California State Sen. Mark Leno, Homosexual Rights Extremist, Pushes Legislation Legalizing Multiple Parent Families

San Francisco homosexual Democrat Mark Leno, long criticized as the Bay Area's "kiddie porn king," sponsored the bill. See the Sacramento Bee, "California bill would allow a child to have more than two parents":

Beaver had June and Ward.

Ricky had Ozzie and Harriet.

Mom and Dad, same-sex couples or blended families, California law is clear: No more than two legal parents per child.

When adults fight over parenthood, a judge must decide which two have that right and responsibility – but that could end soon.

State Sen. Mark Leno is pushing legislation to allow a child to have multiple parents.

"The bill brings California into the 21st century, recognizing that there are more than Ozzie and Harriet families today," the San Francisco Democrat said.

Surrogate births, same-sex parenthood and assisted reproduction are changing society by creating new possibilities for nontraditional households and relationships.

Benjamin Lopez, legislative analyst for the Traditional Values Coalition, blasted Leno's bill as a new attempt to "revamp, redefine and muddy the waters" of family structure by a leader in the drive to legalize gay marriage.

Read it all at the link. While a number of difficult family situations could arise involving claims from more than two parents, obviously for Sen. Leno this is the main rationale for the law:

A same-sex couple who asked a close male friend to help them conceive, then decided that all three would raise the child.

Shoot, get enough "families" like that and you just have to change the laws again to allow all three of them to marry. The man will have two lesbian wives. Perfect!

This guy Leno is a homosexual extremist par excellence! California's children and families are in the best of hands.

Okay, check this out:

* Leno authored the highly controversial California legislation that forces schools to teach homosexual history to elementary school students. Long championed by progressive educators, the depraved homosexual lobby calls this "queering." More on that here: "California Wants Lesbians as Mandatory 'Role' Models."

* Leno introduced California's SB 1586, called "CeCe's Law," requiring the state to house transgender inmates in "opposite sex" facilities of the California Department of Corrections. Leno is quoted on this: "“It is time we moved past the archaic notion one’s genitals define their gender, especially in a correctional setting,” Leno stated. “CeCe McDonald may be a 6 foot 2 inch black man with a full complement of male genitalia on the outside but on the inside there’s a woman who cannot be safely housed inside a male prison…”"

* Leno opposed California's 2006 ballot initiative Proposition 83, an initiative statute protecting families against the worst of the worst child predators. Leno's alternative to the state's "Jessica's Law" received widespread attention at the time: "Sex Offenders Have a Friend in Sacramento!" As conservative columnist Catherine Seipp asked at the time, "Did you know that in California, child molesters and rapists are a protected class?" See: "The Sex Offender Next Door."

* Leno's "life partner," Douglas Jackson, died of AIDS in 1990, which given the arc of the disease, would have placed him (and Leno) as highly active during the height of the San Francisco AIDS "radical holocaust" that spread "like wildfire" through the city in the mid-1980s, according to David Horowitz in "The Plague Abettors."

* And here's the gay granddaddy of them all. Leno, among many homosexual rights leaders in San Francisco, embraced Larry Brinkin, the gay rights "icon" arrested last week on homosexual pedophile charges. According to this piece on Brinkin's retirement from the Human Rights Commission:

Framed proclamations to Brinkin were presented by representatives from the offices of Senator Tom Ammiano, Senator Mark Leno, and Mayor Gavin Newsom (declaring it “Larry Brinkin Day”). Supervisor Bevan Dufty appeared in person, giving his testimony of the many times he has called on Brinkin to solve problems in the past. Supervisor David Campos said, “It’s not just the work Larry did for the LGBT community that we applaud; it’s what he’s done for so many other communities.” As an example, Campos spoke of Brinkin’s work with immigration and sanctuary in San Francisco. “San Francisco government will never be the same without you,” he said. The Board of Supervisors officially declared it “Larry Brinkin Week.” SF Human Rights Commission presented a certificate of recognition as well. Brinkin received as a retirement gift two tickets to the Mexican Riviera aboard the Sapphire ship. “You know, I’ve done a lot of cruising, but I’ve never been on a cruise,” Brinkin jested.

Yeah. Cruising.

We know all about that. See: "Larry Brinkin, President of the California Association of Human Relations Organizations (CAHRO), Gay Rights Icon, Arrested on Child Pornography Charges," and "Larry Brinkin Update: Homosexual Pedophile Exposes Rank Hypocrisy of Radical Left's 'Social Justice' Agenda."As quoted at the latter entry:

Brinkin thrived for almost a quarter of a century in a setting that promotes the false premise that moral behavior is subject to individual judgment. He was well-respected in a community that makes heroes of people whose primary goal is to undermine traditional values such as marriage, portray as out-of-date the belief that heterosexuality is normal, and endorse all manner of perverse behavior by putting it all under the umbrella of "human rights."

Thrived.

And Sen. Leno has been spreading that same (depraved) thriving jive throughout the states for decades. How disgusting.

Photo Credit: Towleroad, "Sean Penn, Gay Leaders Push for 'Harvey Milk Day' in California."

Bill Whittle's Firewall: 'One For the Team'

Not sure if Whittle wanted to title this one "One For the Team." He doesn't seem to make the argument that the ruling in NFIB has anything good going for it, at least in the short term.

In any case, via Theo Spark:

Promote Free Markets as the Best Way to Reduce Poverty

I've run this video before, but hey, it's good. Here's Hadley Heath for the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, via Astute Bloggers, "VIDEO: PROSPERITY IS A BY-PRODUCT OF LIBERTY":

And see Dan Mitchell, "Food Stamps, Handouts, and the Ever-Expanding Welfare State."

More From Toronto's Homosexual Pride Parade 2012

Communists and nude not-safe-for-children homosexual protesters, because, you know, you must be a bigot if you don't toe the line on the radical left's perverted values-destruction agenda.

At Blazing Cat Fur, "Did You Know Mao Was Big On Gay Rights?"

And, "Education Minister Laurel Broten's Pride Scrapbook!"

"I am so making your kids like this!"

Yep, that's what it's all about.

PREVIOUSLY: "Larry Brinkin, President of the California Association of Human Relations Organizations (CAHRO), Gay Rights Icon, Arrested on Child Pornography Charges." And, "Larry Brinkin Update: Homosexual Pedophile Exposes Rank Hypocrisy of Radical Left's 'Social Justice' Agenda."

Barclays Chairman Resigns

At the New York Times, "Chairman of Barclays Resigns."

Also at the Guardian UK, "Barclays boss quits over rate scandal: Marcus Agius steps down following the bank's £290m fine for its role in attempts to rig interest rates."

 And a UK Telegraph video is here.

Mexico's Institutional Revolutionary Party Claims Presidential Election Victory

This is interesting.

See the Los Angeles Times, "Enrique Peña Nieto wins Mexico's presidency, early results show."

And at Newsmax, "Pena Nieto Claims Mexico Presidential Win."

Plus, check London's Daily Mail, "U.S. fears the new Mexican government will 'go soft' on the drug cartels."

ZOMG! Obama Chief of Staff Jack Lew Ripped to Shreds Over ObamaCare Tax on FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace

Kudos to Chris Wallace. He had this guy Jack Lew pinned down like a slimy polecat, and boy was that dude squealing and squirming to get out from under the questioning. And note something: This is how it's going to be all year when Democrats are confronted with the fact of their massive "penalty" tax on people who go without insurance. It's going to hit millions of people. And the Dems, like this idiot chief of staff, just won't be able to defend it.

I think the Internet language for this is f-king pwned, and mercilessly.

Via Gateway Pundit, "Busted: Audio of Obama Lawyer Arguing Obamacare Is a Tax Stuns WH Chief of Staff Jack Lew (Video)."

Toronto's Homosexual Muslims Would Be Hanged in Tehran and Beheaded in Riyadh

These kinds of supremely stupid hard-left homosexual protests would only be permissible in the West. A "queer" Muslim woman like that --- if she's indeed a "queer" Muslim woman --- would be executed in countries under Islamic law like Iran (public hangings for homosexuals) or Saudia Arabia (public beheadings for homosexuals). (Although technically, a "lesbian" in such countries might simply face the firing squad, as methods of capital punishment vary depending on gender. The complete denial of human rights remains the same, but progressive don't really care about human rights. If they did, they'd be protesting the aforementioned Islamist regimes, and not Israel.) Only someone who is literally deranged and blinded by ideological hatred of conservatives and Jews would see otherwise, but God knows there are plenty of people around like that.

At Blazing Cat Fur, "So how did you spend your Canada Day?"

There's some background at the Wall Street Journal: "Anti-Israel Group Aims for Toronto Pride Demo."

ObamaCare and the U.S. Government Legitimacy Crisis

A great piece, from Glenn Reynolds at the Washington Examiner, "The Supreme Court, Obamacare and 'Legitimacy'."

The pundits were wrong on their Supreme Court ObamaCare predictions --- that striking down the law would destroy the legitimacy of the Court --- and if anything, it's the executive and legislative branches --- and we had a Democrat majority in Congress when the ObamaCare monstrosity was passed --- who have not only lost legitimacy, but worked to destroy it in the first place. Just read the whole thing at that link, via Instapundit and Memeorandum.

Sunday Cartoons

At Flopping Aces, "Sunday Funnies":

And see Reaganite Republican, "Reaganite's Sunday Funnies," and Theo Spark, "Cartoon Round Up..."

BONUS: At Jill Stanek's, "Stanek Sunday funnies: “Supreme Court’s Obamacare decision” edition."

Bob Burnquist's Big Air X-Games Los Angeles 2012

This guy is one of the most amazing skateboarders in a generation.

See the Los Angeles Times, "X Games: Bob Burnquist comes up big in air." Burnquist was injured and in extreme pain, but he went on to skate and ...

He nailed a switch-backside-Ollie-180 over the 70-foot gap into the 30-foot tall quarter pipe, where he successfully executed an indy-720-fakie.

'Accuse the Accusers': How It Works

Brett Kimberlin was back in court this week. See Aaron Worthing, "Breaking: John Norton Obtains Peace Order Against Convicted Terrorist Brett Kimberlin ... and Convicted Terrorist Brett Kimberlin Obtains Peace Order Against John Norton."

And see especially Robert Stacy McCain, "UPDATE: Lying Felon Brett Kimberlin Scores a Draw in Maryland Hearing." The key quote:

By accusing others of wrongdoing, Kimberlin seeks to evade responsibility for his own wrongdoing. What I’ve called the “accuse the accusers” strategy – which is also witnessed in the actions of Kimberlin’s associate Neal Rauhauser — looks very much like obstruction of justice.

Now in my blogging I've been relating some uncanny similarities between Kimbelin's criminal activities to the workplace harassment I've been dealing with. I wrote about an unnamed harasser here and here, for example. Also available at Google, to the obvious consternation of he who has sought to shut me down. But what's interesting his how Robert's "Accuse the Accusers" theory enjoys confirmation in my case. There's an LGM post here:

Concerning Brett Kimberlin, Patrick Frey, Aaron Worthing, etc.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2012/06/concer…
— Scott Lemieux (@LemieuxLGM) June 27, 2012

And in the comments there, in response to false allegations by the unnamed person that he's being stalked by me, one commenter, who's clearly not up to speed, writes:

... I am not familiar with your stalking story, but I will try to learn more and help you spread the word if you need that. Whatever the circumstance, I’m sorry that you too have had to deal with creeps.

Well, there may indeed be some kind of stalking story (the target apparently is not liked by many different people). The problem is that it doesn't involve me --- there's never been any evidence adduced to that effect --- and this unnamed asshole knows it. But by continuing to foist such lies, people like this can turn the tables to make it appear as if they are victims when in fact it's they who have perpetrated evil deeds against those who simply had the temerity to write the truth about them.

And just like Aaron Worthing has pledged, I won't be silenced from telling the truth.

Yitzhak Shamir Dies at 96

At Astute Bloggers, "YITZHAK SHAMIR, RIP."

And also, the New York Times, "Yitzhak Shamir, Former Israeli Prime Minister, Dies at 96."

Mohammed Morsi Takes Oath as Egypt's First Islamist President

The New York Times reports, "Morsi Is Sworn In, Marking a New Stage in Egypt Struggle."

And see Atlas Shrugs, "Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood President-Elect Morsi Vows to Free the Blind Sheikh, Mastermind of the '93 WTC Bombing."

Team Romney: 'Shame On You, Barack Obama'

Via Reaganite:

Reports: Scientology Was Breaking Point for Katie Holmes

An interesting piece at the Daily Beast, "Did Scientology Eventually Bring Down Cruise-Holmes Marriage?"

Holmes, who converted to Scientology in 2005 before marrying Cruise, reportedly hadn’t been seen inside a Scientology Church for some time. Several years ago, she enrolled Suri in a Catholic preschool.

Deborah Opri, a high-profile family trial attorney in Los Angeles, speculates that the divorce could have been driven by Holmes not wanting Suri to be lured into Scientology. “Their prenuptial contract might have been conducted in such a way that the child, by a certain age, would have been a full-fledged Scientologist,” she says.

Uri Friedman's 'American Exceptionalism' Neglects Mention of Frederick Jackson Turner's Frontier Thesis

It's a good essay (and it looks especially good in the glossy format at hard copy of the magazine). See: "'American Exceptionalism': A Short History." And while it's true that Joseph Stalin coined the exact phrase "American exceptionalism" when he attacked Jay Lovestone of the CPUSA, Friedman's "brief history" neglects mention of Frederick Jackson Turner. According to Scott Zeman in a review of Richard Etulain's, Does the Frontier Experience Make America Exceptional?:

No single historian has been so closely associated with the affirmative response to the exceptionalism question as Frederick Jackson Turner. According to Turner, who presented his famous Frontier Thesis in 1893, what made the United States unique was the frontier experience, that movement of European-Americans from the East into the "open" spaces of the West. The crucible of the frontier forged the American character as independent, rugged, and democratic. The frontier experience, Turner maintained, explains America's departure from its European roots.

That's it, really.

Friedman's piece is fine. I could use it in my classes. But he obviously thinks its funny that conservatives have turned exceptionalism into a partisan wedge, so he highlights how Stalin "first used" the term. In fact, American exceptionalism has a long pedigree in American history and the "frontier thesis" is an especially important iteration of the idea --- and deserves more prominent mention in such a review than does the Soviet dictator's usage.

RELATED: From Herman Cain, at the American Spectator, "In Defense of American Exceptionalism."

Larry Brinkin Update: Homosexual Pedophile Exposes Rank Hypocrisy of Radical Left's 'Social Justice' Agenda

Crickets were chirping among the the usual suspects at the news of San Francisco homosexual child predator Larry Brinkin, first reported here: "Larry Brinkin, President of the California Association of Human Relations Organizations (CAHRO), Gay Rights Icon, Arrested on Child Pornography Charges."

It's, you know, nothing to see here, move along. I mean, someone might say Brinkin's inherently gay predations are no different from, like, the case a young lesbian couple shot in Texas where there is no evidence that prejudice was a motive. But of course, progressives can't argue on the merits, so they'll just attack you as a "bigot." F-king pathetic hypocrite losers. So of course they don't call out one of their own, because that might rightfully cast a dim light on the radical homosexual agenda that's destroying America.

See Blazing Cat Fur, "Moral Relativism and the Plight of a Pedophile":

...Brinkin is just as much the result of a philosophy which preaches that there is no set standard for right or wrong and that human decency is a passé concept that hinges on personal conscience, not social mores or outdated religious criteria.

Brinkin thrived for almost a quarter of a century in a setting that promotes the false premise that moral behavior is subject to individual judgment.  He was well-respected in a community that makes heroes of people whose primary goal is to undermine traditional values such as marriage, portray as out-of-date the belief that heterosexuality is normal, and endorse all manner of perverse behavior by putting it all under the umbrella of "human rights."

So in Mr. Brinkin's case, after making a name for himself advocating for the right to individual sexual expression, it could be that he had convinced himself that pedophilia also meets the necessary criteria.  The North American Man Boy Love Association marched in San Francisco Gay Pride Parades early in Brinkin's career.

Before retiring from the equitable workplace he had helped create and retreating to his e-mail account and his NAMBLA-like discussion group, Larry Brinkin lived and gained fame in a world where the lines that define decency are oftentimes ambiguous.  Brinkin attained star status in a city where people pride themselves on being their own moral judge and jury, where individuals are the subjective arbiters of their own behavior and the sole captains of carnal vessels that are encouraged to set sail in any direction they desire.

Then Brinkin, at 66 years old -- old enough to be someone's grandpa -- is caught with child pornography on his computer and participating in an online chat that approves of sexually molesting innocent children.  The question arises: who, then, in a secular culture determines the ethical norms? After Brinkin spent 22 years working to eradicate a line of moral demarcation, does someone or some system with different measures now get to draw a new line in the sand?

Yes, and this is the lifestyle that well known progressive perverts defend. Remember, if you're not down with the predation you're a bigot!

More from Kathy Shaidle, "Happy Pride! Veteran gay rights activist charged with child porn possession."

Cross-Dressing 101: Teaching Gender 'Diversity' to 5 Year-Old Children

Traditional folks should just learn to be more tolerant and accepting of perverse diverse lifestyles, which include introducing small children to the joys of cross-dressing. Talk about the irreparable harm from the radical left's "tolerance" agenda. What a f-king nightmare:

PREVIOUSLY: "Toronto District School Board: Cross Dressing Guide For Elementary School Students."

HAT TIP: BCF, "Michael Coren & Kathy Shaidle: Cross Dressing Lessons For Kids at the TDSB."

Kate Upton GQ Magazine Cover Shoot (VIDEO)

Via Theo Spark:

That wardrobe malfunction got the lady in trouble: "Kate Upton reportedly booted from Santa Monica pier for showing too much skin."

RELATED: "Who needs Victoria's Secret? Kate Upton lands profile in Vogue after snub from lingerie giant (and there's not a bikini in sight)."

'THE STNDRD' - Issue #1 On Stands Now!

I saw it Friday night in the men's interest section at Barnes and Noble. I didn't know it was brand new. I just grabbed it when I saw the cover shot of lovely Hannah Simone. But hey, if you're going to start a new magazine, the market's still pretty robust for coverage of the hotties.

Check out The Standard.

They've got Arianny Celeste in there as well. Nice.

Miley Cyrus Gets Free Double-Doubles From In-N-Out!

This is no way!

See DListed, "How to Get a Free Double-Double In 2 Easy Steps":

If you drive up to heaven's gourmet emporium on earth In-N-Out to collect a delicious beef orgasm between two buns and you tell the cashier that you have zero dollars to pay for it, they will let the scent of that Double-Double gently hump your nostrils before they yank that food away and tell your broke ass to lick on some used burger wrappers in the dumpster out back. That shit ain't a food bank. That's what should've happened to Miley Cyrus' multi-millionaire ass when she drove up to an In-N-Out drive-thru window in her fancy Mercedes convertible and gave the acting performance of her life by pretending she forgot to bring her credit card. Splash say that the In-N-Out cashier fell for Miley's hillbilly swindle and just gave her the food for free. THE INJUSTICE OF IT ALL. So if you want a complimentary Double-Double just follow these 2 easy steps:

1. Be Miley Cyrus.
2. Pretend like you can't pay for it even though you've got a $100,000 diamond ring on your finger and are driving a car that costs more than 30,000 Double-Doubles.

This HIGHLY important news story is HIGHLY important to us slaves of the Double-Double, because the next time I want to some In-N-Out deliciousness for free, I'm going to show them this post.

It's guess it's not "the climb" after all.

Also at TMZ, "MILEY CYRUS: So Famous ... She Gets Free Meat."

And London's Daily Mail, "Miley Cyrus reveals her spotty skin... and a love bite on her neck days after glamorous red carpet appearance."

Arizona Man Dies After Being Found Guilty of Burning Down His $3.5 Million Home

I saw this out of the corner of my eye yesterday, when Fox News ran a brief blurb. But it never occurred to me that he killed himself. People do die and collapse upon the incidence of extreme stress, so that's sad, I thought. But watch the clip. Clearly, it looks like he downs some medication. He appears to be swallowing. See the Independent UK, "A guilty verdict, a mouthful of poison – and minutes later he was dead." And at Telegraph UK, "Man appears to commit suicide after guilty verdict":

A former Wall Street trader who faced 16 years in prison for burning down his $3.5m mansion collapsed and died in an Arizona court minutes after appearing to take some sort of suicide pill following a guilty verdict.

'The Girl From Ipanema' Turns 50

I love this story, because 'The Girl From Ipanema' reminds me of my parents when I was a small child. At the Wall Street Journal, "The Elusive Girl From Ipanema":

Before 1962, if John Q. Nobody gave any thought to South America at all, it probably didn't range much beyond banana republics, fugitive Nazis and Carmen Miranda. That changed 50 years ago this summer when a tall and tan and young and lovely goddess was born.

She was "The Girl From Ipanema."

Like a handful of other international crossover hits ("Day-O" from Jamaica, "Down Under" from Australia), "The Girl From Ipanema" pretty much put an entire country's music and ethos on the map. In this case, the land was Brazil, the genre was bossa nova, and the atmosphere was uniquely exotic and elusive—a seductive tropical cocktail "just like a samba that swings so cool and sways so gently," as the lyrics go.

At the time, bossa nova wasn't exactly unknown in the U.S., as shown by the Grammy-winning success of "Desafinado" from the 1962 album "Jazz Samba" by Stan Getz and Charlie Parker. But "The Girl From Ipanema" ("Garota de Ipanema" in the original Portuguese) was something else altogether. Not only was it one of the last great gasps of pre-Beatles easy listening, it was an entire culture in miniature.

"To the layperson, 'The Girl From Ipanema' sounds like 'a nice song,' " says the Brazilian-American guitarist and musical director Manny Moreira. "But to the trained ear it is perfection."

Continue reading.

And watch the original Astrud Gilberto performance with Stan Getz here.

Reports: Natalie Morales May Leave After 'Today Show' Snub

Morales is an old school journalist. Her reporting on 'Dateline's' "My Kid Would Never Do That" was excellent, and I remember watching Morales yeas ago as an anchor at the MSNBC news desk. She's got a serious style. And she's obviously a looker.

In any case, at the New York Post, "‘Today’ to lose Natalie too?"

And at Fox News, "Natalie Morales Snubbed? Savannah Guthrie Replacing Ann Curry." And, "Natalie Morales Rumored to Leave ‘Today’ if Savannah Guthrie Gets Co-Host Gig."

Veteran journalist Natalie Morales might be telling the 'Today' show to take a hike if she is not offered the co-host gig with Matt Lauer on the popular morning show, The New York Post is reporting.

Morales, who is Puerto Rican and Brazilian, is technically next in line to take over as No. 2 after media giant NBC reportedly decided to let go of their current co- host, Ann Curry due to a ratings plunge. The show was the top morning show for 852 weeks, until ABC's "Good Morning America" broke their winning streak in April.

The New York Times is reporting that the show's third-hour anchor, Savannah Guthrie, was offered the job as co-host.

If Morales is passed over for the job, which she has reportedly sought for years, she's leaving, a source told the New York Post.

For now, Guthrie has kept mum about the job offer.

Well, actually, Guthrie's in. See the Wall Street Journal, "Guthrie to Move Into Co-Anchor Seat at 'Today' Show."

And see Radar Online, "Matt Lauer's Wife Threatens Divorce If Natalie Morales Gets Today Co-Host Gig."

Actually, it's sounds like Lauer's wife has some hang ups. See London's Daily Mail, "Matt Lauer's wife 'to follow him to London to keep tabs on him while he covers Olympics'."

NFIB v. Sebelius: It's Exactly the Big-Government Disaster it Appears to Be

More analysis on Thursday's ruling.

John Yoo cites both Charles Krauthammer and George Will as "apologists" at his essay at the Wall Street Journal, "Chief Justice Roberts and His Apologists":

Some conservatives hope that Justice Roberts is pursuing a deeper political game. Charles Krauthammer, for one, calls his opinion "one of the great constitutional finesses of all time" by upholding the law on the narrowest grounds possible—thus doing the least damage to the Constitution—while turning aside the Democratic Party's partisan attacks on the court.

The comparison here is to Marbury v. Madison (1803), where Chief Justice John Marshall deflected President Thomas Jefferson's similar assault on judicial independence. Of the Federalist Party, which he had defeated in 1800, Jefferson declared: "They have retired into the judiciary as a stronghold. There the remains of federalism are to be preserved and fed from the treasury, and from that battery all the works of republicanism are to be beaten down and erased." Jeffersonians in Congress responded by eliminating federal judgeships, and also by impeaching a lower court judge and a Supreme Court judge.

In Marbury, Justice Marshall struck down section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, thus depriving his own court of the power to hear a case against Secretary of State James Madison. Marbury effectively declared that the court would not stand in the way of the new president or his congressional majorities. So Jefferson won a short-term political battle—but Justice Marshall won the war by securing for the Supreme Court the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional.

While some conservatives may think Justice Roberts was following in Justice Marshall's giant footsteps, the more apt comparison is to the Republican Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes. Hughes's court struck down the centerpieces of President Franklin Roosevelt's early New Deal because they extended the Commerce Clause power beyond interstate trade to intrastate manufacturing and production. Other decisions blocked Congress's attempt to delegate its legislative powers to federal agencies.

FDR reacted furiously. He publicly declared: "We have been relegated to a horse-and-buggy definition of interstate commerce." After winning a resounding landslide in the 1936 elections, he responded in February 1937 with the greatest attack on the courts in American history. His notorious court-packing plan proposed to add six new justices to the Supreme Court's nine members, with the obvious aim of overturning the court's opposition to the New Deal.

After the president's plan was announced, Hughes and Justice Owen J. Roberts began to switch their positions. They would vote to uphold the National Labor Relations Act, minimum-wage and maximum-hour laws, and the rest of the New Deal.

But Hughes sacrificed fidelity to the Constitution's original meaning in order to repel an attack on the court. Like Justice Roberts, Hughes blessed the modern welfare state's expansive powers and unaccountable bureaucracies—the very foundations for ObamaCare.

Still more at the link.

I think Yoo raises two points, one legal and one political. I don't disagree with the legal reasoning, that by calling the mandate a tax Roberts essentially rewrites the legislation and in fact expands Commerce Clause powers --- because, really, any non-entry into mandatory commercial markets could then be penalized taxed. But I think both Krauthammer and George Will (cited earlier in Yoo's piece) are making political arguments. And it's the political arguments that will matter the most in the short term. Republicans and tea party conservatives are energized, and Mitt Romney has declared his agenda on "day one" is to repeal ObamaCare. It'd be hard to solidify the opposing sides more forcefully. But I'm a political scientist, not a lawyer (see Linkmaster Smith for more on that distinction). I'm seeing virtually all political upside at the moment. Indeed, the White House is already denying that the mandate is a tax after all, the poor babies. And as John Podhoretz argues at the New York Post, "It's on to November" (via Memeorandum).

Check back for more analysis. This is the most interesting "lull" between the primaries and the general election ever.

Previously: "Supreme Court's Decison on ObamaCare — A Substantial Win for Conservatives."

Image Credit: The People's Cube (via Maggie's Farm).

LEAVE JOHN ROBERTS ALONE!

The original Chris Crocker video is here: "LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!" And the dude's Facebook page is here.

Okay, when the Soros-backed hate-monkeys at Media Matters start defending right wing Supreme Court justices against Matt Drudge, you know something is out of whack. See: "Drudge Smears Justice Roberts Over His Seizures." And at the loathsome attack website Think Progress: "Conservatives Claim Roberts Upheld Obamacare Because of ‘Cognitive Problems’ Due to Epilepsy Medication" (via Memeorandum).

There's a screencap of Drudge at Media Matters. I don't see it there now, but earlier Drudge linked to a nasty radio segment from Michael Savage. That's up at RCP: "Michael Savage: Roberts Epilepsy Medication Affects His Cognition."

"Let's talk about Roberts. I'm going to tell you something that you're not going to hear anywhere else, that you must pay attention to. It's well known that Roberts, unfortunately for him, has suffered from epileptic seizures. Therefore he has been on medication. Therefore neurologists will tell you that medication used for seizure disorders, such as epilepsy, can introduce mental slowing, forgetfulness and other cognitive problems. And if you look at Roberts' writings you can see the cognitive dissociation in what he is saying," Michael Savage said on his radio program this evening.

That's just despicable gutter politics. Seriously. And I know there were lots of folks on Twitter who were just eviscerating the Chief Justice (and called out here). Folks can disagree, but don't become the enemy. It's pathetic.

The tea party revolt against the decision is fine. Indeed, the ruling's not helping the administration, for all the media bloviating to the contrary. And as I've noted, technically, the A.C.A. should have been struck down. But no doubt Roberts' decision has galvanized the opposition to the law and the Democrats who rammed it down our throats. See: "Supreme Court's Decison on ObamaCare — A Substantial Win for Conservatives."

Daily Kos Won't Link Reliapundit at Astute Bloggers!

Look, when the Daily Kos vermin take your notice and try to minimize your influence by sneering, "One lower-tier righty blogger (by the name of 'Reliapundit,' no less, so you know it's got to be legit, and no I'm not linking, Google if you care, etc.)" ... then you know you're getting too close for progressive comfort.

Fine.

I linked Reliapundit earlier, a great post: "SPECULATION: THIS IS MERELY A GAMING SCENARIO: IF OBAMA THREATENED TO KILL CHELSEA, THEN MIGHT HE THREATEN A JUSTICE OF THE SCOTUS TO SAVE OBAMACARE?"

BETTINA VIVIANO CLAIMS THAT IN 2008 OBAMA CRONIES THREATENED TO KILL CHELSEA TO GET THE CLINTONS TO BACK DOWN FROM USING THE BIRTHER ALLEGATIONS AGAINST OBAMA.

IF THIS IS TRUE - REPEAT IF, THEN IT IS EQUALLY POSSIBLE THAT THESE SAME CRONIES MIGHT THREATEN TO KILL ONE OF CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS' CHILDREN IN ORDER TO GET HIM TO VOTE FOR OBAMACARE.

Here's the reference to Bettina Viviano, "Did Barack Obama Campaign Threaten Life of Chelsea Clinton to Keep Parents Silent on Obama’s Ineligibility?"

Look, Barack Obama's life is one big political cover-up. Read the first chapter of Monica Crowley's new book to be swept off your feet with a tour de force exegesis of this president's detestable stealth politics of deceit, which includes a full outing of a Democrat-Media-Complex that's remorselessly foisted an endless stream of lies on the American people.

And if you want real conspiracies, ugly racists conspiracies, just head back over to Daily Kos: "Eulogy-before-the-Inevitability-of-Self-Destruction-The-Decline-and-Death-of-Israel." That kind of "Protocols of the Elders"-style of anti-Semitism is right there at home at Markos Moulitsas' hate site.

Majority of Americans Would Repeal Some Parts of ObamaCare

And 31 percent would like to see the entire law repealed.

See Gallup, "Americans Issue Split Decision on Healthcare Ruling."

And get this part at the report, "One in Five Will Vote Based on Candidates' Healthcare Positions":

Four in five Americans tell Gallup they will take candidates' views on healthcare reform into account to at least some degree when voting for major political offices this fall. This includes 21% who say they will vote only for a candidate who shares their views on healthcare reform and 59% who say healthcare will be just one of many important factors they will consider when voting. A relatively small 12% say healthcare reform will not be a major factor in their vote.

And check Rasmussen, "Health Care Law Has Already Lost in Court of Public Opinion":

A week after President Obama’s health care law was passed, 54% of voters nationwide wanted to see the law repealed.  Now, as the Supreme Court is set to issue a ruling on the law’s constitutionality, the numbers are unchanged: 54% want to see the law repealed.

In polls conducted weekly or biweekly for over two years since the law's passage in March 2010, the numbers have barely moved. In fact, for more than a year before the law was passed, a similar majority opposed its passage.

The dynamics have remained the same throughout as well. Most Democrats oppose repeal, while most Republicans and unaffiliated voters support it. Older voters, those who use the health care system more than anyone else, favor repeal more than younger voters. The number who Strongly Favor repeal has remained over 40%, while the number Strongly Opposing has remained in the 20-something percent range.

Most voters have consistently expressed the view that the law will hurt the quality of care, drive up costs and increase the federal deficit. They also don’t like the government ordering people to buy health insurance and don’t think the Constitution permits that anyway.

This strong and consistent opposition led Scott Rasmussen to conclude in a recent syndicated newspaper column that the “health care law is doomed regardless of what the court decides.”

Amazing.

And remember, the law will drive up costs and drive insurers from the market, ultimately meaning that the federal government would be the provider of last resport --- which is what progressives have wanted all along.

BONUS: At Hot Air, "Gallup: Public split evenly on Court’s ObamaCare decision, 46/46; Update: Go on offense, WH urges Dems" (via Memeorandum).

Shera Bechard, Playboy's Miss November 2010, Gets 'Genius Visa' From U.S. Government

I guess she was on of Hugh Hefner's girlfriends as well.

See London's Daily Mail, "Should Playboy Playmate have received 'Genius' Visa? Controversy after former girlfriend of Hugh Hefner granted status for 'extraordinary ability'."

And check Ms. Bechard's Twitter feed. I think she got the visa for all those frisky photos she posts.

BONUS: Zion's Trumpet did a Rule 5 post on her a couple of weeks back.

Nanny of the Month: Banned Bikinis? And You Thought ObamaCare Was Bad!

If bikinis are banned that is the end of America!

Via Theo Spark:

And see London's Daily Mail, "New Jersey councillor wants to enforce 54-year-old law banning bathing suits on boardwalk."

Erin Andrews Leaving ESPN

Apparently this Sports Illustrated story sparked the media coverage: "Erin Andrews leaves ESPN; Fox Sports next?"

And see Huffington Post, "Erin Andrews Leaving ESPN: FOX Could Be Landing Spot For Sideline Reporter (PHOTOS)", and Hollywood Reporter, "Erin Andrews Leaves ESPN, Likely to Take Her Game to Fox."

Erin Andrews is always good for traffic. I hadn't blogged about her in awhile, and after I linked those new bikini photos at Daily Mail, I got Instalanched.

Finnish Driver Toomas Heikkinen Crashes at X-Games Los Angeles Rally Car Event

This is brutal.

At the Los Angles Times, "X Games: RallyCross driver injured in crash during practice."

There's another clip looking from the other side, here.

Stalker 'Threatened to Stab and Decapitate' Sexy Los Angeles Model Kourtney Reppert

You know, there's stalking, and then there's F-KING STALKING!

No doubts about this one, at London's Daily Mail, "Stalker 'threatened to stab and decapitate' lingerie model known as Philadelphia's hottest blonde'."

L.A. Weekly broke the story: "Kourtney Reppert, Sexy L.A. Model, Facebook-Stalked by Luis Plascencia, FBI Says: PHOTOS."

The FBI this week came down hard on a Chicago man they say has been cyberstalking an L.A.-based model the Weekly has determined is Kourtney E. Reppert.

An FBI affidavit in the case against 47-year-old Luis F. Plascencia identifies the victim as "K.E.R.," indicates she's originally from "Philly," and says she's affiliated with a website called Bombshell Marketing, all of which led to Reppert.

Plascencia, a winner who lived with his mom, allegedly cyberstalked her this spring and sent her hateful, venemous messages via Facebook and from several different email addresses, according to the FBI's allegations:

According to the affidavit Plascencia posted personal information about Reppert (he had her family's home address) and threatened to "cut your fucking head off," "kill your parents" and cut her family "to pieces" if she didn't stop modeling.

The messages were sent via Facebook and email, according to the agency.

Plascencia was upset that she was engaged in semi-nude, lingerie and bikini modeling although, at one point, he posed as someone else and asked Reppert to model nude for him, according to the allegations. In another instance he allegedly wrote:

I'm going to stab you in the fuckin' heart and cut your head off.

At various times he called her a "slut," "whore" and "gutless bitch" in messages to Reppert, the FBI says, and he even criticized her looks, saying she was a "fat ass."

Continue reading.

No one should be treated like that, ever.

But then again, there are evil people in the world.

Ms. Reppert's homepage is here.

Supreme Court's Decison on ObamaCare — A Substantial Win for Conservatives

I mentioned William Jacobson's case already (and Mark Levin's), but here's the conservative case for a political win in yesterday's ObamaCare ruling. From David Horowitz, "Supreme Decision: The Best Possible Result for 2012":

Politically speaking there couldn’t have been a better Supreme Court decision. If Obamacare had been declared unconstitutional, the Democrats’ campaign in November would have been those horrible Republicans have politicized the Supreme Court and denied affordable healthcare to everyone. The focus would be on the court’s “unfairness.” The Democrats would have a plausible if unfair case (and in politics lack of fairness is a given). Advantage Democrats. Advantage because the last things they want to talk about are Obamacare and taxes. And that’s the second big plus from this decision. The focus – thanks to Justice Roberts – is going to be on the biggest tax increase in human history on everyone, not just the rich. And on the lies of Obama which dwarf those of Clinton. Obama promised no tax hikes on the middle class and then defended Obamacare before the Supreme Court as …. a tax.

As for the constitutionalists. Roberts’ argument makes sense to me. Yes the power to tax is the power to destroy, but it’s in the Constitution. So this decision doesn’t really change anything constitutionally. If you don’t like Obamacare, the remedy is to repeal it. Let the elections begin.

And see George Will, at the O.C. Register, "Obamacare Ruling a Substantial Conservative Win":

The court held that the mandate is constitutional only because Congress could have identified its enforcement penalty as a tax. The court thereby guaranteed that the argument ignited by the mandate will continue as the principal fault line in our polity.

The mandate's opponents favor a federal government as James Madison fashioned it, one limited by the constitutional enumeration of its powers. The mandate's supporters favor government as Woodrow Wilson construed it, with limits as elastic as liberalism's agenda, and powers acquiring derivative constitutionality by being necessary to, or efficient for, implementing government's ambitions.

By persuading the court to reject a Commerce Clause rationale for a president's signature act, the conservative legal insurgency against Obamacare has won a huge victory for the long haul. This victory will help revive a venerable tradition of America's political culture, that of viewing congressional actions with a skeptical constitutional squint, searching for congruence with the Constitution's architecture of enumerated powers. By rejecting the Commerce Clause rationale, Thursday's decision reaffirmed the Constitution's foundational premise: Enumerated powers are necessarily limited because, as Chief Justice John Marshall said, "the enumeration presupposes something not enumerated."

I would have preferred personally that Roberts had stood up to the left's bullying and ideological thuggery --- that he would have joined with the four conservatives to strike down the law, as per Anthony Kennedy's words: "In our view, the entire Act is invalid in its entirety." But I'm not going to lament how quickly the decision has energized the conservative base. See Roll Call for more: "Health Care Decision Re-Energizes Tea Party."

Obama for America 2012: Health Care Reform Still a BFD

Via Anne Sorock, at Legal Insurrection:

So in case you thought gloating was beneath the POTUS, consider this proof to the contrary. Obama is not ashamed to hawk t-shirts through twitter the same day a divisive Supreme Court decision further divided the country that he claimed he was here to unite.

Chief Justice Roberts Switched His Vote in NFIB v. Sebelius

Astute Bloggers has the dramatic entry, "WHY DID ROBERTS SWITCH HIS VOTE, WAS HE THREATENED?" Or, phrasing that differently, "DID OBAMA'S CHICAGO HENCHMEN THREATEN TO KILL JOHN ROBERTS' FAMILY?"

And I don't know, but the pressure was on. Even the Wall Street Journal comments:

One telling note is that the dissent refers repeatedly to "Justice Ginsburg's dissent" and "the dissent" on the mandate, but of course they should be referring to Ruth Bader Ginsburg's concurrence. This wording and other sources suggest that there was originally a 5-4 majority striking down at least part of ObamaCare, but then the Chief Justice changed his mind.

The Justices may never confirm this informed speculation. But if it is true, this is far more damaging to the Court's institutional integrity that the Chief Justice is known to revere than any ruling against ObamaCare. The political class and legal left conducted an extraordinary campaign to define such a decision as partisan and illegitimate. If the Chief Justice capitulated to this pressure, it shows the Court can be intimidated and swayed from its constitutional duties. If this was a play to compete with John Marshall's legacy, the result is closer to William Brennan's.

More at Memeorandum.

Taliban Release Video of 17 Beheaded Pakistani Soldiers

I looked around for the clip the other night, when AP first reported the story.

Didn't see it then, but Rusty Shackleford has it now, at Jawa Report: "Video: Taliban Behead 17 POWs."

Queen Elizabeth Shakes Hands With Martin McGuinness, Former IRA Terrorist Whose Group Murdered Her Cousin Lord Mountbatten

I guess time heals all wounds, but it must have been rough.

At the Los Angeles Times, "Queen Elizabeth, ex-IRA leader share historic handshake":

LONDON -- In a meeting symbolizing the end of years of enmity between British rule and Northern Ireland republicans, Queen Elizabeth shook hands Wednesday with a former Irish Republican Army commander.

Martin McGuinness, now a deputy first minister of Northern Ireland and a member of the pro-republican Sinn Fein party, was a senior IRA member in the years of sectarian violence. During that time, the group was responsible for blowing up the yacht of Lord Louis Mountbatten, the queen's cousin, killing him and three others while they vacationed off the coast of Northern Ireland in 1979.

The once unthinkable handshake took place away from media eyes -- apart from one camera crew -- behind closed doors at a charity arts event in Belfast, witnessed by the queen’s husband, Prince Philip, and leading politicians including Irish President Michael Higgins and Northern Ireland’s first minister, Peter Robinson.

The seemingly mundane greeting was widely heralded as a turning point. Peter Sheridan, host of the event, told reporters, "It's a huge act of reconciliation, you cannot underestimate how important this is."

The queen, wearing a pale green coat and hat, also toured a local art exhibit, the work of a cultural charity aimed at fostering cross-community relations between Catholics and Protestants. As she left the Lyric Theatre, the carefully chosen apolitical context where the event took place, the queen smiled as she shook hands again with McGuinness, this time publicly as he was standing in line with other officials.

Afterward, McGuinness told reporters he spoke to the queen in Gaelic telling her his words meant “Goodbye and God speed.”

The show of reconciliation was generally judged to have cost both leaders a price. Some hard-line republicans view McGuinness as a traitor, but most agreed that it was a step forward.

"From the queen's point of view, she lost a member of the family, so it's a big step for her," Joe McGowan, a Northern Ireland historian, told Sky News. "Martin McGuinness is conceding something. He has to recognize that the struggle over the past 30 years was lost, in a military sense anyway."

ADDED: At the Belfast Telegraph, "Queen handshake with Sinn Fein's Martin McGuinness bridges centuries-old gulf."

ObamaCare: The Case for Repeal is Now Stronger Than Ever

Flashback to 2010, from Yuval Levin, "Repeal: How ObamaCare Must Be Undone":

Conservative and liberal experts generally agree on the nature of the problem with American health care financing: There is a shortage of incentives for efficiency in our methods of paying for coverage and care, and therefore costs are rising much too quickly, leaving too many people unable to afford insurance. We have neither a fully public nor quite a private system of insurance, and three key federal policies—the fee-for-service structure of Medicare, the disjointed financing of Medicaid, and the open-ended tax exclusion for employer-provided insurance—drive spending and costs ever upward.

The disagreement about just how to fix that problem has tended to break down along a familiar dispute between left and right: whether economic efficiency is best achieved by the rational control of expert management or by the lawful chaos of open competition.

Liberals argue that the efficiency we lack would be achieved by putting as much as possible of the health care sector into one big “system” in which the various irregularities could be evened and managed out of existence by the orderly arrangement of rules and incentives. The problem now, they say, is that health care is too chaotic and answers only to the needs of the insurance companies. If it were made more orderly, and answered to the needs of the public as a whole, costs could be controlled more effectively.

Conservatives argue that the efficiency we lack would be achieved by allowing price signals to shape the behavior of both providers and consumers, creating more savings than we could hope to produce on purpose, and allowing competition and informed consumer choices to exercise a downward pressure on prices. The problem now, they say, is that third-party insurance (in which employers buy coverage or the government provides it, and consumers almost never pay doctors directly) makes health care too opaque, hiding the cost of everything from everyone and so making real pricing and therefore real economic efficiency impossible. If it were made more transparent and answered to the wishes of consumers, prices could be controlled more effectively.

That means that liberals and conservatives want to pursue health care reform in roughly opposite directions. Conservatives propose ways of introducing genuine market forces into the insurance system—to remove obstacles to choice and competition, pool risk more effectively, and reduce the inefficiency in government health care entitlements while helping those for whom entry to the market is too expensive (like Americans with preexisting conditions) gain access to the same high quality care. Such targeted efforts would build on what is best about the system we have in order to address what needs fixing.

Liberals, meanwhile, propose ways of moving Americans to a more fully public system, by arranging conditions in the health care sector (through a mix of mandates, regulations, taxes, and subsidies) to nudge people toward public coverage, which could be more effectively managed. This is the approach the Democrats originally proposed last year. The idea was to end risk-based insurance by making it essentially illegal for insurers to charge people different prices based on their health, age, or other factors; to force everyone to participate in the system so that the healthy do not wait until they’re sick to buy insurance; to align various insurance reforms in a way that would raise premium costs in the private market; and then to introduce a government-run insurer that, whether through Medicare’s negotiating leverage or through various exemptions from market pressures, could undersell private insurers and so offer an attractive “public option” to people being pushed out of employer plans into an increasingly expensive individual market.

Conservatives opposed this scheme because they believed a public insurer could not introduce efficiencies that would lower prices without brutal rationing of services. Liberals supported it because they thought a public insurer would be fairer and more effective.

But in order to gain 60 votes in the Senate last winter, the Democrats were forced to give up on that public insurer, while leaving the other components of their scheme in place. The result is not even a liberal approach to escalating costs but a ticking time bomb: a scheme that will build up pressure in our private insurance system while offering no escape. Rather than reform a system that everyone agrees is unsustainable, it will subsidize that system and compel participation in it—requiring all Americans to pay ever-growing premiums to insurance companies while doing essentially nothing about the underlying causes of those rising costs.

Liberal health care mavens understand this. When the public option was removed from the health care bill in the Senate, Howard Dean argued in the Washington Post that the bill had become merely a subsidy for insurance companies, and failed completely to control costs. Liberal health care blogger Jon Walker said, “The Senate bill will fail to stop the rapidly approaching meltdown of our health care system, and anyone is a fool for thinking otherwise.” Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos called the bill “unconscionable” and said it lacked “any mechanisms to control costs.”

Indeed, many conservatives, for all their justified opposition to a government takeover of health care, have not yet quite seen the full extent to which this bill will exacerbate the cost problem. It is designed to push people into a system that will not exist—a health care bridge to nowhere—and so will cause premiums to rise and encourage significant dislocation and then will initiate a program of subsidies whose only real answer to the mounting costs of coverage will be to pay them with public dollars and so increase them further. It aims to spend a trillion dollars on subsidies to large insurance companies and the expansion of Medicaid, to micromanage the insurance industry in ways likely only to raise premiums further, to cut Medicare benefits without using the money to shore up the program or reduce the deficit, and to raise taxes on employment, investment, and medical research.

The case for averting all of that could hardly be stronger. And the nature of the new law means that it must be undone—not trimmed at the edges. Once implemented fully, it would fairly quickly force a crisis that would require another significant reform. Liberals would seek to use that crisis, or the prospect of it, to move the system toward the approach they wanted in the first place: arguing that the only solution to the rising costs they have created is a public insurer they imagine could outlaw the economics of health care. A look at the fiscal collapse of the Medicare system should rid us of the notion that any such approach would work, but it remains the left’s preferred solution, and it is their only plausible next move—indeed, some Democrats led by Iowa senator Tom Harkin have already begun talking about adding a public insurance option to the plan next year.

Amazing to reread that.

Continue reading here.

And here's Levin's latest, at National Review, "The New and Even Worse Obamacare: The Court’s Rewriting of the Law Strengthens the Case for Repealing It."

'Stop Interrupting Me!' — Katie Pavlich Eviscerates Charles Blow on 'Piers Morgan Tonight'

She's a freakin' conservative rock star!

It gets especially hot near the end of the clip. Charles Blow literally blows his lid attempting to shut down Ms. Pavlich. Typical progressive thug style, the creep:

Mark Levin Rips Chief Justice John Roberts' ObamaCare Ruling

Here's the first 10 minutes, and the rest is at the Right Scoop, "Mark Levin analyzes SCOTUS ruling upholding Obamacare."

William Jacobson says Levin is basically channeling his post from early yesterday: "Stop the self-delusion."

It's an awful decision, but understandable from Roberts' perspective, remember?

Custodian of the Court: Charles Krauthammer Explains Chief Justice John Roberts' ObamaCare Ruling

Makes good sense to me.

See Krauthammer at National Review, "Why Roberts Did It":

It’s the judiciary’s Nixon-to-China: Chief Justice John Roberts joins the liberal wing of the Supreme Court and upholds the constitutionality of Obamacare. How? By pulling off one of the great constitutional finesses of all time. He managed to uphold the central conservative argument against Obamacare, while at the same time finding a narrow definitional dodge to uphold the law — and thus prevented the Court from being seen as having overturned, presumably on political grounds, the signature legislation of this administration.

Why did he do it? Because he carries two identities. Jurisprudentially, he is a constitutional conservative. Institutionally, he is chief justice and sees himself as uniquely entrusted with the custodianship of the Court’s legitimacy, reputation, and stature.

More at that top link, via Bookworm Room: "Second and third thoughts about the ObamaCare decision, which does have some saving grace."

RELATED: "Melissa Harris-Perry, MSNBC Host and Tulane University Professor, Claims ObamaCare Insurance Mandate 'Just Like Buying Groceries'."

Nancy Pelosi Spikes the ObamaCare Football: Teddy Kennedy 'Can Rest in Peace'

My goodness, the melodrama's enough to kill ya:

And see Pat Dollard, "Pelosi to Ed Schultz: Today’s Ruling a Victory ‘‘For Health Care As a Right, Not a Privilege’’."

Progressives Freak at GOP's Pledge to Repeal ObamaCare

Nothing's impossible in politics, so I was surprised at how quickly some on the left pushed back against GOP calls to repeal the ObamaCare monstrosity.

See Ryan Lizza, for example, "WHY ROMNEY WON’T REPEAL OBAMACARE." It's a good case, but it depends on a lot of unknowns. Democrats have been jumping ship on the president, and should we see a transition of power in the White House after November, perhaps Democrat sympathies might shift a bit in the Senate. Never say never on getting 60 votes on cloture. And don't dismiss a possible GOP majority in the upper chamber next January.

Plus, at the despicable Soros-back hate site, "4 Reasons Why Republicans Won’t Be Able to Repeal Obamacare."

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers Reacts to Supreme Court's Ruling on ObamaCare

She's the Vice Chair of the House Republican Conference:

RELATED: See Emily Miller, at the Washington Times, "Getting Rid of Obamacare."

Mitt Romney: Job One. Repeal ObamaCare

Via Theo Spark:

Georgia Salpa FHM Maple Syrup Video

Sexy lady:

And see: "Behind the sexy scenes with Georgia Salpa on her first FHM shoot."

Ann Curry's Emotional Farewell at 'Today Show'

I've been watching CBS News This Morning with Charlie Rose, Erica Hill, and Gayle King, but Ann Curry seems like a wonderful lady. NBC's treating her f-king harshly.

See Big Journalism, "Ann Curry Fired as 'Today Show' Co-Host."

Today's Decision in NFIB v. Sebelius Being Frequently Compared to Marbury v. Madison (1803)

I would normally be posting a few more frequent updates to today's news out of the Supreme Court, but as I noted this morning, I'm trying to carefully digest all the information. No matter how things shake out with all the partisan debates (watch MSNBC for those), I expect Mitt Romney's pledge to act on "day one" against ObamaCare will have a galvanizing affect on the tea party grassroots of the Republican coalition. More on all of that later. Here I just want to highlight that aspect of Chief Justice Roberts' opinion that's generating some attention among legal scholars. Glenn Reynolds called the decision a Marbury moment, and others are now echoing that theme.

See David Kopel at SCOTUSblog, "Major limits on the Congress’s powers, in an opinion worthy of John Marshall":

The Roberts opinion also brings to mind Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). Under intense political pressure from a president and his allies who demand that the judiciary submit to their unchecked will, the Chief Justice gives them the result they want in a particular case. Yet wrapped within that victory is a dramatic strengthening of the power of the federal courts to check the current President and Congress, and every future one.

In Marbury, the strengthening was the affirmation of judicial review itself. In NFIB, it is the first decision  striking a Spending Clause enactment because of coercion; the Necessary and Proper Clause restored to its pristine 1819 status; and a vibrant, broad construction of the commerce clause limits from United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).

None of this comes for free. Marbury was unjustly denied his commission as Justice of the Peace for the District of Columbia. Chief Justice Roberts’ ruling that the individual mandate is justified under the Tax Power is intellectually indefensible. He expressly says that the mandate is not a direct tax (e.g., a tax just for being alive). Accordingly, if the tax is constitutional, then it must be some form of “indirect tax”—such as an excise tax, or a duty. He writes that the individual mandate merely “makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income.” (p. 32). Taxes on buying gasoline, or on the salary from your job, are straightforward excise taxes.

But the problem for Roberts is that excise taxes have always and only been applied for doing something (e.g., buying gas) or for owning something (e.g., a carriage). (Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796).) There is literally no constitutional or tax law precedent for the notion that an individual can be subject to an excise tax merely for choosing not to buy a product. (The only thing that is even close to an exception to this rule is that a trust can be taxed for not distributing its assets pursuant to the terms of the trust. But a trust, unlike an ordinary American citizen, is an artificial legal person which was created for the sole purpose of performing an activity which the trust then refused to perform.)

Some modern scholars say that Chief Justice Marshall, too, had to cheat to get the result he wanted: that Marbury was incorrect to claim that Article III of the Constitution barred Congress from giving the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus. Perhaps so.

But the bottom line is this: whatever political benefit President Obama gains from the continuing legal enforceability of his unpopular health control law and its widely-disliked individual mandate, plaintiffs who wish to challenge congressional and presidential overreaching have much stronger Supreme Court precedent than they did yesterday.

And see Daniel Epps at the Atlantic Online, "In Health Care Ruling, Roberts Steals a Move From John Marshall's Playbook," (via Memeorandum). And Tom Scocca at Slate, "Obama Wins the Battle, Roberts Wins the War":

Roberts' genius was in pushing this health care decision through without attaching it to the coattails of an ugly, narrow partisan victory. Obama wins on policy, this time. And Roberts rewrites Congress' power to regulate, opening the door for countless future challenges. In the long term, supporters of curtailing the federal government should be glad to have made that trade.

Cable Networks Jumped the Gun on ObamaCare Ruling: 'The Supreme Court Has Struck Down the Individual Mandate'

I woke up a little before 8:00am Pacific Time. When I turned on the TV the folks CBS Morning Show were talking about something besides the Supreme Court. I think the volume was down but it was a variety feature so I started surfing around. Both CNN and Fox were at commercial breaks, but then MSNBC was talking about the ruling, although they didn't have any banner headlines or anything. I started saying to myself, "Okay, WTF is going on here?" Then I went downstairs to put on a pot of coffee, and when I came back up CNN and Fox were reporting that the Court had upheld ObamaCare. But Megyn Kelly looked confused at Fox News, and that's not like her. I didn't go online until after I got my coffee, so I was getting my news just from the cable networks. And frankly, I felt like I wasn't getting good information. That was just around 11:00am Eastern Time, so it would have been about an hour since the decision was announced.

In any case, that's what happened with my morning channel surfing. As I've said many times now, I get my news by blogging and it was no exception today. I found out that both CNN and Fox News botched the initial reports from the Supreme Court by checking over at some of my regular YouTube channels. Imagine that. Partisan outlets like Talking Points Memo turn out to be a better place to get accurate updates than the networks themselves. Watch TPM at the link: "Fox, CNN Jump the Gun On Health Care Ruling."

Plus, another video at Daily Beast, "Fox News Mourns the Supreme Court Obamacare Decision."

And here's this, from Buzz Feed, "CNN News Staffers Revolt Over Blown Coverage" (via Memeorandum):

News staffers at the cable network CNN, long the gold standard in television news, were on the verge of open revolt Thursday after CNN blew the coverage on the most consequential news event of the year.

As Chief Justice John Roberts began reading his decision on the future of President Obama's health care overhaul, the CNN team inside the courtroom jumped the gun, believing that Roberts was saying the individual mandate was unconstitutional and would be overturned.

A producer inside the courtroom, Bill Mears, communicated the information to a relatively junior reporter, Kate Bolduan, the face of the network's coverage outside on the courthouse steps.

Bolduan then reported, on air, that the invidual mandate was “not valid,” citing producer Mears.

“It appears as if the Supreme Court justices struck down the individual mandate, the centerpiece,” of the law, she said.

Bolduan, a 2005 graduate of George Washington University who previously worked for a local news station in North Carolina, was named the network's congressional correspondent last year.

The 29-year-old was also named one of Washington's 50 Most Beautiful people in 2011 by The Hill.

Moments after Bolduan spoke, the false story began to metastasize inside the network's online operation.

The erroneous breaking news was made into a chyron at the bottom of the screen. CNN also sent out a breaking news alert.

And a half dozen top on-air reporters and producers within the esteemed news organization told BuzzFeed they are furious at what they see as yet another embarrassment to a network stuck in third place in the cable news race, and torn between an identity as the leader in hard news and the success of their opinionated, personality-driven rivals, Fox News and MSNBC.

“Fucking humiliating,” said one CNN veteran. “We had a chance to cover it right. And some people in here don’t get what a big deal getting it wrong is. Morons.”

More at Memeorandum. I'm amazed at the colorful language.

See also Jeff Sonderman at Poynter, "CNN, Fox News err in covering today’s Supreme Court health care ruling" (via Mediagazer).

Expect updates...

Melissa Harris-Perry, MSNBC Host and Tulane University Professor, Claims ObamaCare Insurance Mandate 'Just Like Buying Groceries'

I noted previously that I'm being careful to learn about this decision and listen to what people are saying about it. Thus I'm literally taken aback by the comments from MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry.

Watch the clip at just after 1:00 minute. She says the individual mandate is a matter of personal responsibility.:

"Just like you have to take care of your own kids and buy your own groceries, you have got to buy health insurance because it is a matter of personal responsibility..."

That's a fundamentally ignorant interpretation of the Court's decision. Well, that, and an ideologically extreme interpretation of the Court's decision. Instapundit, as usual, has a great roundup of the reactions. I'm especially interested in the notion that Chief Justice Roberts' decision was a super savvy political ruling akin to the 1803 decision in Marbury v. Madison. That is, Roberts diced up his reasoning to allow the individual mandate to stand not on Commerce Clause grounds but because of the provision of the IRS penalty for failing to purchase individual insurance. That's a tax and it's in Congress's authority.

Here's Instapundit's initial reactions:

Text of the opinion is still not online. But here’s ScotusBlog’s summary:

In Plain English: The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn’t comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding. . . . Yes, to answer a common question, the whole ACA is constitutional, so the provision requiring insurers to cover young adults until they are 26 survives as well.

So there you are. The Supreme Court has refused to save us from ourselves. The remedy now will have to be political.

FINALLY: Here’s a link to the opinion. I should also note that for those who thought the Lopez case dead, this opinion indicates that it remains very much alive. It appears that there may also be support on the Court for limiting Congress’s spending power. Has Roberts pulled a Marbury, appearing to give ground while actually laying the foundation for change in the future? Call that an optimistic reading.

The key points are (1) there were "not five votes" to uphold the law on Commerce Clause grounds; (2) the Court "has refused to save us from ourselves," i.e., the Court's not going to fix legislation that the political branches established; and (3) Chief Justice Roberts "has pulled a Marbury" by essentially paving the way for a repeal of the law when Republicans come to power. So again, as noted previously, Chief Justice Roberts in 2012, just like Chief Justice Marshall in 1803, is committed to maintaining the institutional legitimacy of the Court by protecting it from partisan attacks in one of the biggest cases since Bush v. Gore (2000). And Robert's is especially interested in preserving his natural court's legacy as a constitutional court and not a political one. In 1803 Chief Justice Marshall ruled that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional because Congress could not change the Article III powers of the Supreme Court (to issue writs of mandamus under the Judiciary Act of 1789). Only the Constitution determined the Court's original jurisdiction, and hence that portion of the 1789 Act was struck down as an unconstitutional grant of power to the judicial branch.

The decision was seen as brilliant politically, because it saved Marshall's Supreme Court --- which was essentially a Federalist court ruling against a Jeffersonian administration --- from being attacked as hopelessly partisan.

In today's ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts also split the difference, in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, and returned the question of a remedy for the law to the political branches.

So, returning to Professor Harris-Perry, it is exactly not the ruling of the Court that Congress can make people buy groceries. Justice Roberts didn't agree with the mandate and only upheld the law by way of upholding Congress's power to regulate and tax commercial activity in the marketplace.

Perhaps we'll see more commentary from Professor Harris-Perry. But if her initial take is any indication, she's badly reading way to much into the Court's ruling, and hence has over-interpreted any kind of legal mandate flowing from the outcome of this case. And remember, she's a political scientist!

See also this post at Instapundit: "HEALTHCARE HEADLINE: Obama Imposes Huge Tax On American Middle Class."