That is about what all of the so-called "legal analysis" of the Supreme Court hearing on the health care law is: A bunch of pundits who are engaging in mental masturbation.
And frankly, it is almost as productive as gutting a chicken and attempting to divinate the future by haruspicy or by reading the bones.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Well unless one of the 5 breaks ranks with their %1 masters I'd say the outcome is a forgone conclusion - 5-4 and not in favor of the affordable care act
the distinction between the descendents of Hammurabi and those of Onan is crucial, even today. It's just like with airplane accidents, the pundits generate white noise until the real players do something.
None of the justices are affected by the act in the least, you'd think that would define objectivity, yet because of the 'buying' of the Law quite a few justices have a reason to pass or fail such a law?
Tell me again about a land ruled by "Truth and Justice?"
w3ski
I'll put my money on the chicken parts. At least you can get a meal out of it.
Yeah, I think I'll wait.
Post a Comment