Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

An Appeal to Bruce Jenner

marcmat Wrote: Feb 08, 2015 9:41 AM
What a remarkably heartfelt appeal to a fellow human being, Mr. Barber. Thank you for reminding us all who are aghast and proclaiming, "what on earth is this man doing?" that Bruce Jenner is just another lost soul in need of salvation through Christ. Many blessings to you.
"Look, uh, let's be clear . . . "
In response to:

My Mistakes About 2016 Presidential Race

marcmat Wrote: Jan 30, 2015 8:51 AM
She gets the idea from the fact that she is an elitist and feels entitled to the job. In her eyes, she DESERVES it. Those things said, you are correct that there is absolutely nothing in her background and/or experience that would even remotely suggest that she is somehow qualified and capable of leading a nation of 300 million people. The notion that there are people walking the streets of America that would ignore this simple, undeniable truth is nothing short of astounding.
In response to:

My Mistakes About 2016 Presidential Race

marcmat Wrote: Jan 30, 2015 6:44 AM
Number two: It could just very well be that Mitt Romney is a man of integrity and feels that he needs to run if only because he truly feels it's his duty to do so.
In response to:

My Mistakes About 2016 Presidential Race

marcmat Wrote: Jan 30, 2015 6:42 AM
Two thoughts this morning. Number one: the notion that any sane human being would cast a vote for Hillary Clinton in a presidential election is utterly beyond comprehension in my view.
"[I]f Earnest says, "That is not a duck. It has no relation or similarity to anatine fowl in any way, shape or form, and any talk of ducks is illegitimate." Well, now we have a problem. Not necessarily. Just declare the word "duck" double plus ungood and purge it from society.
In response to:

Tortured Discussion about Torture

marcmat Wrote: Dec 29, 2014 10:03 AM
This is about as well an articulated discussion of the issue as I have seen to date. Here's another one: a policy of appeasement is likely to get us all killed.
That may in fact be true. All I'm saying is whether such claims of political motivation are true or not, from a strictly legal perspective they shouldn't control the outcome either way. The motive for passing a statute doesn't matter; what matters is what the statute says.
I have seen the stuff about the legislative intent, but even more persuasive in my eyes is the fact you CAN'T RULE OUT the notion that some who voted in favor of the law embraced that intent. In other words, the fact that limiting subsidies exclusively to state run exchanges MAY have been the intent should be sufficient for a court to leave the statute alone. The people have the power to instill any fix they desire, and candidates are free to attempt to win elections by campaigning on the very promise to do what supporters of Obamacare are asking from the Court. In fact, one might urge Boehner et al. to bring a proposal to the floor right now for a vote on a congressional fix to the very issue presented by the case. That could arguably put the likes of Sotomayor and Ginsburg in the position of having to expressly flaunt the will of the people.
If the statute is unambiguous yet flawed, it is the role of Congress, not that of the courts, to fix it. The fact that those in power that support the law no longer have the votes to do so, based to a large extent on the statute's unpopularity, is precisely how our constitutional republic was designed to work. For any one of the Justices sitting on the Court to ignore that very simple premise and effectively rewrite the law would amount to a clear violation of the separation of powers. Thus, I cannot see the administration winning this case.
In response to:

Why Didn't Obama Call Sony?

marcmat Wrote: Dec 22, 2014 3:42 PM
Yes indeed, what Sony needed was a lecture from Obama; to be "educated" about why it would be bad not to press on. What a buffoon.
Previous 11 - 20 Next