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.
A blog by a "sucker" and a "loser" who served her country in the Navy.
If you're one of the Covidiots who believe that COVID-19 is "just the flu",
that the 2020 election was stolen, or
especially if you supported the 1/6/21 insurrection,
leave now.
Slava Ukraini!
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
5 comments:
House Rules #1, #2 and #6 apply to all comments. Rule #3 also applies to political comments.
In short, don't be a jackass. THIS MEANS YOU!
If you never see your comments posted, see Rule #7.
All comments must be on point and address either the points raised in the blog post or points raised by commenters in response.
Any comments that drift off onto other topics are subject to deletion.
(Please don't feed the trolls.)
中國詞不評論，冒抹除的風險。僅英語。
COMMENT MODERATION IS IN EFFECT UFN. This means that if you are an insulting dick, nobody will ever see it.
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
ReplyDeletethe 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.
ReplyDeleteNone 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?
ReplyDeleteTell 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.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I think I'll wait.
ReplyDelete