Back to the Future? (Thomas Sowell)

Creators Syndicate ^ | March 27, 2012 | Thomas Sowell

[Vigilanteman]

The path of least resistance would be to essentially punt it back to the voters by saying this or that aspect are particularly troubling and need further legislative clarification before implementation can move forward.

[Don Corleone]

I hope that the Supreme Court uses this opportunity to repeal that odious piece of statist trash known as "Barack Obama"!

There fixed it.

[onyx]

May Dr. Thomas Sowell live 120 years in excellent health!

Lord, hear our prayer.

[jazusamo]

Amen to that, Onyx!

[rockinqsranch]

Excellent dream. Keep on dreamin’, and maybe it will come true.

I’ll wish upon a star, and maybe, just maybe if some others join in we might get some results.

[rockinqsranch]

Thanks for the ping jaz. Another good one from Dr. Sowell.

Wickard vs Filburn has had me all burned up since I read about it here at FR years ago. Way overboard IMO on that one.

[Iron Eagle]

Dr. Sowell is a favorite of mine. However, I hate to pour cold water on his zinger — but the answer is yes. In fact, localities arleady regulate this very issue. They do it differently, but they regulate it nonetheless. Many states regulate the number of hous one may continuously drive — the basis being that too many hours make you a bad driver.

[Iron Eagle]

Dr. Sowell is a favorite of mine. However, I hate to pour cold water on his zinger — but the answer is yes. In fact, localities arleady regulate this very issue. They do it differently, but they regulate it nonetheless. Many states regulate the number of hours one may continuously drive — the basis being that too many hours make you a bad driver.

[stephenjohnbanker]

I didn’t think of that.

[mamelukesabre]

I think we have a prediction here! I’ll go with this one or something else similar to it.

[stephenjohnbanker]

Every Republican in D.C., minus a few, are afraid, so why should SCOTUS be any different?

: )

[Graewoulf]

Dictator Baby-Doc Barack has ALWAYS ignored The US Constitution, ESPECIALLY with Obama”care.”

The cancer of Obama”care” now has invaded World Finances as Obama last week choose a “Public health expert” for the World Bank Presidency.

Romney has promised to “Repeal and REPLACE” Obama”care.”

Senator (R Tn) Son-of-a-Mitch McConnell has promised to “Repeal and REPLACE” Obama”care.”
_______

The major problem with THE NINE SUPREMES is that they are chosen for political reasons by the POTUS, and then they vote as an un-accountable democracy, for a Nation that is NOT a Democracy, but a REPUBLIC.

As a result, THE NINE SUPREMES commonly vote 5 to 4 on most issues. Constitutionality is seldom a consideration, and their up-coming ruling on Obama”care” will prove my point.

Now is the time to stand and deliver to address our grievances to the dictates of the Left.

Oppose the dictates of Dictator Baby-Doc Barack!

Our ONLY chance to ABOLISH Obama”care” rests with THE NINE SUPREMES, because Romney will be defeated by Obama.

IMHO, if Romney is anointed as the RNC Nominee, THE main issue in the National Election, Obama”care,” will be taken off the campaign table. Hence, Romney will not only lose, but suffer another crushing, and sadly typical, RINO defeat.

To those who want poster ideas, here are a few ideas for demonstration posters:

Obama”care” was robo-signed by Congress, and is therefore illegal.

Obama”care” was 2700 pages long, and is still being written, but not by Congress: witness the forced contraception coverage recently added by HHS Regulators.

Obama”care” has caused “The Catholic Spring.”

Obama”care” reduces competition, and therefore is illegal by the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Law.

Obama”care” is designed to be a US Federal Government monopoly, with no competition.

Obama”care” also is illegal according to the US Constitution, because it violates our freedom of choice.

Will THE NINE SUPREMES notice any of these three violations? I seriously doubt it.

Impeached Bill Clinton proved that the US President is above US Federal Law, so anything that the President wants he gets, regardless of the Federal Laws that he has violated.

[Sparticus]

In a perfect (okay - fantasy) world —

Since the Government raises the precedent of Wickard v. Filburn, the court declares Wickard v. Filburn to have been decided in error, and that all laws and court decisions based on that precedent are hereby null and void...

Hey - a guy can dream, can’t he??

Monkeys will fly out our collective backsides before Wickard v. Filburn is over turned.

To use an analogy, if the Liberals were the equivalent of the Mommy in Uncle Sam's national family, Mommy would drown all the children and burn down the house with everyone in it before she would stand for overturning Wickard v. Filburn.

[itsahoot]

You don't have to be a Dr. to know where this is going to end up, TexOkie. The Commies have been working towards this for well over 100 years, they will not give up now, that it all within their grasp.

Remember these words that most people Ignored from GW's Daddy "New World Order."

Of course from a Biblical perspective this outcome is to be expected.

I have said from the beginning that the Court will not overturn this monstrosity, at the very most they may rule the mandate unconstitutional, but leave the rest in place, which will merely shift the mandate burden to the State in some convoluted fashion.

We will soon see that politicians of all stripes have the same sort of view of the little people. We are expendable.

[Impy]

According to Thomas Sowell Obama’s lawyers will be using an obscure case from the 40’s to defend Obamacare.

[stephenjohnbanker]

REALLY obscure!

[supercat]

I hope that the Supreme Court uses this opportunity to repeal that odious piece of statist trash known as “Wickard v. Filburn” and restore some of the balance between the federal government and the states/people.

More important would be a fundamental acknowledgment that, with very few exceptions, the only times precedent can ever form a legitimate basis for a court decision are either:

1. When the decision reached by the court would be entirely justifiable even if the precedent were completely ignored, and precedent is only used to select among other equally justifiable outcomes.
2. When the precedent is acknowledged as illegitimate, but someone has acted on the reasonable presumption that it was not, and the best way to minimize the harm caused by the earlier erroneous decision would be to protect those who acted in the presumption of its legitimacy while simultaneously making clear that such presumption shall no longer be considered reasonable.

In just about all other cases, precedent is either going to

1. agree with the Constitution, statutes, and other legitimate bases for decision, in which case it will be irrelevant, or
2. have been superseded by succeeding legislation or Constitutional amendment, in which case it will likewise be irrelevant, or
3. it will have been decided incorrectly, in which case it will be illegitimate.

There is no legitimate basis for the Court to act as though its decisions represent forward-going law. The fact that the Court's job is sometimes to declare what the law is, does not mean that the law becomes what the Court says. If there is a discrepancy between what the Court says and what the law says, that doesn't change the law--it simply means the Court is wrong.

[rawcatslyentist]

>"Especially when they find out that such a decision would have the immediate effect of eliminating most, if not all, of the Alphabet Agencies... "

Without severance, or pension. Think of the budget!!!!

Time to give the dog a tick bath!!!

[<1/1,000,000th%]

I like it!