straightforward interpretation of the section.

. . .

So, Congress, in expressing how much of a credit an applicable taxpayer is entitled to, stated that that figure is the sum of the “premium assistance amounts” (which require that a qualified health plan be enrolled in through an “Exchange established by [a] State”) for all “coverage months” (which also require that a qualified health plan be enrolled in through an “Exchange established by [a] State”). This was no slip of the pen.

Note that at this point, I haven’t said one word about threats, incentives, or the Spending Clause. I don’t need to. The text is enough, and the text is clear.

 

[Amir0x]

David Axelrod going around the interview circuit today saying that Obama always was for gay marriage, but that he advised him that if he wanted to win back in 2008 he had to keep that a secret. He said Obama was readily arguing with him over it and that's why he came off so awkward when discussing the subject before he came out for it. Partially because being anti-gay was big in the Black Church circuit.

And of course as a State Senator he did sign that thing that said he was pro gay marriage, so it does support that view.

I don't think I've heard Axelrod say it was his council that made him stay silent on the issue for so long, although it does make one once again cognizant of how slimy politics are. But anyway, just thought it was a randomly interesting fact if the Axelrod point is new.

 

[Metaphoreus]

In other SCOTUS news, "Fisher II" reaches the Court:

Lawyers for Abigail Noel Fisher, the Texas woman who has waged a prolonged challenge to the use of race in selecting entering students for the University of Texas at Austin, filed a new case in the Supreme Court on Tuesday. It is a renewed complaint that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit got the issue wrong — on the second try as well as on the first.

. . .

When the case was before the Court nearly two years ago, the Fifth Circuit was told to reconsider a prior ruling upholding the validity of a Texas admissions policy that is partly based on race. The Court’s first ruling in Fisher’s case spelled out a new constitutional formula that appeared to impose a more demanding test that public colleges and universities had to meet to support any use of race in the selection of students.

The Fifth Circuit, insisting that it was using that new test, once again ruled that Texas’s flagship university could go on using its admissions formula. Under that formula, race is not the sole determinant of who is admitted, but it is a significant one.

 

[B-Dubs]

David Axelrod going around the interview circuit today saying that Obama always was for gay marriage, but that he advised him that if he wanted to win back in 2008 he had to keep that a secret. He said Obama was readily arguing with him over it and that's why he came off so awkward when discussing the subject before he came out for it. Partially because being anti-gay was big in the Black Church circuit.

And of course as a State Senator he did sign that thing that said he was pro gay marriage, so it does support that view.

I don't think I've heard Axelrod say it was his council that made him stay silent on the issue for so long, although it does make one once again cognizant of how slimy politics are. But anyway, just thought it was a randomly interesting fact if the Axelrod point is new.

Well we all kinda figured this was the case, it's nice to have confirmation though. There was an article earlier in the day where there's an excerpt from the book where Axelrod and Obama are talking about Biden coming out for gay marriage and how they're annoyed he did it but kinda relieved that Obama can stop pretending.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Well we all kinda figured this was the case, it's nice to have confirmation though. There was an article earlier in the day where there's an excerpt from the book where Axelrod and Obama are talking about Biden coming out for gay marriage and how they're annoyed he did it but kinda relieved that Obama can stop pretending.

It'll be nice that if Hillary wins we'll have a non-incumbent president who supports gay marriage who's elected in spite of that.

Not that Obama announcing his support wasn't a BFD, but he'd already been elected at that point.

 

[B-Dubs]

It'll be nice that if Hillary wins we'll have a non-incumbent president who supports gay marriage who's elected in spite of that.

Not that Obama announcing his support wasn't a BFD, but he'd already been elected at that point.

I think it's a little different at this point than it was in 2008 though. At this point everyone with sense knows gay marriage should be a thing, the general public is a lot further along now than it used to be.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I think it's a little different at this point than it was in 2008 though. At this point everyone with sense knows gay marriage should be a thing, the general public is a lot further along now than it used to be.

It is. Still, a sign of the times.

Imagine in 10-20 years when this won't even be controversial and even the GOP's establishment candidates will hold some begrudging support for gay marriage.

This isn't like abortion which will always be a wedge issue.

 

[CygnusXS]

I'm hopeful the next thing people 'evolve' on is the validity of prohibition and the war on drugs.

 

[thefro]

David Axelrod going around the interview circuit today saying that Obama always was for gay marriage, but that he advised him that if he wanted to win back in 2008 he had to keep that a secret. He said Obama was readily arguing with him over it and that's why he came off so awkward when discussing the subject before he came out for it. Partially because being anti-gay was big in the Black Church circuit.

And of course as a State Senator he did sign that thing that said he was pro gay marriage, so it does support that view.

I don't think I've heard Axelrod say it was his council that made him stay silent on the issue for so long, although it does make one once again cognizant of how slimy politics are. But anyway, just thought it was a randomly interesting fact if the Axelrod point is new.

Obama actually just commented to Buzzfeed about that

http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeednew...feed-news-interview-with-president#.miaEJJKWz

BuzzFeed News: David Axelrod wrote in his book that you hated and weren’t good at, he said, “bullshitting” about your position on marriage in ‘08. Why did you feel you had to do it?
Obama: Well, you know, I think David is mixing up my personal feelings with my position on the issue. I always felt that same-sex couples should be able to enjoy the same rights, legally, as anybody else, and so it was frustrating to me not to, I think, be able to square that with what were a whole bunch of religious sensitivities out there. So my thinking at the time was that civil unions — which I always supported — was a sufficient way of squaring the circle. That, OK, we won’t call it “marriage,” we’ll call it “civil unions,” same-sex couples will have the same rights as anybody else, but the word “marriage” with its religious connotations historically would be preserved for marriages between men and women. Where my evolution took place was not in my attitude toward same-sex couples, it was in understanding the pain and the sense of stigma that was being placed on same-sex couples who are friends of mine, where they’d say, “You know what, if you’re not calling it marriage, it doesn’t feel like the same thing. Even if you gave me the same rights, the fact that I’m being treated differently or the love that we feel is somehow segmented off, that hurts.” It was because of those conversations that I ended up shifting positions, that civil unions, in fact, were not sufficient rather than marriage. But I think the notion that somehow I was always in favor of marriage per se isn’t quite accurate. What I was in favor of is making sure that…
BuzzFeed News: Despite that old questionnaire?
Obama: Well, yeah. The old questionnaire, you know, is an example of struggling with what was a real issue at the time, which is how do you make sure that people’s rights are enjoyed and these religious sensitivities were taken into account? You know, these are the kinds of things you learn as you… move forward in public life: that sometimes you can’t split the difference. That sometimes you just have to be very clear that this is what’s right. And what I’m very proud of is to see how rapidly the country has shifted and maybe the small part that I’ve played, but certainly my Justice Department and others have played, in this administration in getting to where we need to be.

 

[BertramCooper]

Please tell me there has been at least one gay porn parody of Aaron Schock.

If not, get on it, gays.

 

[Coriolanus]

Please tell me there has been at least one gay porn parody of Aaron Schock.

If not, get on it, gays.

There hasn't.

 

[Baron_Calamity]

I've been thinking a lot about political forces in america and trying to figure out where people are and where are we going. I would always end up with messy charts and infographics that would end up with exceptions. Always trying to account for the huge political spectrum but it never really accounted for everything and didn't give any insight to where we are going. Last night I think I've come to a simple statement that sums up everything. Any issue I throw at it so far makes sense. I was wondering if there a word or a concept for it?

The statement is:

The two dominant political groups in the US are those who want to spread equality, and those who want to protect their privilege.

Nothing deep. It just makes more sense that terms like liberal and conservative, religious and nonreligious, big government and small government, haves and have nots, or even right and left. It answers why we seem to be at each others throats more and our elected officials are doing less governing than ever. Its why there is so much apparent hypocrisy going on or people voting against their interest. Equality vs privilege overrides all that.

 

[Diablos]

First Colbert, now Stewart? Really soured my evening when I came across the news. He's going to be missed in 2016... we need him! Seriously. His coverage (and Colbert's) really helped me digest all the shenanigans in US politics, especially when a Presidential race heats up.

This sucks. :-(

The only host I can think of that could replace him is John Oliver... but he's at HBO now. Oopsies.
Seriously, it's going to be hard to find someone who can not only take his place but do a good job.

 

[Baron_Calamity]

First Colbert, now Stewart? Really soured my evening when I came across the news. He's going to be missed in 2016... we need him! Seriously. His coverage (and Colbert's) really helped me digest all the shenanigans in US politics, especially when a Presidential race heats up.

He probably realize he can't do another presidential election. He might have a stroke trying to absorb all the BS.

 

[Diablos]

He probably realize he can't do another presidential election. He might have a stroke trying to absorb all the BS.

Nah, he loves it. Well, loved.
Sounds like he wants to spend more time with his family more than anything based on last night's ep.

Clinton's presidency was mixed. His welfare reform sticks out as a sore thumb, along with the doma dadt stuff.

I still think Carter is the better president than Clinton. If he had not been blindsided with the oil crisis and the hostage crisis, we'd have a better country today. Also fuck Ted Kennedy.

Carter got a dirty, rotten deal. It was completely out of his control. I agree he was better than Clinton. Not sure about Kennedy though, in fact I'm surprised given his popularity that he couldn't secure the nomination.

It's early yet, but PPP finds Toomey, Kirk, Johnson and Portman vulnerable in 2016 based on the recent actions involving DHS funding and immigration.

http://action.seiu.org/page/-/ImmigrationPollsMemo Feb2015.pdf

Low approval ratings, high approval for Obama's immigration policy.

And remember just knocking off those four would tie the Senate - and Democrats still have NC, FL, NH and AZ as pickup opportunities.

The GOP brand is damaged here in Pennsylvania for sure. From education, fracking, health care -- they're turning off a lot of voters they typically didn't in the past. It's going to help whoever ends up running against Toomey. Plus, with Hillary at the top of the ticket in a solid blue state (for Presidential elections), Toomey is toast anyway.

 

[Joe Molotov]

Not sure about Kennedy though, in fact I'm surprised given his popularity that he couldn't secure the nomination.

Too many skeletons in the closet.

 

[Diablos]

Too many skeletons in the closet.

Right, but that never stopped him from being one of the strongest most influential voices in the US Senate. He was a champion for progressive politics.

 

[Plinko]

Obama asked Congress for a vote on military force against ISIS.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/11/politics/isis-aumf-white-house-congress/index.html

 

[Baron_Calamity]

Obama asked Congress for a vote on military force against ISIS.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/11/politics/isis-aumf-white-house-congress/index.html

I wonder how the vote is going to turn out? Obama asked for it so the urge is to automatically they will reject it but bombing shit in the middle east gives Republican's massive hard ons and is profitable for their backers. Should be interesting. Maybe they will get authorization but tie it to shut down the ACA and or Gay marriage?

 

[pigeon]

I don't think I've heard Axelrod say it was his council that made him stay silent on the issue for so long, although it does make one once again cognizant of how slimy politics are.

Well, especially because there's no way to tell whether Axelrod was actually the guy who made this decision, or whether he was just the fall guy.

 

[Konka]

I wonder how the vote is going to turn out? Obama asked for it so the urge is to automatically they will reject it but bombing shit in the middle east gives Republican's massive hard ons and is profitable for their backers. Should be interesting. Maybe they will get authorization but tie it to shut down the ACA and or Gay marriage?

They'll give it to him.

 

[CygnusXS]

I wonder how the vote is going to turn out? Obama asked for it so the urge is to automatically they will reject it but bombing shit in the middle east gives Republican's massive hard ons and is profitable for their backers. Should be interesting. Maybe they will get authorization but tie it to shut down the ACA and or Gay marriage?

Dems will bring the strongest opposition to it.

 

[Poodlestrike]

I wonder how the vote is going to turn out? Obama asked for it so the urge is to automatically they will reject it but bombing shit in the middle east gives Republican's massive hard ons and is profitable for their backers. Should be interesting. Maybe they will get authorization but tie it to shut down the ACA and or Gay marriage?

I think they'll go for it. Republicans who pick up a "weak on defense" reputation generally get primaried.

 

[Wilsongt]

To hear Fox talk about Williams misleading America is just rich

 

[NYCmetsfan]

To hear Fox talk about Williams misleading America is just rich

I still maintain he didn't intentionally lie.

But this is a good piece on it. The media tries so hard to ingratiate themselves into the military its bound to run into these problems.

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...iams-will-lose-his-job-iraqi-helicopter-story

That ageless impulse to seem as though you were once close to the danger has in recent decades joined in a demeritorious union with the danger, for a reporter, of seeming to be distant – or even divisible – from the experience of the troops. MSNBC’s Chris Hayes got in a lot of trouble by explaining his discomfort with blanket labeling of all troops as “heroes”. One might have expected that the existence of Abu Ghraib or Haditha would make Hayes’ qualifying tone not only the default approach but the only thing close to objectivity; instead, journalists who wanted to show no daylight between themselves and the troops roasted Hayes on the latter’s behalf.

The lesson learned then – and one many others learned even at the start of the wars that have thus far defined the use of American power for this millennium – is that a war journalist is better off being indistinguishable from one of the troops than strictly reporting on them. In a sense, Brian Williams’ telling of tall tales presents little more than the combat version of putting what his audience – us – want to see on a resume.

Or consider Michael Hastings’ Rolling Stone exposé of General Stanley McChrystal and his aides making insubordinate comments about the Commander-in-chief and the Vice President. Generals trashing their civilian overlords is nothing new; McClellan was so disgusted with Lincoln during the Civil War that he challenged him for the presidency in 1864. It didn’t matter that Lincoln’s strategy was ultimately correct; many in the staff officer corps never got past the idea that he never should have been able to formulate one in the first place. McChrystal and his aides were just recycling the old General Jack D Ripper line that, “War is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought.”

What was eventually scandalous wasn’t the thought; it was that Hastings reported it. McChrystal presumed that his embedded reporter’s job was doing public relations, not serving the public trust.

If anything, it’s often a boon to the careers of journalists like Hastings just to be in the room with someone like McChrystal; they gets their war cred. There are otherwise few democratic or civilian ways left for the war reporter to be authentically “in the shit” anymore other than to enlist. Edward R Murrow could live in London and report on a war because the Blitz came to him. Eric Sevareid could watch the fall of Paris because his war credentials consisted of already being a correspondent who’d gone to school and lived there. Conditions like that will never come to the Beltway warrior reporter or even to most foreign correspondents unless the Acela starts getting shelled.

I love the bolded lol

Besides, moments of authentic skepticism will disappear down the memory hole for all but the castigated journalist torn apart for voicing them. Pat Tillman was celebrated at this year’s Super Bowl – held in his home state of Arizona – without anyone even re-reporting of his death via friendly fire and the orchestrated cover-up of the circumstances surrounding it. The same media aflutter about NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams’ helicopter ride fibs seems to have entirely forgotten that, in 2003, NBC aired the factually-indifferent TV movie Saving Jessica Lynch practically moments after her bandages came off.

 

[ivysaur12]

Hillary hasn't announced her campaign but Gavin Newsom is running for governor in 2018

 

[gcubed]

Hillary hasn't announced her campaign but Gavin Newsom is running for governor in 2018

i'm... meh... ugh

 

[RustyNails]

Not sure about Kennedy though, in fact I'm surprised given his popularity that he couldn't secure the nomination.

Kennedy torpedoed Carter's renomination by running a scorched earth primary campaign. When he lost, all the young people and liberals stayed home.

Probably would not have stopped the reagan landslide, but it wouldn't have been as embarrassing.

 

[jamesinclair]

Hillary hasn't announced her campaign but Gavin Newsom is running for governor in 2018

He can kindly fuck off.

 

[Aaron Strife]

"I'm going to punt on that"

 

[benjipwns]

Shock poll: Warren leads Clinton in Iowa, N.H.

Should Elizabeth Warren decide to run for president, the survey results indicate that many voters are open to supporting her. Once voters are informed about her (and with no negative information provided about any candidate), Elizabeth Warren leads the field with 31% support in Iowa and 30% in New Hampshire, followed by Hillary Clinton with 24% and 27% support, respectively, and Bernie Sanders with 6% support in both states

The results show that, after likely caucus goers and primary voters learn about Elizabeth Warren’s biography and issue positions, not only do a stunning 79% say they want her to run, but, in both states, Warren ends up leading all other potential Democratic candidates in a head-to-head ballot question.

97% of respondents agree with Warren’s position on the government giving students the same low interest rates on loans that it gives to big banks.

98% agree with Warren’s statement that "No one should be above the law. If you steal a hundred bucks on Main Street, you’re probably going to jail. If you steal a billion bucks on Wall Street, you darn well better go to jail too."

98% agree that the game is rigged in favor of powerful interests and have a problem with that.

95% find the fact that Time Magazine called Warren the "New Sheriff of Wall Street" and her leadership in creating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to be aconvincing reason to support Warren.

More than 90% support Warren’s positions on expanding Social Security and breaking up the largest banks.

 

[Teggy]

So the question was something like, "Do you agree that the game is rigged in favor of powerful interests and have a problem with that?"

I'm not so sure this was the best poll.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Shock poll: Warren leads Clinton in Iowa, N.H.

is this one of those stupid push polls?

 

[Poodlestrike]

Shock poll: Warren leads Clinton in Iowa, N.H.

"More than 90% of Americans want 'more goodnerness,' 'less badderness.'"

 

[benjipwns]

is this one of those stupid push polls?

Why would the people behind http://runwarrenrun.org/ pay for a push poll?

 

[Aaron Strife]

is this one of those stupid push polls?

Push poll is such a loaded term, let's just call it massaged messaging

 

[benjipwns]

"Explanatory polling."

Adding context to poll questions.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

"Explanatory polling."

Adding context to poll questions.

lol

 

[HylianTom]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewi...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a presumed 2016 Republican presidential contender, decided to dodge the question when asked Wednesday what he thought of the scientific theory of evolution, according to multiple reports.

Scott Walker is asked in London: Do you believe in evolution? “I’m going to punt on that one as well.”

Uh huh..

 

[benjipwns]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/398313/linda-greenhouse-schools-supreme-court-howard-slugh

Linda Greenhouse, a New York Times Supreme Court reporter, stunningly suggests in a recent article that the justices need to be scolded into “reading the briefs” in a pending case. She concludes with an astonishing rhetorical flourish: Like Lucille Ball, the Court will “have a great deal of explaining to do” if it fails to rule in the manner she suggests.

...

Greenhouse is “plenty disturbed” that the Supreme Court would even deign to hear a case challenging certain Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies. She writes that the plaintiffs’ arguments are so frivolous they represent a “partisan war” rather than a legal case and that ruling in their favor would put the Court “in peril.” She is badly mistaken.

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/398113/re-linda-greenhouses-confused-context-ed-whelan

Just one point to add to this post:

Linda Greenhouse closes by addressing the justices and grandiosely warning them that if “you” vote for the challengers in King v. Burwell, “you will have a great deal of explaining to do—not to me, but to history.”

It’s difficult not to conclude that Greenhouse thinks, rightly or wrongly, that the Left’s efforts to intimidate Chief Justice Roberts in the first Obamacare case worked and are worth repeating.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/hca-king-burwell-supreme-court-obamacare-amicus-brief

There's no better evidence of this than a brief filed on behalf of the government in King by the Hospital Corporation of America, better known as HCA, the largest [for-profit at $29 billion] health care provider in the country (once run by Obamacare foe Florida Gov. Rick Scott). HCA argues that the legal theory advanced by the plaintiffs is "absurd," but, more importantly, it presents detailed data drawn from its own operations that demonstrate that the health care law is helping patients and the company itself.

...

HCA has an obvious interest in this case, for the plaintiffs in King are threatening the company's sizable bottom line, as well as the grand bargain promised by the Obama administration and the law's drafters in the effort to get it passed. In its brief, HCA says that Obamacare has already cost it more than $600 million in revenues between 2010 and 2014—and that's just in the 15 states that haven't created their own exchanges and where HCA has at least one facility. The decreases were part of the deal forged by the drafters of the ACA. The plan was for hospitals to agree to cuts in federal reimbursement for treating the uninsured, but in exchange they would benefit from an influx of newly insured patients.

HCA says that it has only recently begun to see new revenue come in. (Of the roughly 134,000 patients with federal exchange-based insurance who visited an HCA facility last year, 62 percent had never been there before. This suggests that the new insurance program was definitely driving business to HCA's hospitals and clinics.) If the Supreme Court kills off the Obamacare subsidies, HCA says it will have to absorb about $350 million in initial losses and far more in the future.

We live in an age where Mother Jones is publishing articles begging the Supreme Court to "think about the poor corporations!"

Here I'll softball one:

It seems to us the ultimate purpose of pieces like Mencimer’s and Greenhouse’s is not to persuade so much as to reassure. The pieces are weird and disjointed because the writers—and their readers—are so full of despair that they need reassurance of many things at once:

First, that the plaintiffs’ case has no merit (and if the law isn’t on your side, pound the table and shout: “Read the briefs!”).

Second, that the administration is likely to prevail based on this or that legal or extralegal theory (including the theory that the chief justice is reading this article right now and can be expected to tailor his jurisprudence to receive future favorable coverage, or at least avoid unfavorable coverage).

Third, that if the plaintiffs win, the justices will pay the price by standing exposed as partisan hypocrites for defying the moral authority of Linda Greenhouse. (It will be fun to watch the left try to make this claim if the high court issues a sweeping ruling in favor of same-sex marriage the same day.)

Fourth, that any power grab the administration comes up with in response to an adverse ruling will be fully justified. None of the articles we cite today come out and say that, but watch for it to become explicit in the next few weeks or months.

 

[Jooney]

We live in an age where Mother Jones is publishing articles begging the Supreme Court to "think about the poor corporations!"

Mother Jones is a tribune of the people. And if corporations are now people, then by the transitive property ...

 

[thepotatoman]

"Explanatory polling."

Adding context to poll questions.

Might be somewhat informative if they'd also release all the explanatory polls that don't go their way.

 

[RustyNails]

Progressive Atheist Kills 3 Muslim Students, Media Ignores

Three Muslim students at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill were tragically murdered by a crazed progressive atheist, and the mainstream media is ignoring that fact.

The victims, Deah Shaddy Barakat, 23, his wife, Yusor Mohammad, 21, and her sister, Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, 19, were shot and killed by Craig Stephen Hicks, 46.

A review of the Facebook page of the man charged in these murders, Craig Hicks, shows a consistent themes of anti-religion and progressive causes. Included in his many Facebook “likes” are the Huffington Post, Rachel Maddow, the Southern Poverty Law Center, Freedom from Religion Foundation, Bill Nye “The Science Guy,” Neil deGrasse Tyson, Gay Marriage groups, and a host of anti-conservative/tea party pages.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Progressive Atheist Kills 3 Muslim Students, Media Ignores

What? It's been all over the news all day.

 

[Mike M]

What? It's been all over the news all day.

But are they reporting the perpetrator to be a progressive atheist?