5-4 today 5-4 tomorrow 5-4 forever

Welcome To Your 2012 Constitutional Crisis Starring Some Weird 5th Circuit Judge

Dick v assholeGood morrow, gentles! Verily, have you Heard the News? A Reagan-appointed Fifth Circuit Judge has handed out homework to a government lawyer, because he is so mad that Obama never passed Con Law. Marburby v. Madison! NYT v. Sullivan! Lemon v. Kurtzman! THREE PRONGS! Did NoObAma cheat on that too? Is his Harvard Law degree a forgery perpetrated by his known-forger illegal drunk-driving uncle? Has Joe Arpaio looked into that yet? PROBABLY! See, Obama declined to be on his oratorical game for one second once yesterday, and said that it would be “unprecedented” for the Supreme Court to overturn a law passed by a strong, democratically elected majority, and then everyone fainted because he had “threatened” the Supreme Court with politics, by mentioning them. And then this wackadoo judge interrupted the government lawyer in a fucking NOTHER Affordable Care Act case, a DIFFERENT one, this one heard by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, and was all SHUT YER TRAP AND LISTEN MISSY, AND TURN ME IN THREE SINGLE-SPACED PAGES BY THURSDAY and he wasn’t even kidding.

So then Bamz was all, oh hey guys, what I meant to say was, um, CBS?

Mr. Obama suggested he meant that it would be “unprecedented” in the modern era for the Court to rule the law exceeded Congress’ power to regulate an economic issue like health care.

SO you could see why he didn’t say that in the first place, because it’s way more boring.

What should President Terrible have said? Oh, just this:

John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it.

Hahahahaha, Andrew Jackson, you fucking dick. [CBS]

Related

About the author

Rebecca is the editor and publisher of Wonkette. She is the author of Commie Girl in the O.C., a collection of her OC Weekly columns, and the former editor of LA CityBeat. Go visit her Commie Girl Collective, and follow her on the Twitter!

View all articles by Rebecca Schoenkopf

Hola wonkerados.

To improve site performance, we did a thing. It could be up to three minutes before your comment appears. DON'T KEEP RETRYING, OKAY?

Also, if you are a new commenter, your comment may never appear. This is probably because we hate you.

147 comments

    1. Terry

      Rulings go to the people who contribute most to the appropriate political campaign or cause.

  1. An Asexual Ungulate

    Mr. President, I demand that you acknowledge my power even though your acknowledgement in no way affects what I can do.

    TELL ME HOW GREAT I AM!

    1. Puffperney

      War criminal and etc., too. Yet, you cannot help but kind of like the guy, if only for shutting down the national bank.

    1. sullivanst

      I don't think any amount of coffee is capable of robbing you of enough sanity to make this make sense.

    1. sullivanst

      In! Lagavulin, please. Talisker would also be acceptable, or Laphroiag but only if it's really old (had some of the 30-year-old once, yum!).

  2. prommie

    I can't recall a case within the lifetime of anyone now living in which the Supreme Court held that congress exceeded its authority under the commerce clause, can you, Goodhead? Is Obamacare gonna get Laughnered?

    1. An Asexual Ungulate

      I see your snark and raise it a snarky precedent!

      United States v. Morrison (2000).

      1. weejee

        Wuz that strike down of the Violence Against Women Act handled under the commerce clawz because womenz are the chattelz??

        1. An Asexual Ungulate

          Ah, but what if it wasn't research, but something that leaped unbidden into my mind (including date)? Does that mean I'm a nerdy loser?

          …oh wait, it does. Ow :-(

          1. prommie

            I was just joshing you. I'm just too old and tired to research anymore. Yelling louder works just as well.

        1. BarackMyWorld

          No, the Court specifically said that Congress exceeded its authority under the commerce clause when it passed the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990.

    2. SorosBot

      And some of these idiots (Thomas especially) actually do want to go back to the bad old days of the aberrant Laughner era, ignoring the fact that it plainly contradicts the text of the Constitution and is just a bad idea.

      Yay to no more minimum wage, the return of the 100-hour work week for all, no compensation for getting your warm ripped off by an industrial press, and the return of child labor!

    3. weejee

      Some Raygun-annointed judge opens his yap about the power of the courts and snik-snack our Wonkette is talkin' about womenz & gunz. The Conservtards ain't got nothin' on us.

    4. oldedinvn

      You are probably a bad person, you just don't seem to understand that the Supremes & Fatherland security is protecting you from your own bad self.
      Wake up! Someone must protect you from the (bombed) people what hate you for the freedom that you are told you have. As the constitution cleary states- you have the right up or be prosecuted. Your betters will always have your (their) self interests at heart.
      Oh, wait. you are screwed.

  3. Baconzgood

    John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it.

    Great tag line for an action movie. If we can get Matt Damon or Bruce Willis for the lead MGM will green light it.

      1. Baconzgood

        Love it! Hammer out a treatment and have it on my desk by the end of the week. C'mon people let's not lose momentum on this project.

    1. prommie

      If you google her true name, you can find the original snorg girl's facebook page and see pictures of her with a red cup at frat parties. What, thats not stalking!

  4. noodlesalad

    Everyone knows that Bush v. Gore = Supreme Court RULZ American democracy DROOLZ and suck it Dems conservative court 4EVAH Scalia OUTTTTTT

  5. rambone

    Dear A-hole judges,

    If the government can reward me, with tax deductions and credits, for buying stuff they like (e.g. a home, a hybrid car or a child) then, in effect, the government is punishing me for not buying stuff they want me to buy (e.g. a home, a hybrid car or a child).

    Just like with the individual mandate to buy health insurance. So if you're saying the individual mandate is unconstitutional, then so is every other deduction/credit in the tax code.

    There, was that simple enough for your Faux-Newz-watching asses? Would it make you judicial hypocrites happier if the government had just raised everyone's taxes and then given deductions to everyone with the right kind of insurance? Or would you still object 'cause there's a nigra in the White's House?

    1. sullivanst

      Yeah, but that stuff's all under the taxing power, not the commerce clause.

      Had Congress decided to call the penalty a tax instead, there'd be no case. They chose to call it a penalty because tax is now a four-letter word among the braindead majority in this country. Fuck you very much, Ronald Reagan, and all your inbred political offspring.

      As Ginsberg pointed out, nobody in the Court, including the challengers, was for a moment suggesting that an actual government takeover of healthcare would be in any way unconstitutional. It's precisely because that's not what ACA is that there's an argument to be had, which, as Ginsberg also pointed out, is actually entirely antithetical to the ideology the challengers advance.

      1. rambone

        So if the executive and legislative branches call a "tax" a "penalty," it's no longer a tax? And then the judiciary will have no choice but to adopt the empty title suggested by the other two branches?

        I had no idea that a prerequisite to becoming a judge was a prefrontal lobotomy.

        1. UnholyMoses

          I had no idea that a prerequisite to becoming a judge was a prefrontal lobotomy.

          If you were appointed by Reagan or one of the Bushies, it's damn near a requirement. (Sandra being an exception.)

        2. sullivanst

          That was the way that part of the argument seemed to be going. Stare decisis (wherein there's ample precedent that the Court considers whether a provision not deemed a tax by Congress has sufficient indicia of a tax to be considered such in a tax power analysis regardless of the name) don't mean shit cuz the Chief Justice is a lying cunt.

        3. Puffperney

          You got it. Not to mention the term "fee" which is neither a tax nor a penalty but rather a … Ouch, my head hurts, nevermind.

    2. oldedinvn

      Fuck you very much for introducing sense into a way for the people what am religious.
      Religion —- A belief that everything that you invent in your mind is real.
      Most people would call it insanity. Well yeah, granted that those people are from a different planet.

    3. Wile E. Quixote

      They'd still object because there's a nigra in the White's House. Look, conservatives are basically racist, authoritarian scum, the kind of people who would not only keep pushing the button in the Milgram experiment but who would also be bitterly disappointed when they found out that no one was actually receiving an electrical shock. You don't argue with people like this, it's as futile as arguing with a zombie who wants to eat your brains, you just make sure that you have a shotgun and plenty of ammunition.

        1. Wile E. Quixote

          Gosh Chet, I don't know. Tell you what, I'll check to see if I am as soon as I'm done shaving my initials into your mom's back hair.

    4. Guppy

      Except, in the case of the mandate, the money is going to private insurers instead of the gubmint.

      It'd probably be more constitutionally sound if it still had the public option (or been single-payer outright), but then Olympia Snowe happened.

    1. mull_man

      I hate being a downer, but channeling jack kerouac doesn't really work when describing court proceedings, does it?

  6. prommie

    Round these here parts, judgin' don't pay enough to attract the brightest minds, so it tends to be a sinecure for political hacks, or an honorable vocation for the younger sons of petty nobles, like the clergy was in England.

      1. prommie

        On the one side you've got your vicious partisan shits, on the other side, your pompous dolts. The Scylla and Charybdis of judicialdom.

        Of course there are exceptions, honorable, attentive, intelligent, and fair judges; these include any judge I am currrently standing before.

      1. Limeylizzie

        Yes, and we can be all "Yes, M'Lud" and "Does my learned friend…" and then we can have universal healthcare and all the womenz will be generous with their favours…

    1. rickmaci

      With a majority in the House and 60 votes in the senate, a constitutional court pack option would exist. Let's just say, it would be within the power of Congress to create a SCOTUS with four more seats for all of the 13 judicial circuits in the appeal system, however, all that would be needed is 2.

  7. SorosBot

    Yeah, it's just so horrible for a President to comment on a Supreme Court case and say that one decision would be bad. Unless, of course, that decision involves something controversial, like saying that the ladies are human beings and can't be forced to host a parasite for nine months, or that the cops shouldn't be able to arrest you for oral sex or assfucking, or that the Constitution's rule against imprisonment without trial applies to brown people.

    As always, it's OK if you're a Republican.

  8. Schmannnity

    Courts aren't political? How do you interrupt an oral argument to request that an attorney respond to a public comment made by the President? Remind me again, how many armed divisions does the 5th Circuit command?

    1. SorosBot

      Of course courts aren't political; I mean it's not like one ever stopped a vote recount to ensure that their preferred candidate for President would get the office despite actually the election or anything.

    2. Me_K_Cong

      Good goddamn point. (Minor edit: I think armored would have been a better word than "armed." But I understand. It's hard to think straight when you're furious.)

  9. oldedinvn

    Never misunderestimate the power of stupidity in the US. How can a whole country live next door to reality & not accept it as a neighbor?

      1. oldedinvn

        Best thing they did. The fence & fatherland security ensures that I will never be there again.

  10. terriblyfamous

    Every good constitutional lawyer knows it's necessary to prevaricate, qualify, and specify the circumstances of a statement until no one knows what you're saying anymore. Come on, Mr. President — I thought you were better than this.

  11. freakishlywrong

    Needs moar Newt. Just cold arrest the fuckers who disagree with you. And wheeze something about "liberty". Hook offed.

  12. James Michael Curley

    Good post Becca. Check out McCain on Charlie Rose's show this morning. First segment and he states Obama is a poor constitutional law scholar because he doesn't know the Constitution says judges can overturn congressional acts. But be kind to Old Senator Juan because he was getting it confused with the Panamanian Constitution.

  13. prommie

    I've been dying to scream this from the roof of the Supreme Court building since law school: balancing tests are fucking bullshit! Fancy name for "whatever the fucking judge wants to do."

    1. LesBontemps

      My version was, "This is the decision because that's the way we like it. When you sit on the Court, you can have it the way you like it."

      1. HippieEsq

        Bingo….each test is judicial sausage made by 9 effing chefs and then recreated by another 9 down the road. Having things like "intermediate scrutiny" and "rational basis" are as predictable as my weed guy.

  14. JustPixelz

    Say what you will, but the Affordable Care Act has been a real job creator. Jobs for lawyers. Jobs for judges. Jobs for pundits. Jobs for people how make Obama-as-Hitler posters. Even jobs as wonkette commenters. (Um, Becca … we will get paid someday, right?)

  15. JustPixelz

    And don't get me started about how John Roberts swore in "President" Obama without checking his ID. You need ID to get on a plane. You need ID cash a check. You need ID to exercise your constitutional right to vote. So you should need ID to be sworn in as POTUS. What a fuck-up.

  16. iburl

    These judges are just sensitive because everybody hates them and they have to wear girl's clothes at work.

  17. Not_So_Much

    Hizzonor Rageface is hoping the homework doesn't get turned in. Everyone knows that means spankings. Over the knee, under the robe.

  18. Joshua Norton

    Someone has been watching waaaaay too much Judge Judy. She just kind of makes up shit as she goes along too. Then screams at everyone.

  19. Callyson

    JFC–first the wingnuts have been pissed when Obama spoke about Trayvon Martin, and now they don't want him to discuss this either. What topics *do* they think Obama should talk about?

    I know, I know…none of 'em, Katie…

  20. WiscDad

    Bamz was all up in some muthafuka's grilles yesterday. Took Ryan and Romney to the hoop, and stuffed it in they face and said 'Budget THIS muthafuckas'.

  21. Guppy

    And then the national bank put Jackson on paper money.

    Where's your political legacy now, bitches?

  22. Slim_Pickins

    Antebellum solutions to modern issues, pure genius. Why hasn't anyone thought of this before?

  23. Troglodeity

    The hearing transcript is even more disturbing:

    "Three pages, Counselor. And in twelve-point type, with one-inch margins. And single-spaced! Ha ha ha! And don't you dare go cut-and-pasting any of that Marbury v. Madison stuff from Wikipedia, because rest assured, Counselor, my clerk will be checking!"

  24. anniegetyerfun

    It WOULD be unprecedented for SCOTUS to overturn a law passed by a Democratically elected Congress. It would also be unprecedented to rule that repeatedly strip searching someone (arrested for what turns out to be a records error) is perfectly constitutional, but the fuckwads went and did that last week, didn't they?

  25. Nostrildamus

    John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it.

    In response, John Marshall wryly quipped "suck my dick".

    1. horsedreamer_1

      In the style of the time, I think it would be phrased, thus: "Stimulate my voiding apparatus with your jaw musculature".

  26. Pres.Beeblebrox

    Shit like this makes me regret I'm a lawyer, but simultaneously glad I'm not a government lawyer facing a nasty Fifth Circuit panel.

    The funny thing is that Bamz is now trying to start a game of 11-D chess with the GOP on what judicial activism really is. I mean, if the Rehnquist court can strike down the Gun-Free Schools Act on the basis that gunz in schoolz have a mimimal, if any, effect on interstate commerce (see US v. Lopez), then how the hell can they say that health care has no effect on interstate commerce? Or will Scalia, et al. wiggle around the Commerce Clause and invoke something obscure to find the mandate unconstitutional?

    Tune in for tomorrow's exciting episode of "The Prez v. The Supremes", on this channel.

  27. kingofmeh

    between the president and pretty much any reagan appointee to the fifth circuit, i know whose expertise in constitutional law i trust more (hint: not the fifth circuit judge).

    this particular "jurist" joined a dissent kindly explaining that it was totes okay that the lawyer for a defendant charged with CAPITAL MURDER – like might (and did) get the death penalty – to FALL ASLEEP during the trial. because, you know, it's not like he slept through the IMPORTANT parts. and also, the guy was totally guilty anyway. hooray for freedumb! see burdine v. johnson, 262 F.3d 336 (5th Cir. 2001).

    i'm sure the lawyer litigating the case would've been held in contempt if he replied, "i'll give you 3 pages on Marbury v. Madison, if you give me 3 pages on 'effective assistance of counsel' and what that means." but oh, it would be worth writing that check.

  28. FlownOver

    You wish. The court's 1% Uber alles majority is going to show up their least favorite Con Law prof every chance they get, and the Herd will use Court action to further delegitimize the Prez. It'll be four years of playing defense at best, followed by God-knows-what.

    Our Wonket cruel mistress's commenting policy precludes any suggestions that might help the situation, because I can't see how a mere skullfuck or two would change anything for the better.

  29. oldedinvn

    Yes. Barry is playing 12 dimension chess with the rulers. How sad that there are 300 million pawns to be sacrificed.

  30. LesBontemps

    If the court strikes down Obamacare, the appropriate response would be "Fuck you, Medicare now covers everyone. How do you like your socialist daddy now?"

    Oh, if only.

  31. Puffperney

    Oh man, I think that is right. Only this time the Bastille does not fall and the aristocrats win.

  32. yrbmegr

    Time will tell. The 1% irrationally wants to defund the only thing standing between them and 300 million angry poors. They want to drown it in the bathtub, but they don't realize that if there is a government to be angry at, the 300 million poors won't come after them. Silly 1%.

Comments are closed.