« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

GC Echo Syndrome on desperate DOJ motion to clarify in ObamaCare case [updated]

[Updated}

Aaron Worthing of Patterico.com echoes our assertion of The Department of Justice and Attorney General Eric Holder's disingenuousness:

So the Obama administration’s lawyers have filed a “Motion to Clarify” where they pretend that they are not sure what Judge Vinson meant by his ruling.  You see a few states, such as Florida and Alaska, have decided in light of Vinson’s ruling that Obamacare is a dead letter to them (both states were parties to the decision).  This is the correct reading of the decision. Read it all here.

The Ace of Spades echoes Worthing and DeVine and goes further:

Worthing calls it "dishonesty" and I'll be straight with you: it's certainly misleading and if I wrote that motion I'd be waking up with cold sweats in the middle of the night for fear of getting sanctioned by the Court or a bar association. Read it all here.

Finally, as noted in comments below, Todd Gaziano, affirms DeVine Law Gamecock's take on the Motion to Clarify as "odd and ... insulting":

Late Thursday, February 17, the Obama Administration filed an incredibly odd and almost insulting “Motion to Clarify” the judgment in the case it lost against 26 states and the NFIB in the Obamacare litigation in Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, No. 10-cv-00091 (N. D. Fla.)(Judge Vinson). With this motion, the Administration has now stated officially that, notwithstanding the Judge’s declaration of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA or Obamacare) as unconstitutional, the Administration does not interpret the Judge’s order as requiring the Administration to cease carrying out the unconstitutional ACA. The “Motion to Clarify” does not explicitly seek reconsideration of Judge Vinson’s judgment declaring the ACA unconstitutional, nor does it seek a stay of that judgment; it simply says the Federal Government will not be following the Judge’s judgment declaring the ACA unconstitutional unless the Judge issues another order stating to the Government that the Judge did, in fact, anticipate its judgment to have immediate injunction-like effect.

This motion really is one for reconsideration of the entire case and to stay the judgment in disguise, but the Administration cannot meet the necessary standard to stay the judgment. Most legal observers would conclude that the Administration filed this “Trojan Horse” motion in bad faith.

[Resume original column]

At least in Brown v. Board of Education the court order voided de jure racial segregation only with “deliberate speed”…

On January 31, 2011, U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson declared ObamaCare unconstitutional and added:

“…there is a long standing presumption that officials of the Executive Branch [Obama Administration] will adhere to the law as declared by the court…”

Judge Vinson’s added that sentence to make clear that, this being a final order on the merits, there was no reason for an injunction to be issued since injunctions are usually only issued in cases of this type in which temporary relief is asked for pending a final order on the merits.

In the 17 days that have passed since the order, President Barack Obama’s Justice Department has announced an intent to appeal, but has not yet filed any appeal. More significantly, neither has the government filed a Motion to Stay enforcement of the order pending appeal. Instead, President Obama, through his press secretary, and the Defendant Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, have insisted that they retain the right to continue to implement ObamaCare regulations nationwide and have done so.

Meanwhile, various parties to the case, including certain governors and attorney general for plaintiff states, have ceased cooperating with the Obama Administration, on the grounds that to do so would violate their oaths of office to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. They deemed Judge Vinson to have clearly voided ObamaCare, thus removing it from the codification of the “laws of the United States.”

Late today, in an extraordinary move, Obama’s lawyers asked Judge Vinson to “clarify” his order. Such motions are quite rare as they imply that the author of the order is not skilled in the use of the English language. Of course, Eric Holder and company understand the order very clearly, but are not used to having fellow members of the bar speaking in a language other than liberal weasel-speak (i.e. lies that pretend to follow the Constitution accompanied by a wink).

Obama and Holder are desperate, for they know that to file the usual motion for a stay would be admit that ObamaCare is void and that they need the judge’s permission to continue to do anything in furtherance of the ObamaCare statute. So, they are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They are trying to trick Judge Vinson.

It won’t work.

The likely response from the court will be to put an exclamation point on the already crystal clear order either by issuing an injunction, that, in cases like this are quite rare since most civilians comply with court orders rather than risk spending time in jail for contempt; or the court will merely deny the request to force the 26 states that were parties to the case to comply with ObamaCare regulations.

Either way, the clock ticks towards the March deadline by which Obama must ask for a stay and admit the powers of a coequal branch of government.

Fellow conservatives, dare we wish for an early yuletide via a Vinson-mas gift that voids ObamaCare while it is appealed? Yes, we dare. What seemed a near impossible dream via the elected branches and the need for a new president and filibuster-proof Senate no earlier than 2013, could be only weeks away.

Yes, tea partiers, their is a Vinson Claus!

Mike DeVine

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Charlotte ObserverThe Minority Report and Examiner.com archives

www.devinelawvista.com


COMMENTS

  • lineholder

    to start dancing, Snoopy-style, okay?

  • bobmontgomery
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • carolina

    Thanks for the ‘clarification’ about what this latest development really means. I guess we are getting closer to ‘put up or shut up time’.
    I’m glad you are seemingly so confident about the outcome. I’ll feel better once obamacare is truly and finally DEAD.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    language of his Summary Judgment order. I am not as confident that the circuit court would not issue a stay. I also am not confident that the timid House GOP will act accordingly and call out Obama the Lawless given their silence for the last 17 days re Vinson and their silence re the FINDING of contempt on the oil drilling mortarorium.. They still fear being called racists I guess.

    Their fear could be the downfall of this country. They need to learn to identify a lame duck, even if its ears are elephantine.

  • lineholder

    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/17/oh-my-house-passes-amendment-that-would-defund-obamas-czars/

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    http://townhall.com/columnists/hughhewitt/2011/02/17/house_gop_elects_to_punt

  • rightwingmom52
  • Common_Cents

    Plugging ears with his fists yelling la la la la la, I can’t hear you judge!

  • conservativecurmudgeon

    please, please, please, please, please, please, please, let this be true…

    And let freedom ring!

  • nycenterright

    Other district courts have ruled Obamacare constitutional. So, the real question is what happens in districts where courts have made other decisions. According to Virginia law, Obamacare is still constitutional (except for the IM). According to Florida law, it is not. Does that mean that Virginia will be required to cooperate with enforcement, but Florida will not, pending a higher-court ruling?

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    26 states as parties. Obama’s Dept of HHS is the defendant and its actions in violation of the order would be in contempt no matter what may happen down the road with respect to circuit conflicts. Obama desperately doesn’t want to have to ask for a stay of the order, because to do so would be admitting that it NEEDS a stay so as not to be in contempt because most of the actions of implementation occur in DC and apply to ALL states. So the issue of which states to which Vinson’s order applies is not really all that significant. Obama is the defendant subject to an order declaring a nationwide law unconstitutional. It is an interesting exercise to discuss what may happen with respect to the future appeal to the US Sup Ct and the conflicts between the circuits that may well exits after circuit courts rule, but the real real questions as to whether ObamaCare will be in effect ending those appeals is playing out in Florida.

    Another question down the road is whether a law such as ObamaCare can constitutionally be applied only to some states and not others.

    But all that is well into the future.

    Obama’s cute and insulting motion to clarify shows that Obama’s lawyers know the peril they are in NOW from THIS order.

    All orders are orders. The reason the Florida order is paramount and unaffected by the others is that it is the only one that declared current actions by the Obama Admin to be unlawful.

  • Deskpilot

    from lawlessness, and also with illegal, yet this administration can’t tell the difference. They don’t care about the difference, and they don’t care who gets hurt in the process of their rampage.
    I’m looking forward to Judge Vinson’s “CLARIFICATION.” It could only be a louder, and angrier version of the judgement already answered. I can already see AJ C. Thomas and CJ J. Roberts smile as the read the pdf of Judge Vinson’s mastery of the English language.

  • lineholder

    have the same effect.

    “Request for clarification denied; ruling speaks for itself”.

  • Thomas Crown

    The same group of users recommend internally, uniformly. Ok. Gotcha. Much makes more sense now.

    Guys, this is cheating. It’s also sad. You’re doing the community a disservice by this — and I don’t mean just by elevating the loony-toon Birther’s stuff, I mean the mechanics of it. Shame on all of you.

    Gamecock, you’re a lawyer. You know you’re stretching here, and I’m being generous. A motion for clarification is not all that unusual — there’s no specific provision for it in the FRCP, but they’re filed all the time. The DoJ is doing the smart thing from their perspective to set up a request for a stay at the Eleventh Circuit; to do so, they must show that Vinson’s ruling invalidates Obamacare such that it is creating uncertainty, no remedy at law, irreparable harm, the whole thing.

    For the non-lawyers following along, they need to show the Eleventh Circuit that Vinson intended every party plaintiff to no longer be bound by the law he ruled unconstitutional, and that as a result, while the appeal is pending, the government risks being put in a position where even if it won, it could not effectively implement the law. DoJ — I think wrongly — believes there’s ambiguity there, so they’re doing a belt-and-suspenders approach. I can’t blame them.

    Judge Vinson is a senior status Article III judge. He knows the motion won’t be aimed at his facility with English. Everyone knows and understands that.

    Of course, Eric Holder and company understand the order very clearly, but are not used to having fellow members of the bar speaking in a language other than liberal weasle-speak (i.e. lies that pretend to follow the Constitution accompanied by a wink).

    This is a fairly stupid insult to every member of the Bar who actually tries cases. You know better.

    Obama and Holder are desperate, for they know that to file the usual motion for a stay would be admit that ObamaCare is void and that they need the judge?s permission to continue to do anything in furthurance of the ObamaCare statute. So, they are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They are trying to trick Judge Vinson.

    Again, this is simply bizarre. They clearly believe that they need extra ammo — and by “extra ammo” I mean “clear language from the trial court” — to convince the Eleventh to issue a stay. They don’t need to admit anything; to the contrary, they must and will explicitly say he’s wrong, and they face irreparable harm from his wrong, and that’s why the stay is necessary.

    And they’re not trying to trick Vinson. That literally makes no sense in context.

    The likely response from the court will be to put an exclamation point on the already crystal clear order either by issuing an injunction, that, in cases like this are quite rare since most civilians comply with court orders rather than risk spending time in jail for contempt; or the court will merely deny the request to force the 26 states that were parties to the case to comply with ObamaCare regulations.

    No, the most likely response goes like this:

    THIS CAUSE came before the Court on the Motion for Clarification filed by Defendant United States (“Government”) (Docket XX). The Court, having reviewed the premises thereof, DENIES the Motion for Clarification.

    IT IS SO ORDERED, this, the 28th day of February, 2011.

    Incidentally, every day, civil litigation parties file motions for clarification. Truly, they do. Virtually none receive contempt citations for them, and those that do don’t go to jail for them because that is criminal contempt, and due process attaches to that.

    It is not beyond possibility that Vinson will issue a stay of his ruling pending appeal, or that he’ll alter the wording so that the government can just go ahead and ask for a stay.

    For a man who once correctly noted that “jurisdiction” in the 14th Amendment refers to plenary jurisdiction — and what that means in terms of citizenship cases — and did so clearly and fluently, to come up with this, I have to assume that you were either trolling for reads, or this cheating mechanism of which you’ve become a part has left you soft.

    Sad.

  • lineholder

    that you are trying to accomplish?

    I’ve come here since you left, so I don’t really “know” you, so to speak. I know LIO and GC. At this point, it would be really easy to get on the defensive in their behalf and take the proverbial leap down your throat verbally, because what is coming is that you’re just in the mood to make some random attacks on people.

    I’m curious. Sue me. If what you want is to be a leader here at RS? Hey, that diary board is ready and waiting for you. Have at it.

  • Thomas Crown

    Hi. Everyone calls me Thomas. You can, too.

    From the summer of 2004 (back when this was RedState.org — I was partially responsible for driving the camel-caps and therefore Josh Trevino to irritation) through New Year’s Eve, 2007, I was a SuperEditor, then a Contributor, then a Director here. I made it from Scoop (which I loved) through Drupal (which I did not). I went through, vicariously, the carnage of RS3.0.

    I resigned at the end of 2007. Despite a promise to stay away, I haven’t, in no small part because this place has a special spot in my heart.

    While I was here, I wrote things for the front, wrote diaries, participated in RedHot when it was more than just a Twitter feed aggregator, and slaughtered trolls and wayward commentators. I think I wrote some good, some bad, and some middling things, but I spent most of my time here in the comments — commenting, responding, beheading.

    I have been reading gamecock’s work since he first started writing here. I was there when the first recommendation algorithm was implemented, and helped — by making useless comments to the wonderful fellow who coded it from scratch — make it more useful. I used to scan the rec list for promotions — diaries and writers — back in the day. So you might say I have some familiarity with these two topics.

    I would have to say, on gamecock, that his writing has degenerated. The post to which you refer was literally wrong in almost every particular. I don’t mean his opinion is wrong, I mean any lawyer who tries cases knows the facts he made out simply are not true. He’s better than that, so I’m at a loss for why he’s come to that crossroards.

    The gaming of the rec list — something I’m really seeing for the first time — [expletive] me off to no end. That gamecock is part of it disappoints me. That people I like and know as former fellow writers here drives me up a wall. I can’t even imagine what possessed them to do this. I have to imagine the directors don’t give a [expletive] about the rec list any more, or there would have been blood in the streets.

    (I was a joyful participant in the NO PROFANITY policy.)

    I don’t want to be a “leader” here. Good God, no. I resigned as a director three years ago. But despite myself — despite the ridiculous ads now plastered everywhere (including the apologia for Lindbergh) — I still love this place, and don’t like to see it dirty.

    And it has become dirty. Not so much because of gamecock’s post — for all I know, he was doing this to test the system — but because LIO would have been banned and blackholed when I was here. Because there are people here who with a straight face pretend she’s not out of her gourd. Because the recommended list is now the place where a small group of people elevate diaries of at-best-indeterminate quality for no reason other than the writers of those diaries, and therefore destroy the reason for the algorithm in the first place — to give new voices a chance to shine in the community.

    So. Did I have a say in the matter, the nutjob Birther — we agree that the Birther thing is public record, yes? — would be gone. Now. Today. Everyone pushing things up the recommended list the way they are would have their accounts suspended for one week to cool off and think about it. Gamecock would write the way he used to.

    The first, God willing, will happen soon. The second likely won’t. I’m rather hoping for the third.

    Better?

  • lineholder

    where you’re coming from. I can’t help but wish that you presented it this way in the first place, okay?

    As to “labels”, I could be considered a ‘nutjob’ as well, depending on a person’s viewpoint. And I daresay that there are plenty of comments I make come across as being “conspiratorial”. I’m stronger on the moral and ethical issues, plain old good versus evil, than I am on the politics. A royal pain in the gluteus maximus at times, I assure you.

    Regarding your second statement, I can only say that I will try to keep what you have stated in mind as I review diaries. I’m only one person, but that’s better than none, true?

  • http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

    For example, why do you say LIO would have been banned? I thought her stuff was pretty good. What am I missing here?

  • penguin2

    I’m penguin, also known as Lady P. Been a member just over two years. Everyone who knows “me” and knows my work, diaries or comments knows that I have been passionate about RedState. I have loved RedState. Two years ago it was a relief to find that there was a place where so many like-minded people had gathered who had a similar belief system as my husband and I did. We read RS, advertised RS to our friends and local community, and eventually I got brave and began to comment, and write a diary now and then.

    I am not a “blogger” just an ordinary, traditional American. Most of my diaries center on patriotism, community, including efforts to help broaden conservative education here at RedState, by working on the RedState University concept, and general keeping the peace. Everyone knows that I try to be respectful and caring towards others, no exceptions, unless, finally, a lefty troll attacks us, and even then I do it without a personal attack.

    That said, the RS Gatherings of which I’ve happily attended the two held so far, provided me an opportunity to meet not only the FP folks of RedState, but many regular members of the community. Yes, we’ve exchanged emails and communicate. You and others do so too. A place that is a community is going to have neighborhoods, and I’ve always thought folks could get along as neighbors.

    You’ve said several things in this post, that are just not true. I know, and you know, that some people, and you’ve named a couple, are unpopular with the left side of the page. As long as they are participants here, their writing is read by many of us. Now I also know that some do not think we are smart enough to read and decide for ourselves (and please bear with me, as I do not do snark well – not in my nature), but so many times the FP folks have attacked others, and I’m wondering what is the problem? If RS felt that uncomfortable about a poster, they needed to say something offline, and deal with it. There has been nothing but grief regarding one poster for the past two months. I don’t want to say anything more on that, because what is happening here right now will probably bring about more grief. But, let me try to make this point.

    I told one of your FP people, in a private correspondence, that I value my good name, and that I do not reco anyone blindly. I read quite a few posts here, and reco ones that I think are worthwhile, interesting or that I think others should read. If there is a incorrect information in a diary, usually someone comes along and points it out to the diarist. Some diaries I don’t reco if they are snarky or sarcastic no matter their other content. I, and others I know look for new diarists, the “regulars” here at RS want new members of the community, not less. Getting more people involved is a positive thing, and keeps the site and diaries from being stale.

    Here is a more important point. Everyone here has a reputation. I heard wonderful things about Thomas Crown and his great writing for some time now. Do you not think that if I saw your name on a post that I would not click on it and read it? Or Erick Erickson writes a post, and almost every one reads EE. I will include my profile link, so you can see for yourself that many folks, yes long term members of the community reco’d my posts, and many others who like what penguin2 says. It is human nature to be drawn to certain people, and repelled by others. If one tries to control people and their thinking, well, I guess that was what we were fighting the Left about.

    This is hard to write like this, early morning hours, but I was upset about your statements, and I stand by the fact that you are being told untruths. There are obviously some front-page contributors who do not like some posters, and are angry, yes angry that others like their work, or give it support. All I know, is that this raging battle is harmful to the wonderfulness that was RedState.

    I can’t fix anything here, I have tried to be a decent and fairminded poster, and it does indeed disturb a penguin heart to see that so much energy is being expended in the wrong direction. I hope that you take what I’ve said under advisement, but please realize that quite few people are being maligned, and it just isn’t called for.

    I call you Mr. Crown out of respect for the wonderful reputation that you have.
    Here is the link to my profile.

    http://www.redstate.com/penguin2/

  • JadedByPolitics

    it is a sad day when people you like and I like LIO even if others on FP of Redstate do not. I think she is braver then 99% of the diariest on this site. Most regurgitate information, she actually calls people to get information, that is what journalists used to do but do not anymore. Is there some conspiratorial aspects to her writing, yes, sometimes but guess what when a third of your Countrymen and women cannot wrap their brain around Obama being born in America well, there is a lot of conspiracy out there. I would submit btw he likes it that way which is why he does nothing to change it and it makes people look silly, but I digress. I have met LIO and I cannot stand the misogynist reaction to her and yes it is when you ATTACK her personally and that is what has now been done on Redstate by two separate people.

    I don’t get it, you don’t like her?, ban her, but don’t attempt to destroy the woman in the process. I don’t recognize this Redstate at all and it saddens me, this used to be the my first page open everyday, now it is my last, if I think to look at all. over four years ago I couldn’t image weaning myself off of Redstate, now I am concerned which of my “friends” is being attacked and whether I want to see it.

    My how times they have changed.

    obtw Thomas Crown, you see the same recco’s because the same people come here and read, check the rest of the diaries at the top and see if you don’t see the same recco’s. This site might get a lot of hits but its participants in conversation are around 100 on a daily basis…do the math.

  • Thomas Crown

    The concentration camp thing is particularly egregious.

  • JadedByPolitics

    I thought that as well, I thought about pulling my recco because of that comment….however I wouldn’t denigrate her to make that point. You instead have people standing by to defend her because of the attack.

    “death camps” that is a step too far in the conspiracy theories and really a lefty concept under President Bush.

    To all who think there will be no elections or that you will be rounded up (btw that is why WE fight for OUR Second Amendment RIGHTS), that marshall law will be instituted I have one thing to say to you….Republican Governors! You see they would have to agree with the President and call out the National Guard and I am just crazy enough to believe that they will NOT!

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    And you will always find [ Inner Rings ] hard to enter, for a reason you very well know. You yourself once you are in, want to make it hard for the next entrant, just as those who are already in made it hard for you. Naturally. In any wholesome group of people which holds together for a good purpose, the exclusions are in a sense accidental. Three or four people who are together for the sake of some piece of work exclude others because there is work only for so many or because the others can’t in fact do it. Your little musical group limits its numbers because the rooms they meet in are only so big. But your genuine Inner Ring exists for exclusion. There’d be no fun if there were no outsiders. The invisible line would have no meaning unless most people were on the wrong side of it. Exclusion is no accident: it is the essence.

    The quest of the Inner Ring will break your hearts unless you break it. But if you break it, a surprising result will follow. If in your working hours you make the work your end, you will presently find yourself all unawares inside the only circle in your profession that really matters. You will be one of the sound craftsmen, and other sound craftsmen will know it. This group of craftsmen will by no means coincide with the Inner Ring or the Important People or the People in the Know. It will not shape that professional policy or work up that professional influence which fights for the profession as a whole against the public: nor will it lead to those periodic scandals and crises which the Inner Ring produces. But it will do those things which that profession exists to do and will in the long run be responsible for all the respect which that profession in fact enjoys and which the speeches and advertisements cannot maintain.

    The Inner Ring (excerpt)

  • http://thesandsinstitute.org Vassar Bushmills

    …what recall.
    Cordially as always

  • Thomas Crown

    Are you suggesting that my reaction to that lunatic’s poorly written, insane tripe was because of misogyny? That I wouldn’t have had an adverse reaction to see half-literate conspiracy theories at the top of the RedState recommended list if a man had written it instead? Has it been that long since I axed someone in full view? Because I know you were around when I was doing that on a regular basis, and the male:female kill ratio was disparate impact on men given pixels.

    This apparently needs repeating: I’m not a front-pager any more. If I could ban, she’d be gone.

    Incidentally, respectfully, don’t lecture me on recommended mechanics and community interaction. I know how few people as a proportion of readers register, and how few of those recommend diaries. I’ve chosen to believe that the long-timers whose names appear repeatedly, in the same grouping, on horrible diaries, are doing this out of some sort of collective action, rather than stark-raving lunacy. Please don’t disabuse me of this.

  • http://thesandsinstitute.org Vassar Bushmills

    I’m pretty inactive in a group that has been charged in the past with conspiring to mass-recco some diaries, but only 5 of the 24 reccos in this diary were of that group. Go figure.

  • Thomas Crown
  • Thomas Crown

    I’m curious.

  • Thomas Crown

    The camp comment is a reason to terminate her account. The diary’s nuttiness stands by itself.

    To all who think there will be no elections or that you will be rounded up (btw that is why WE fight for OUR Second Amendment RIGHTS), that marshall law will be instituted I have one thing to say to you?.Republican Governors! You see they would have to agree with the President and call out the National Guard and I am just crazy enough to believe that they will NOT!

    Please, please tell me this is tongue-in-cheek.

  • http://thesandsinstitute.org Vassar Bushmills

    …but I did promise not to say. But several of your FP colleagues either are or were there at one time.

  • Thomas Crown

    First, I’m not being told any story. I reviewed the recommended diary list, then I looked at the crazy lady’s postings that worked their way up the list. There are a lot of common names, in the author and in the recommends.

    You?ve said several things in this post, that are just not true. I know, and you know, that some people, and you?ve named a couple, are unpopular with the left side of the page.

    I have said nothing I know or suspect to be untrue. I wouldn’t say it if I did. And the only person I specifically mentioned as nuts is the crazy lady, who must be popular with “the left side of the page” (I presume you mean the front-pagers? Is this a common neologism?) or else her nutty lying would have been out the door a long time ago.

    I hope that you take what I?ve said under advisement, but please realize that quite few people are being maligned, and it just isn?t called for.

    Who is being maligned? There’s similar … remarks … downthread. I’m curious.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    given how clear was the original order. I do agree with your proposed order and maybe the judges down here in Dixie are just so clear that I have found motions to clarify to be rare in my particular cases. We usually get to review orders before they are signed for just that reason.

    Don’t know why you chose to make gratuitous insults as per my creative lawyering, i.e. stretching, and yes, had my brief been longer, or had we co-authored, I may have agreed to included some of your thoughts as well. But your tone suggests that maybe you have been on the bench too long?…smile

    I would note that you begin a sentence with No, …but then essentially write a proposed order that in fact does put an exclamation point on the first order. And you admit that the motion to clarify is to set up a stay request with the Circuit Court, implicitly admitting that they have no chance at one with Vinson, and so used this motion as a crap shoot to try and get some states to admit continued compliance without having to admit that they NEED a stay.

    Nothing stops you from writing timely pieces on the breaking news of the day. Just saying. And you could probably do so without being insulting as this site really could use dose of civility, a quality, I might add that6 you used to be a champion of….and can again, beginning with your reply to this comment, should you choose to make one. Although I must say that after my rightful scolding by Pilgrim and Erick some 3 years ago, I have been a paragon of the Golden Rule (see OT and Jesus in NT).

    But I most always love your work including portions of the above. I won’t get into a lawyer pis**ng match with you brother. Hope you got some obviously needed sleep and that we can all look forward to hearing the voice of the good old Thomas of the past next time time the Crown is shown to its subjects.

    God bless, but I am confused by the first line or two of your reply. If you are implying that I am a part of any reco cabal, please disabuse yourself of that notion. I am proud of the recos I regularly get. Ionly reco those columns I deem worthy and recently admonished all here at Redstate to make a point of seeking out newbies to reco if deemed worthy.

    I actually am rather famous here for NOT being an automatic reco and have even propounded same at regular intervals and think I have come to be respected here for that stance. People know that when Mike DeVine Law Gamecock gives his
    GC highly recos” that he means it based on the merits as I see them.

    But, mine is a forgiving heart. I love you brother and hope that Redstate can remain a place for vigorous debate about the proper course of conservative Republicanism., without rancor.

    I know that I loveRedstate and that you are one of the main reasons I stayed here after coming 6 years ago. Another reason is that being recommended on Redstate and due to the old days when I was most always front-paged for my holiday columns, obituaries etc, it got my name out there so that I got noticed by various MSM and non-MSM outlets that led to my 3-yr stint as the conservative voice of the Charlotte Observer and legal editor for the Hinzsight report, TMR, and freelance jobs for the NYT, WSJ, The Hill etc.

    It has been a great ride despite the occasional bumps.

    God bless you brother.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    situated for whom you claim some sort of reco conspiracy. I can assure you that I am not and never have been a part of same and a review of my past comments would reveal that I have propounded on that very subject periodically for years beginning about 3 years ago.

    Maybe my work has degenerated but given the extremely high level I began with…smile, but I have had to go back into more full-time legal work after the housing bubble burst and I live doff the fat of my profits for too long after ward.

    What’s your excuse?

    I truly am at a loss at the accusations and vitriol that proceedeth from the throne this fine Lord’s Day eve, i.e. Sabbath.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    columns as I do on other subjects, precisely because of not having the time to write 50-page footnoted briefs like I usually do when being paid $100-250/hr; and due to the ease with which others that don’t do that either here at Redstate can come in and take potshots. I love it when the peanut gallery tells me, after I have researched for days, that I “should have said …”. Yes, but there are only 24 hrs in a day and a limit on column length.

    But one can take pot shots with few words and little research.

    Well done.

    Back to my blissful degeneration…Gamecocks opened the defense of their College baseball national championship with a 12-5 victory over Santa Clara last night. The game was over hours before your rants began! just saying

  • penguin2

    I am referencing LIO being unpopular with the FP. The feud there has been an ugly public display at RS. Seeing this in GC’s post tells me that he is the other person.

    I don’t think that you would write something you did not believe to be true, but I only have asked that you consider that many a good and decent poster here is not lying, conniving or stupid. If being a regular participating member of this community, and I mean commenting and recommending diaries, makes us not only appear to you (and your fellow FPs) as stupid sheep, I am sorry. Your blast of the folks who recommended these posts indicates you think that.

    As I said above, I don’t have to have the perfect post to think it is reasonable to support. BTW, a lot of the same names show up in the recos because quite a few older regular members no longer actively participate here at RS. I’ve looked at the recos in my own posts and mourn their absence at RS.

  • bcb1

    You make cogent, articulate arguments that are grounded in logic. I’ve been (mostly a reader) on Redstate for years. Since my political philosophies are vastly different than most readers here, I usually don’t post.

    It’s writers like you that Redstate sorely misses. When the conversation degenerates to talk of concentration camps and outlawing elections…well, I just don’t really know what to say about that. The people that perpetuate the birther myth and the concentration camp stuff are either teenagers, or are willfully dishonest.

    I’d like to see more of your writing on Redstate, it would make it a far better community.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    “Seeing this in GC?s post tells me that he is the other person.”

    I don’t know what “this” is and I don’t know what “other person” means. Please feel free to contact me off line at

    mikedevinelaw@yahoo.com

    or

    678-481-6436

    I am at a loss.

  • itrytobenice

    I’ve tried to stay out of all this noisy crap, since it irritates me, but I just want to tell you something about this.

    I’m on four different political email groups that include quite a few RS posters, as well as non-RSers who are politically inclined. There is at least one other group of which I am not a member, and, of course, the contributor list, of which I am not a member.

    Of the recommenders of this diary at this time, only six of the twenty-six are on any of the three lists of which I am a member and they are not all on the same list, and I’m 100% positive that the vast majority of the remainder is not on the other list, just going from my knowledge of some of the members of the other list.

    So the recommenders of this diary are not groupies, just RSers who thought it was a good one.

    BTW, I’ve sure missed having you around. Have you welcomed any new bambinos to the family since you were here?

  • penguin2

    that Mr. Crown’s negative comments about you and your work here, seemed to place you as a second person. Strictly my own opinion.

    I’m going to leave it at that, GC. Except to concur with the fact that many of us only reco posts that we believe warrant it. And being assailed for that was unacceptable.

  • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

    More seriously, in the line of LadyP’s thoughts, I do read about a dozen writers pretty regularly because I like what they write which naturally follows that I would recco their posts as well. I also, when time permits, read a second tier of writers and recco as I feel appropriate.

    I think that is probably a general picture of the average RedStater. No conspiracy needed.

    This isn’t to say recco trading doesn’t happen. Welcome to life.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Wow.

    That was a sudden and sharp turn into la la land.

    But go ahead, be like Obama and tell yourself that anyone who disagrees with you really is sexist.

    Hope/Change,

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    of any reco cabal and many here know that not only have I not been a part of same, but that I have been a vocal critic of the suggestion of such groups since the problems with the algorithms when Redstate got new software some three years ago and I was one of the 8 people that got to sample the new site for months before the debut of, was it Redstate 3.0 or 2.0? I don’t know.

    I write columns. I am into issues. I am not into drama and have never been a part of the soap operas here for more than 5 minutes at two times in my life here. And after I found that I might be being brought into such drama, both times, I INSTANTANEOUSLY disabused anyone that was assuming I was part of any such stuff, that I was NOT.

    I write columns; advertise and promote my work (my brother is a published author and years ago said that with all the writing I was doing after leaving full-time private practice to ride the real estate wave and so had the time, that i should be paid for my work…and redstate was the gateway to a new career of getting paid for my op-eds); and I read the work of others and comment as part of my lifelong love of learning and decade-long love of conservatism/

    Period.

    I am not the “second person” in any group. Period.

    God bless and please call me. I think this scurrilous accusation against my character requires actual human communication.

    678-481-6436

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    I will only reco the diaries of those that I have never reco’ed before, so long as I deem them worthy.

    I will make clear in subject lines if I would have clicked reco and if regular reco-ers of my work wish to let me know that they would have so clicked the button for me, than I would appreciate that gesture. I will also henceforth ALWAYS state why I am recommending.

    I think this exercise can actually be good for Redstate an certainly my ego is sufficiently large and celebrated elsewhere to satisfy same. Heck, sometimes I just gaze in the mirror of the hen house for hours. Of course, that mirror in on the ceiling and also reflects the visage of the attendant hen…but I digress.

    I have never been a part of quid pro quos for promoting Mike DeVine and never will.

    more later

  • acat
  • cactusjack

    George Wallace standng in the door of the University of Alabama’s Registrar’s Office in 1963, An obstructionist resisting Progress. In their hearts, they believe the misguided American people will come to love 0-care if they can just be pushed into it. Now, returning to reality, were I a governmental officer – Dem, Repub, Ind or Libertarian, doesn’t really matter – with authority to execute policy, no way would I push my employees ahead into carrying out acts under a law found unconstitutional by a competent federal court with jurisdiction over me. THe repercussions of acting under an unconstitutional act – paraticularly in the health field where life and death decisions happen every day, could, in the vernacular, get every state and local agency (in FL for example) sued six ways to Sunday and defunded, with certain officers actually liable for fine and incarceration. Until a further appellate court eiher upholds it or it goes on to the Supremes. But as mentioned above, I think 0 thinks he can and should proceed and all will be well when they reach Progressive Valhalla down the road. So we need to know what’s going to happen to them as the push forward under an unconcstitutional act. That is at least my gut how this plays out, from some time ago when I worked for local government – is this correct, GC?

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    at least the month of February is not more. OK?

  • SoFiMil

    G

  • SoFiMil

    Typos above result of my new smartphone.

  • acat
  • SoFiMil

    Don’t know how the “G” appeared, but I assure everyone it is a complete coincidence and nothing to do with a very capable diarist. (Not snark.)

  • cactusjack
  • texasgalt

    there are only about 50 RS members who recm’d diaries with any regularity. A good portion of these are people who at least occasionally write a diary themselves. I’m not sure why so few people recommend.

    While I try to read a lot of the diary entries, there is only so much time in a day. Like anyone, I gravitate to names with which I am familiar.

    I’ll honor your request until you withdraw it. :-)

  • SoFiMil

    before you saw my correction.

  • texasgalt

    on this line alone:

    >Yes, tea partiers, their is a Vinson Claus<

    Per your request, I skipped the rec button.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Heck, I didn’t know The Powers That Be cared this much the non-frontpagers.

    I feel better as my favorite verse of Scripture is Revelation 3:16 in which God says he spues the lukewarm out of his mouth and admonishes us to be hot or cold!

    What’s ironic is that I come almost solely for the member diaries as so many of the front page posts bury the lede and require so many link clicks to figure out the subject matter, after which reaching I discover its about some juvenile BS that bears little relevance to the advancement of conservatism or the GOP.

    There are only 24 hours in a day after all\ and am bout the business of substance, not fluff.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    make clear that any acts AFTER the order denying a stay would be actionable but that any acts before will not be due to the mish-mash in other courts.

    This case cries out for expedited review by the Supreme Court.

    The reason i don’t think a stay will be issues relates to why the arguments for same actually support a denial in that if the case is affirmed, all the implementation before the final ruling would have been for naught.

  • rightwingmom52

    As Coroner I must aver, I thoroughly examined her, and she’s not only merely dead, she’s really most sincerely dead.

    “She” being Obamacare.

  • http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

    I know a bit about communists because I used to BE a Leftist myself, and all the hippy-dippy little peace and justice groups I used to be a part of had to struggle all the time to try and keep the various communist groups from hijacking them. The WWP, the SWP, the CPUSA, and most gruesome of all, the RCP. We called them “the P’s.”

    I was never a communist myself — but I knew plenty of ‘em. The RCP fanatics were some of the scariest, most callous, warped people I have ever encountered.

    Please have a look at this very thorough documentation of Bill Ayers’ Weather Underground from Zombie, a reputable and trustworthy blogger who now blogs at Pajamas Media.
    http://www.zombietime.com/prairie_fire/

    Especially, if you do not have time to read the whole thing, do not miss the video clip at the bottom of FBI informant Larry Grathwohl. Actually, it’s no longer active on that page, but here’s the URL:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWMIwziGrAQ

    Obama and Ayers worked very, VERY closely together for three years. See
    http://www.verumserum.com/?p=2907
    (Verum Serum is also a reputable blogger)

    According to Grathwohl, Ayers did indeed collaborate in plans to send millions of Americans to “re-education” camps — and to deal with those who refused to be re-educated in a more permanent, irreversible way. The consensus at the meeting that FBI man Grathwohl attended was that “maybe 25 million” Americans would need to be “eliminated.”

    If you think Grathwohl’s making the whole thing up, then you haven’t sat in on meetings that included hardcore communists, as I have. Believe me, they’re capable of it. Or do you think American communists are uniquely more enlightened and compassionate than their counterparts during the last 100 years in Russia, China, Cuba, Cambodia, Peru, etc.?

    If sharing this information gets me banned, so be it.

    But I KNOW Communists. At a time in my life that I’m not proud of, a time in which I was bogglingly naive, I had the chilling experience of being personally acquainted with some of these monsters. If you don’t think they’d put you and me in front of a firing squad if they had the opportunity, then all I can say is you’re uninformed in this particular area.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Do you think Obama has a secret plan to kidnap millions of Americans, sending some to detention camps and others to mass graves?

  • http://www.conservative-outlooks.com ladyimpactohio

    http://twitter.com/#!/LadyImpactOhio/status/38337542948536320

    @jeffemanuel Never said that Jeff. Did you notice the ? after it? Ever heard of the word “facetious”? http://bit.ly/fx9PAj Here ya go.

  • http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

    And that matters, because of these three facts:
    1. Ayers has never renounced “the revolution” — he still believes in it, and freely admits that; he’s just changed tactics for the time being.
    2. Ayers and Obama were joined at the hip for some years.
    3. Ayers is still a way-too-frequent visitor at the White House.

    All of these are just plain, documented facts. When you put them together, you may or may not find them frightening. I happen to find the combination unsettling, to say the least.

  • http://thesandsinstitute.org Vassar Bushmills

    …and what you generally do for this side of the page.

    Oh, I expect he’s right on in a technical sense, as he is known as very precise-language attorney and writer. But all the ordinary people are over here and as a retired lawyers I’ve always appreciated how you’ve explained legal decisions in layman-like language. We need that. It’s edifying, you know, for the great unwashed. And being a political site, I think it’s appropriate to lace your comments with opinionated nuance and hyperbole. Again, much appreciated. We’re supposed to make fun of the Enemy (instead of each other).

    In full dress regalia, in court, or in filing motions, appeals, I expect your language is as precise as any judge will allow, although I’ve always wondered, do SC judges keep chickens in their back yard.?

    The differences in your take on the “clarify” issue didn’t seem that far apart, so all I can guess that while Mr Crown likes his Elgar (who I also like) he isn’t very amused that you would be playing Sousa marching music to a totally pedestrian crowd.

  • http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

    Did you actually read the articles I cited and watch the Larry Grathwohl interview?

  • http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

    …is that we have to know what we are up against.

    Imagine that people in Russia back in 1917 had a chance to EXPOSE the Bolsheviks for what they were and turn public sympathy against them.

    If Americans KNEW who these people really are (and the only reason they don’t is our sycophantic, lying media), they would vote them out of office quicker than you can say Karl Marx.

  • lineholder

    followed the links you provided. You’ve expressed much the same viewpoint that Heritage Foundation expressed, so you’re in good company on this.

    It’s not going to help matters for us to be naive of what is going on legally, and I’ve always appreciated the fact that I can ask you questions and you are willing to take the time to answer them.

    If I haven’t thanked you for this before, let me do that now.

    Thanks, GC. And God bless.

  • http://thesandsinstitute.org Vassar Bushmills

    But Cinco is a true theological scholar, with, as you can see, amazing recall. What a mean thing to say, coming from a legal scholar.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    I don’t frankly care at this point.

  • Thomas Crown

    (1) They are not trying to avoid a stay. They’re pretending that its presence or absence is irrelevant to them; they clearly care about a stay and its effect on the states. Clearly, they are now aiming at getting a stay, as in, they want one.

    (2) I was being gentle. I won’t be gentle for this: What you wrote is simply incorrect. I litigate and try in state and Federal courts as my stock-in-trade. Almost everything you said was not merely wrong, it was objectively incorrect. Litigants aren’t thrown in jail for filing motions for clarification. Motions for clarification are common in Federal practice in every Circuit. And so on.

    (3) I disagreed with your assertion that, and I quote, “The likely response from the court will be to put an exclamation point on the already crystal clear order either by issuing an injunction, that, in cases like this are quite rare since most civilians comply with court orders rather than risk spending time in jail for contempt; or the court will merely deny the request to force the 26 states that were parties to the case to comply with ObamaCare regulations.” You know as well as I do that these are different things. Injunctions are specific relief that force specific behavior. A specific ruling on whatever it was you were suggesting is more than a mere denial; it would in fact leave intact his rather gentle admonition in his original order. I did not in any way, shape, or form agree with you, except to agree with your implicit prediction that the motion would be denied.

    (4) That was a gentle way of noting that you basically misrepresented almost everything about this procedural moment in this case, and that a lot of non-reader lawyers — based purely on the comments — took your statements to be Gospel. This is the ungentle version: You’re smarter than this, you’re better than this, cut it out.

    (5) I don’t write for the front or much of anywhere anymore. That failing does not change the fact that this diary is not up to your standards, and is materially wrong to boot.

    (6) Let us not go too strongly into the recommendation allegation. When I made it, it was the result of a forensic review. Given the kneejerk reaction here and elsewhere, I have to presume there’s something to it.

    (7) I encourage you to re-read the penultimate paragraph of my comment.

  • Thomas Crown
  • Thomas Crown

    Thank you for asking.

    This diary doesn’t offend me the way the loony-tune’s diary offends me. I care more than anything how and why that was recommended to the top. It’s a half-step from North American Union insanity.

    Hope you’re well.

    -T.

  • Thomas Crown

    So please don’t take this the wrong way.

    I am not a front-page poster. I’m not. I haven’t been in three years.

    I am faced with three choices in seeing the recommends on that crazy woman’s diary:

    (1) The comments/recommending section of RedState has descended to the levels of Daily Kos we used to mock.

    (2) The comments/recommending section of RedState does not believe in conspiracy theories, but believes promoting and defending them is a good idea.

    (3) The comments/recommending section of RedState has decided to cabal recommendations out of some bizarre group affinity.

    Terribly, awfully, (3) is the least-bad option.

  • Thomas Crown
  • Thomas Crown
  • Common_Cents

    Do you really think posts have devolved to KOS status?

    Isn’t focusing and reacting tothe LIO diary equivalent to calling out your kid for spilling his milk while the house is on fire?

    We have to watch out for losing sight of the big picture. I see RS as becoming more insular, hinting at elitist intellectually pure and snobbish at times. You can’t even talk about certain subjects in abstract or peripherally without being nailed with a “conspiracy” charge. That is what Obama and the left wants.

    I see shots at Glenn Beck and Hannity and scratch my head. Would people rather have 2 more katie Courics instead? sheesh.

    This post is more of a general one to RS members but your post kind of precipitated it.
    Remember the big picture, and 80% is your friend should be a daily reminder around here.

  • http://thesandsinstitute.org Vassar Bushmills

    You’ve already failed as a fact finder (above) so why exacerbate it?
    You should have done your homework.

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    Theological scholar–let’s say rather, one who loves hearing those who really have been.

    Amazing recall–my family thinks otherwise; besides, if one only reads and re-reads less than 3% of what some here absorb regularly, it’s not such great shakes for some of it to dribble back out occasionally.

    As for Thomas Crown, I was puzzled by his line, but am willing to give the benefit of doubt in that he may not have taken my elliptical title as intended: namely, that the Inner Ring essay actually concurs with his thrust about intentional exclusion.

    Of course, if I’m wrong about the last, one of the advantages of having a firm grip on (one’s own) Total Depravity is that it gives one a certainty that all criticism is ultimately less severe than what one could justly be charged with!

  • itrytobenice

    I just <3 big families and lots of babies and wish so badly that I could turn the clock back about 15 years and add more to my quiver. Plus I have a teenager who is baby *crazy* and would give anything to be a ‘mother’s helper’ sometimes.

    And yes, we’re doing great, especially now that the blizzard has melted away and we’re sitting on 70 degress. :-)

    The other diary didn’t really hit a big chord with me, so I didn’t read it and therefore can’t comment on it’s content, but I suspect the people who did recommend it were doing so because the energy stuff does seem to be hitting close to home right now, at least if you’re from TX, LA, or buy fuel.

    And nobody trusts the White House or the Ds and our media watch lap dogs are not going to do anything to help inform us. It does cause conspiracy ideas to grow (and I’m not saying it was a conspiracy thing, as I still haven’t read it). The stuff that Labor Union Report has been bringing has certainly made me leery. I know that there are connections to this administration and actions they have taken that deserve a lot more sunlight than they’re getting.

    I suppose this is just another by-product of the failure of trust in the old press and growing pains in the new press.

    (BTW, 20 out of 42 and the writer is not on any of the playgrounds, but we’re certainly aware of her because of the RS draaaaama.)

  • Thomas Crown

    I was agreeing. Or thought I was.

  • Thomas Crown
  • http://thesandsinstitute.org Vassar Bushmills

    …for Those qualified to do so.

  • Thomas Crown

    Yes.

    Seriously, this is Ohio-was-stolen-by-Diebold-level stupid.

    Isn?t focusing and reacting tothe LIO diary equivalent to calling out your kid for spilling his milk while the house is on fire?

    This is a very good question. Did the wave of conspiracy loons during the 90s help or hurt the GOP and the conservative movement? I’d argue “hurt, badly,” and I think that’s the consensus; but if you seriously think the Vince Foster suicide stuff, everything about the Rose Law Firm, the cocaine shipments to Arkansas, God-alone-knows-what-else actually helped, or was neutral, we’ll have to agree to disagree.

  • hoosierteacher

    You’ve been arguing all day. I see that you are a FORMER front page poster, while RepairManJack is a current poster and rec’d this diary. I’m sure it hurts you to be in the minority, but you’re not even in an elite minority anymore.

    A lot of folks (like me) don’t buy the conspiracy stuff either. A lot of rec’d the story because there are a lot of good bullet points that make clear that Obama (the one taking over health care, taking over several banks and GM, and ignoring judicial calls to re-start the drilling in the Mexican Gulf) is doing a lot of bad things. Neither of us buy the conspiracy angle, but you’re missing the point if you think that everyone who rec’d this post does. There’s plenty of bad things that Obama is doing to take over private industries in this country, even if it isn’t coordinated with other leftists (like Soros).

    But if you want to keep arguing, and then denying it, go right on ahead. You’re giving the conspiracists credibility, and that’s not helpful.

  • Thomas Crown

    I?m sure it hurts you to be in the minority, but you?re not even in an elite minority anymore.

    Save your attempts at reasoning for things that don’t involve armchair psychoanalysis.

    But if you want to keep arguing, and then denying it, go right on ahead. You?re giving the conspiracists credibility, and that?s not helpful.

    Paranoid schizophrenics take no cues from reality, copain.

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    It’s not the site’s fault, but the medium stinks re immediate clarification of ellipsis.

    Yes, I find myself having long been in sympathy with large parts of your general complaint–and find it largely self-defeating that an exclusionary approach should be so prominent among a group intending to attract via persuasion.

    And now with apologies to GC for having extended this diversion–and that lacking all knowledge of your topic–I shall return to my quiet corner.

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

    Sure within his top ten.

    Lewis with his usual surgical skill goes far deeper than simply a warning against the peril of cliques, pithily laying out the corruption that arises not so much from being in an Inner Ring, but from devoting one’s heart into seeking to join an Inner Ring. Which in turn leads to the devastation if one actually achieves that goal.

    His opening allusion to War and Peace deftly sets the stage…and subsequently elaborates on the demonic roots of that lust to join the Inner Ring in That Hideous Strength.

    The other notable aspect is that Lewis gave this address to Kings College, speaking to the cream of British youth – for it is the more accomplished who are in greater danger of falling prey to the lure of the Inner Ring – and who can more gravely affection their society by virtue of their position.

    Lots in this essay for all of us to digest.

  • hoosierteacher

    …why you don’t deserve a FP position. You’re entirely too combative to carry on a conversation.

    I have a license to provide mental health counseling thank you, and I fail to see where I provided any counseling for you. Only one of us (I’ll wager) is educated on the matter, so let’s stick to the facts without dragging in something you know little about. You leave out your snark about schizophrenia, and I’ll ignore the regressive behavior you exhibit by telling people that you won’t argue with them as you continue to argue with them.

    Fact: You are in the minority. By itself, that isn’t a big deal and doesn’t make you wrong. But it should cause you to consider why so many people seem to have a problem with the way you are presenting your views. Neil Stevens agrees with you that this is a poorly done diary, but I don’t see him acting childlike (and that doesn’t take a license to observe). A lot of people are able to make your point without reverting to child-like remarks, and you should take a cue from them. Those of us who enjoy the site (and I’ve been here much longer than you) don’t appreciate repetitive, snarky comments. Folks have been banned for less.

    Check your violin strings (more of your snark), and while you’re at it, check your tone and choice of words. There are plenty of people acting badly on the other side of this issue, but you aren’t doing your side any good with your flippant comments.

    Again, the last time that I checked, a lot of people rec’d the diary, including a front page poster. A few (both in support and in opposition of the diary) see conspiracy writing. I saw it, and gave a rec based on the points it raised in spite of the conspiratal tone. I think most people that rec’d did the same. I’m stuck between the folks that believe there’s a conspiracy afoot, and those who assume that everyone that rec’d the post beleives in such a conspiracy. A pox on both of your houses.

    But just posting “I don’t respond to…” over and over again is beneath you, and particularly when you continue to argue. Either argue your points respectfuly, or don’t argue. But if you’re going to abuse the comment button by re-typing the same old tired phrase you don’t deserve to be here.

  • Thomas Crown

    As for people who displayed neither logical nor reading skills.

    Don’t worry. In the kinder, gentler RedState, the latter survive and thrive.

    I resigned from the front on my own initiative, genius. I’ve never asked to come back and have no intention of so doing. Your thoughts on my worthiness for the front would carry more weight if you were actually in any sort of capacity to make that decision, or even influence it.

    I have a license to provide mental health counseling thank you, and I fail to see where I provided any counseling for you. Only one of us (I?ll wager) is educated on the matter, so let?s stick to the facts without dragging in something you know little about. You leave out your snark about schizophrenia, and I?ll ignore the regressive behavior you exhibit by telling people that you won?t argue with them as you continue to argue with them.

    A few points.

    (1) Psychology majors are those to whom English majors go to feel superior.

    (2) The next time you decide to offer thoughts on the underlying rationale for my behavior, speak to an actual medical practitioner first. You know, a qualified expert.

    (3) If you look really carefully, you’ll see I tell the ones who are exhibiting a disconnect from reality that I won’t argue with them, and that’s it. I may argue with others, but the nutjob (for example) who posted the Illuminati-level stupid got a “I don’t argue” and that’s it. If I argued, I wasn’t calling that person a conspiracy nut. If there’s an exception, it’s an accident.

    I’ll give you some time to move your lips over the thread so you can see what I mean.

    Fact: You are in the minority. By itself, that isn?t a big deal and doesn?t make you wrong. But it should cause you to consider why so many people seem to have a problem with the way you are presenting your views.

    Well, I think of it this way: If I go argue with Kossacks at Daily Kos, I’ll be in the minority. If I go to Hot Air comment threads, there’s a decent likelihood I’ll be in the minority.

    1, 2, 3, 5, 7…

    Neil Stevens agrees with you that this is a poorly done diary, but I don?t see him acting childlike (and that doesn?t take a license to observe). A lot of people are able to make your point without reverting to child-like remarks, and you should take a cue from them. Those of us who enjoy the site (and I?ve been here much longer than you) don?t appreciate repetitive, snarky comments. Folks have been banned for less.

    Let’s start with the most obvious point of wrongness here. I beta-tested this site, genius, back in the summer of 2004. I was one of the original Editors (back when we were called Editors, not Contributors). I was the first Super-Editor. I was a Director. I had the deepest kill-count of any moderator on this board before I retired. My tenure beats the Hell out of yours, and while that’s no protection to being banned, it’s a helluva prophylactic to being lectured by a room-temperature liberal arts major about how this site is supposed to work or what the criteria for banning are.

    The second point is that if you think Neil is keeping his elbows in, well, R is still F.

    The third is that the Contributors are welcome to ban me at will; I don’t get why they’ve let things go to stupid here, but that’s their call. They, not you, get to tell me whether I’m out of line for calling the Birther a lunatic, her diary garbage, and everyone who recommended it in need of a serious round of guilt.

    Check your violin strings (more of your snark), and while you?re at it, check your tone and choice of words. There are plenty of people acting badly on the other side of this issue, but you aren?t doing your side any good with your flippant comments.

    Way I see it, for too long, this sort of silliness has been allowed to fester. Your mileage may vary. Clearly, your perception does.

    Again, the last time that I checked, a lot of people rec?d the diary, including a front page poster. A few (both in support and in opposition of the diary) see conspiracy writing. I saw it, and gave a rec based on the points it raised in spite of the conspiratal tone. I think most people that rec?d did the same. I?m stuck between the folks that believe there?s a conspiracy afoot, and those who assume that everyone that rec?d the post beleives in such a conspiracy. A pox on both of your houses.

    I don’t beleive(sic) anything of the sort. RIF.

    Come back when you’ve mastered reading.

  • Thomas Crown

    Not the substance, but about 25% of the tone. 20% at a minimum, 30% tops.

    Friend, I used to moderate you. Please don’t tell me what’s licit and what’s not.

  • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

    Don’t pull me into any disagreement you have with Mr. Crown. I just unrecc’d specifically because of that comment. If you have a problem with Mr. Crown you and only you have that problem. I will not be used as some sort of an example to attack a former front-pager.

    He was here before me, helped build this site. I would not the opportunity to be an FP if Thomas hadn’t helped build Redstate.com. You are severely making me wish I had blamming ammo…

  • hoosierteacher

    I’ll back off at this point, not being proud of my tone either.

    Just one quick zinger about the guys who go to pysch to feel superior to those in English. My BA is in Poli Sci. My MAs are in Political Science and Soc Wk. Many years ago I was a counselor, then a teacher, then a field training officer in law enforcement. (I was in the army in the medical corps well before all of that).

    I accept that I don’t have a major in English. Given my poor use of spelling and punctuation when I type in haste, it is to be hoped that I can be forgiven for what I’m about to type. But after many years of theses, reports, and writing in general professionaly, I think myself worthy of least an associates in English.

    Just saying. And thanks for your remarks re WND in another thread.

    I’m not a fan of the Daniels “truce”, but I’ll make an exception here.

    Best,
    HT

  • Common_Cents

    the bush is dumb, bush is hitler nonstop stuff worked pretty well as half of America was brainwashed into apologizing to the rest of the world.

    As for doubts about Obama there are plenty of hard facts aside from birth controversy, to cast a big shadow on his makeup and agenda. Wright, Ayers, etc…

  • hoosierteacher

    There is an assertion is that this (comments section) is a fight between members and staff. It is not, and your rec demonstrates this. I have no intention of requiring you to justify your rec, nor to drag you into an argument.

    The issue between myself and Mr. Crown seems to have been resolved amicably at this point at any rate.

    As this is not a member versus staff issue, it is clearly not a RepairMan versus Crown issue either, and I would hope that this point is underlined by my premise. That premise is that people are now creating tensions between readers and staff that don’t exist.

    All I did was to point out to Mr. Crown that there is no monolithic view of the staff regarding this diary, and it seems that Mr. Crown thinks that only the readership would support such a diary. As your rec shows, he is wrong. People have also implied that there is a cult of readers rec’ing each other. This is a silly conspiracy as well.

    All I did was put forth that “a front page poster” even supports the story, in order to clarify that the staff is not of one mind. That wasn’t mentioning you by name, it was factual, and it should have in no way been read to force you or Mr. Crown to be at odds. If you took it that way, I apologize for not being clearer.

    I can’t be clearer than to state here and now that I didn’t type anything that sounds like “Well, Repair Man Jack liked the article, so you must be wrong”. It was more like “A few people happened to rec this diary, including a front pager”, and I went on to make clear that different people had different reasons. I hope you can re-read what I wrote and see my intent as it was meant, and not as a way to disparage Mr. Crown at your expense.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Excerpt:

    Late Thursday, February 17, the Obama Administration filed a incredibly odd and almost insulting ?Motion to Clarify? the judgment in the case it lost against 26 states and the NFIB in the Obamacare litigation in Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, No. 10-cv-00091 (N. D. Fla.)(Judge Vinson). With this motion, the Administration has now stated officially that, notwithstanding the Judge?s declaration of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA or Obamacare) as unconstitutional, the Administration does not interpret the Judge?s order as requiring the Administration to cease carrying out the unconstitutional ACA. The ?Motion to Clarify? does not explicitly seek reconsideration of Judge Vinson?s judgment declaring the ACA unconstitutional, nor does it seek a stay of that judgment; it simply says the Federal Government will not be following the Judge?s judgment declaring the ACA unconstitutional unless the Judge issues another order stating to the Government that the Judge did, in fact, anticipate its judgment to have immediate injunction-like effect.

    This motion really is one for reconsideration of the entire case and to stay the judgment in disguise, but the Administration cannot meet the necessary standard to stay the judgment. Most legal observers would conclude that the Administration filed this ?Trojan Horse? motion in bad faith. Suggesting that Judge Vinson needs to give further effect to his order is an insult to the judiciary?s role in our republic, and the court will almost certainly reject the motion.

    The Administration?s memorandum filed with the district court is a study in creative writing for a broader political audience. In my humble experience, it is not the kind of legal argument any serious litigator would want to file in court, because it toys with Judge Vinson?s very kind way of putting his prior judgment and effectively taunts him that he couldn?t possibly have understood the enormity of what he was doing or meant that his judgment would be given effect anytime soon….READ IT ALL

    http://blog.heritage.org/2011/02/18/the-president-thumbs-his-nose-at-judge-vinson%E2%80%99s-obamacare-ruling-doj-seems-to-concede-it-can%E2%80%99t-win-in-court/

  • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

    It hasn’t been the best of weekends, I guess.

    Pox Tecum,

    RMJ

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

    The TRUE loopies are the communists. That’s where our focus should be, instead of circular firing squads amongst ourselves.

  • http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

    There are only so many hours in a day — and along with checking headlines for subjects I’m interested in, I check for names. I ALWAYS get something out of reading Vassar Bushmills and Stephen, for instance — so I’m going to make the time to read their things — and if I think it’s important for other people to read the piece, I’m gonna recommend it!

  • jgwheeler

    in the N.D. of Florida.

    That is certainly a good first step, but it seems a bit premature to take a “cock of the walk” attitude. enough to believe it’s anything like the “law of the land” based on his ruling.

    This is going to be a long. hard, legal fight, with one of the most important decisions on the scope of the commerce and tax and spend clauses that touches on every aspect of our lives.

    To crow over a routine procedural motion from a party, no matter how silly the motion, is in and of itself silly, and diminished the gravity of the issue.

    Judge Vinson will most certainly deny it with the level of gravitas as the manner in which it was filed.

    But a “victory” to crow about? Hardly. An insubstantial point at best; a trivial point more accurately.

  • texasgalt

    and a logical way to handle things when there is so much content.

  • Thomas Crown

    Those who can, try; those who can’t, judge; and those who can do neither, blog about the law for the Heritage Foundation.

    There is so much stupid bound up in that article I’m surprised you’d try to use it as an appeal to authority. It reflects a complete lack of experience with trial practice (What took so long? Seriously? As if clients and lawyers never spent an appeal period working through a hundred different angles before filing the notice.), and frankly slipshod reasoning throughout.

    I agree that Vinson will almost certainly deny the motion. I disagree with more or less everything else in there, but that’s only because my name goes on pleadings and appeals every day. I don’t have the luxury of writing consequence-free for a think tank without bothering to do the work first.

  • Thomas Crown

    The country got a severe case of buyer’s remorse in 2010. I’d like that not to be true in 2014.

    We did ourselves no favors during the Clinton Administration. We’re expected to be the grownup party. When we fail to do so, we get punished. I see no reason to repeat that.

  • E Pluribus Unum

    I have been meaning to tell you this.

    Alright, listen up.

    Twas the night before Christmas an all thru the house
    Not a creature was stirring…….except for the four [a**h***s] coming in the rear in standard two-by-two cover formation.

    Just kidding. A little cabal humor.

    OK here’s what you do. Sail out of the harbor of Miami, pretty soon after dark (this is important), due east for the first 20 miles. Then take a bearing of 135 and proceed125 miles. You’ll com upon an island that’s pretty low, just a few trees. Should get there a before dawn. It ain’t on the maps either. Sail around the south end of the island, and to your east, about 3 miles you’ll see another atoll island, this one with a natural lagoon which you should spot pretty easily.

    There is always somebody hanging out on the beach. If it’s the short fat bald guy, well, you missed the lottery, that’s all I’ll say. Come ashore, just one person. Tell the person you meet “I know the muffin man”. Say anything else, and … well, not good. But if you do, then he’ll flash a finger count, to which your countersign is to equal 6.

    Passing that test, you are essentially in. The short bald guy (or if you WIN the lotto, it’s Salma Hayek’s little sister) will take you over the low hill to an unexpected site. A high-tech bunker with satellite upfeeds, power station, and a couple of huts that serve for living and entertainment for the 5-6 on-site personnel. In the central command hut are a bunch of laptops and flat screens, stacks of blade servers, all that stuff. Typical smallish Ops Center. But the network operator – Stan – if you catch him early enough in the day, before he’s blind slobbering drunk, will give you a seat where you can log in to the cabal as a guest. At any given time, day or night, there’s anywhere from 4 to 20 of us video-skyped in and hanging out, doing our cabal stuff,

    Whoever is tapped in at the time will probably probe you for how you got there, who invited you, and all that. Most likely we know you from RedState traffic, but expect to be grilled a bit on your conservative bona fides. We just like to give n00bs a hard time that way. At least nobody makes you do “record races” (if you don’t know, don’t ask).

    Truth is, if somebody gave you these instructions, you’re already approved. But the quorum that’s logged on has to put it to a vote, do things the official way, you know. And once you’re approved by the cabal, the network engineer will hook you up with all the information you need to go home and log in to the recco cabal. You should hang out till near dusk before returning the way you came. If you want to hang out more days, especially if you brought some generous supplies mentioned below, knock yourself out. It’s a nice slow pace there, if you’r e into that. Which is why I rarely leave. Yes, I’m the short bald fat guy.

    You’ll find life in the cabal less intrigue-filled and thrilling than it appears from the outside though. It ain’t a James Bond movie. All we do is scheme and plot, and recommend each other’s diaries, trying to game the system and get the ones on top that we agree to. Not all that exciting. Oh yes. And we play alot of online hold em. That’s about it. And yes, I’m your daddy when it comes to hold em.

    Oh, by the way, I should have mentioned at the top. Bring some beer, fresh fruit, and for Pete’s sake some fresh land-type food to stock up the on-siters. Good way to make an entrance. And another thing – start boning up now on movie quotes. Particularly from Die Hards 1 & 4, Tombstone, Princess Bride, and Better Off Dead. You’ll understand why later on. We communicate almost exclusively in movie quotes, and we have our favorite movies.

    So, you got all that? Don’t tell anybody, this is kind of an exclusive thing.

  • speciallist

    aggressive new “pat-down” policy….

    All your junk are belong to us..

  • http://www.800cart.com Ron Robinson

    DO NOT come in an aluminum boat.

    Aluminum + Rust = Thermite.

    That’s all I’ll say.

    (not the haute route to hot, especially if Salma Hayek’s lil sis is there that day. The goat is there every day.)

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    http://blog.heritage.org/2011/02/18/the-president-thumbs-his-nose-at-judge-vinson%E2%80%99s-obamacare-ruling-doj-seems-to-concede-it-can%E2%80%99t-win-in-court/

    He’s a lawyer too pal.

    And I have always considered such one word subject lines like your to be rude.

    Moreover, and on a more serious note, you need to apologize to me for the slander of my good name here. I have never been a part of any mutual reco group and I resent being falsely accused of same. You went to strongly with the slander against my name. Take it back. It seems like you now doubt it yourself. Be a big man and admit you were wrong to defame me.

    Please sir.

    In Christ

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    http://blog.heritage.org/2011/02/18/the-president-thumbs-his-nose-at-judge-vinson%E2%80%99s-obamacare-ruling-doj-seems-to-concede-it-can%E2%80%99t-win-in-court/

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • Thomas Crown

    You’ve already cited that garbage once. Again, if he’d ever been in front of a trial court on a regular basis, he’d know what he wrote was preposterous.

    You would, too.

    But enough with pointless appeals to authority. I understand you’re not really all that familiar with Federal practice (litigants face criminal contempt in civil court for failing to abide by an order during the appeal period? Really?), so I’ll stop rubbing your face in that. Let’s turn to what’s clearly stuck in your craw.

    Moreover, and on a more serious note, you need to apologize to me for the slander of my good name here. I have never been a part of any mutual reco group and I resent being falsely accused of same. You went to strongly with the slander against my name. Take it back. It seems like you now doubt it yourself. Be a big man and admit you were wrong to defame me.

    You completely misunderstand me (which isn’t surprising, given the context). As streiff noted elsewhere, we’ve all received the emails. When I said, “Let us not go too strongly into the recommendation allegation,” I was trying to give you an easy out.

    The apology isn’t forthcoming. Near as I can figure, I’ve been too gentle if you’re still trying to salvage this.

  • Thomas Crown
  • Thomas Crown

    I’m happy to indulge it, but seriously, put down whatever you’re imbibing and think seriously about it before you proceed.

  • lineholder

    if you and Gamecock want to get into a knock-down-drag-out-free-for-all, could you please, PLEASE, take it somewhere else???? Please, I’m begging you.

    We’ve got more than enough to face on the battlefront between now and the elections in 2012 as it is without having this site turn into a public brawlroom.

    Please????

  • pilgrim
  • Thomas Crown
  • speciallist

    5

  • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

    The glazed expression gave him away.

  • Flagstaff
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    I usually write a new column for every holiday, but events over the weekend monopolized my time, and I am having to actually practice law today. So, below is least year’s edition. Hope you enjoy:

    http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2011/02/17/obama-files-desperate-motion-to-clarify-to-save-obamacare/

    It is fitting that if we are to celebrate just one President that it be the Father of our Country, without whose leadership and character there would be no Shining City on a Hill.

    [picture may be viewed on above link]

    And yes, today?s federal holiday is still, and always has been, declared in federal law, as Washington?s Birthday, not any so-called amorphous ?President?s Day? requiring celebrations of 43 Presidential oath takers:

    TITLE 5 > PART III > Subpart E > CHAPTER 61 > SUBCHAPTER I > ? 6103. Holidays

    The following are legal public holidays:
    New Year?s Day, January 1.
    Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr., the third Monday in January.
    Washington?s Birthday, the third Monday in February.
    Memorial Day, the last Monday in May.
    Independence Day, July 4.
    Labor Day, the first Monday in September.
    Columbus Day, the second Monday in October.
    Veterans Day, November 11.
    Thanksgiving Day, the fourth Thursday in November.
    Christmas Day, December 25.

    This is the law.

    So why do most calendars and so many people refer to this day as ?Presidents Day??

    In 1968, Congress passed the Monday Holidays Act, which moved the official observance of Washington?s birthday from Feb. 22 to the third Monday in February. Some reformers had wanted to change the name of the holiday as well, to Presidents? Day, in honor of both Lincoln and Washington, but that proposal was rejected by Congress, and the holiday remained officially Washington?s Birthday.

    Nevertheless, there was a popular misconception that the day had been officially renamed?While the name change has never been authorized by Congress, it has gained a strong hold on the public consciousness, and is generally used on calendars, in advertising, and even by many government agencies. There have been attempts to introduce legislation requiring federal agencies to call the day Washington?s Birthday, but these have never gotten very far. No matter what?s in the law books, the popular usage is now well established?

    Reformers? Code word for the liberals that have been trashing American history as a tragedy and the Founding Fathers as mere slave owners for the past 40 years.

    Their propaganda in academia and media is the reason for the so-called ?strong hold? of the false name of the holiday on the public consciousness. The liberal that wrote the above let?s her guard down when she mentions her dismissal of the law. Their contempt for the real America and the Founders extends to the framers of the highest law that is the U.S. Constitution, so why would they have any respect for a ?mere? statute? The only ?law? they respect are those made up by activist judges that violate their Oath to uphold the Constitution.

    General George Washington watched thousands fall on the battlefield so that we could ordain and establish self government based on the rule of law as opposed to the tyrannies of the rule of men, whether they be Kings, Despots or Judicial Oligarchs. He nearly lost his life many times leading Revolutionary War battles. As our first President he astounded the world by peacefully giving up power to his successor.

    Yet, all the ?reformers? care to recall is that he was a slaveowner. Yes, he was a slaveowner, but he fathered a nation that put slavery on the path to destruction and which has freed more of humanity from tyranny than in all of human history. Ironically, many of the so-called reformers that would have us celebrate James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson and Richard Nixon, also conveniently looked the other way when evaluating the greatest enslavers and murderers of humanity in the Soviet Union and Red China.

    The true reformer was the man whose birth we celebrate today. The man who admitted chopping down a cherry tree and went on to chop down the barriers to Liberty so that men could be truly free.

    Happy Birthday President Washington!

    Originally published by Mike DeVine, Legal Editor for The Minority Report in 2009.

    Mike DeVine?s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns

    ?One man with courage makes a majority.? – Andrew Jackson

  • quakergrey

    I noticed that Mike DeVine quotes Andrew Jackson at the end of his writing: ?One man with courage makes a majority.? – Andrew Jackson

    Given the subject at hand it seems odd to quote a president who himself chose to ignore a Supreme Court ruling regarding the Cherokee.

    In Worcester vs. Georgia (1832) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cherokee invalidating removal laws. Justice John Marshall declared forced removal of the Cherokee Nation illegal, unconstitutional, and against treaties made. President Andrew Jackson said, “John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can.”

    History documents the event known as the “Trail of Tears” that followed.

    Do you suppose such a thing could ever happen again?

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    it is a good thing if every now and then, if justified by the actual language of the Constitution, if a President and/or Governor would defy a clearly unconstitutional ruling. All three branches are bound by the same Oath, and in fact, if any two branches agree on the meaning of a certain clause, then they can trump the other two.

    I would say that it certainly was arguable that Court was infringing on the rights of the Commander-in-Cheif with respect to his dealings with a foreign nation, so to speak in the Cherokee nation. Moreover, it was Jackson’s successor that actually defied the court as the trail of tears was not conducted while Jackson was in office.

    Also, Jackson was dealing with possible SC succession at the time and did not want to be at odds with two state governments at the same tame and it is arguable that given the stance of the state of georgia that removal may have actually saved the Cherokee nation from massive losses in battle with teh GA militia.

    more later if desire
    gotta go to court!

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    it is a good thing if every now and then, if justified by the actual language of the Constitution, if a President and/or Governor would defy a clearly unconstitutional ruling. All three branches are bound by the same Oath, and in fact, if any two branches agree on the meaning of a certain clause, then they can trump the other two.

    I would say that it certainly was arguable that Court was infringing on the rights of the Commander-in-Cheif with respect to his dealings with a foreign nation, so to speak in the Cherokee nation. Moreover, it was Jackson’s successor that actually defied the court as the trail of tears was not conducted while Jackson was in office.

    Also, Jackson was dealing with possible SC succession at the time and did not want to be at odds with two state governments at the same tame and it is arguable that given the stance of the state of georgia that removal may have actually saved the Cherokee nation from massive losses in battle with teh GA militia.

    more later if desire
    gotta go to court!

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • gekster

    log out and log back in and the double posts should go away.
    It happened to me once when I accidently double-clicked on reply to this, and it kept up afterward.
    Logging out and back in took care of the problem.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • gekster

    I guess you must be in a spacial vortex in hyper-space.
    Did you close out your web browser?

  • Flagstaff

    No mention on the news.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    I think it also can be related to the way a particular mouse works…who knows

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    there is no reason for him to speak until after he reviews same

  • Flagstaff
  • Flagstaff

    It isn’t clear what Eric the Holder’s purpose was in asking for “clarification.” What he got was an order to file an appeal expeditiously or the clarification would amount to a direct message to the winning states that they may ignore O-Care.

    What is confusing to me is that he didn’t just say, “If a law is unconstitutional it need not be obeyed, and I ruled that it is unconstitutional.”

    He was clearly ticked, though, that the Holder was gaming the issue by waiting until the last day to appeal. Seven more days was generous.