Green Eagle

I had been intending to write some more about the corrupt "Conservative" justices on the Supreme Court (who today issued another abominable mangling of the Constitution, by their usual 5-4 majority,) when I read the following up-is-down distortion of reality in a comment by Silverfiddle, who seems to have dedicated himself to defending the indefensible: "The author should be asking that of our congress, because they've been going rogue for a long time now. The progressive stretching of the commerce clause is what is rogue. Under liberal interpretation, there is nothing government may not do." By way of reply to this tendentious nonsense, I would like to quote from an article in the Los Angeles Times, titled  "Signs of Supreme Court activism worry Reagan administration lawyers." "If the court were to invalidate the healthcare law, "It would be more problematic than Bush v. Gore," (Reagan Solicitor General, and current Harvard L...

I guess it's inevitable that I would seize an opportunity to shout out my own opinions about the three day dumb show that we were forced to endure this week at the Supreme Court.  I have heard so much nonsense about what happened there, even from normally brilliant commentators like Randi Rhodes, that I have to at least say what I think is really happening. First, I would like to deal with a bit of judicial precedent.  I'm not a lawyer, but I think anyone reading the following will get the point.  This involves the notion that the "individual mandate," i.e. the requirement that people buy insurance, is some sort of outrage to the Constitution and the founding fathers. Here is something that, I am positive, every Supreme Court Justice (well, except maybe for that jackass Clarence Thomas) is fully aware of: "In July, 1798, Congress passed, and President John Adams signed into law “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen,” authorizing the creation ...