|
|
posted 03-08-2011 18:02
|
|
Mrs Gingrich appears to as enhanced as her husband's twitter following:
|
|
|
|
 Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
posted 03-08-2011 18:08
|
|
|
What is it with Republican women, mad stary eyes and rictus grins? Laura Bush, Michele Bachmann, and now Mrs Gingrich the 3rd.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
posted 03-08-2011 18:16
|
|
|
This kind of reminds me of the Canibus-LL Cool J feud.
Canibus said to LL "99% of your fans wear high heels."
LL Cool J replied "99% of Canibus fans don't exist."
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
posted 03-08-2011 18:47
|
|
|
Ginger Yellow wrote:
What is it with Republican women, mad stary eyes and rictus grins? Laura Bush, Michele Bachmann, and now Mrs Gingrich the 3rd.
C'mon, you didn't think The Stepford Wives was just a movie did you?
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
posted 03-08-2011 18:49
|
|
GY, I think that it's a gated community/country club/botox thing.
They are told that any sign of facial aging is death to their public appeal, and end up resorting to the equivalent of masks. It isn't just GOP wives, either, the "society pages" are full of them, especially outside the coasts.
Of course, this kind of thing is more straightforward:
There is also the theory that Mrs. Gingrich is a cyborg.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
posted 04-08-2011 13:56
|
|
|
Ginger Yellow wrote:
Mrs Gingrich the 3rd
How does that square with his religious beliefs?
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
posted 04-08-2011 14:09
|
|
|
He's a member of the church of me.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
posted 12-08-2011 18:55
|
|
|
Which makes an Obama victory in 2012 all the more crucial.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
posted 13-08-2011 10:19
|
|
|
Why? There aren't any SC vacancies coming up, are there?
OK, I've got another question. The Dems' decision to go for it on health care in 2009 was fundamentally based on the premise - that the recession was a normal, cyclical recession and not a japan-style situation. This, we now know, isn't the case.
In retrospect, would it not have been better Obama and the dems to have left health care alone and spent their political capital on greater stimulus spending and tighter financial regulation?
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
posted 13-08-2011 11:45
|
|
|
Ginsburg isn't in good health, and five years is a long time. You also need to keep all the circuit and district appointments in mind.
As to your second point, there is certainly an argument to be made, though it isn't clear to me that such a plan was politically possible, even given a full court press from the administration.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
Last Edit: 11-10-2011 18:25 By Anton Gramski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
posted 11-10-2011 18:25
|
|
|
Yes. fixed on my link, too, thanks.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
posted 11-10-2011 18:43
|
|
|
Sounds good. I wouldn't expect that in Montana.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
posted 27-03-2012 00:22
|
|
|
Just to nudge this thread back onto page 1.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
posted 27-03-2012 17:21
|
|
The New Yorker's Jeffrey Toobin was pretty confident last week that the law would be upheld. After this morning's session he says he thinks "the law is in grave, grave trouble." Kennedy seems to be rather skeptical of the government's argument, which is troubling to say the least.
edit:
Toobin:
"This was a train wreck for the Obama administration," he said. "This law looks like it's going to be struck down. I'm telling you, all of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong... if I had to bet today I would bet that this court is going to strike down the individual mandate."
Toobin added that he felt that U.S. Solicitor General David Verrilli simply wasn't prepared for the conservative justices.
"I don't know why he had a bad day," he said. "He is a good lawyer, he was a perfectly fine lawyer in the really sort of tangential argument yesterday. He was not ready for the answers for the conservative justices."
Toobin also said he thought Justice Kennedy, the perennial swing vote, was a "lost cause" for supporters of the health care reform law.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
Last Edit: 27-03-2012 17:29 By Incandenza.
|
|
|
|
|
|
posted 27-03-2012 18:21
|
|
Hmm. The WSJ liveblogis reading Kennedy as completely in the bag, and possibly the CJ too. I'd say it's all entrail-reading at this point...
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
posted 27-03-2012 18:24
|
|
|
I can't pretend to understand the legal arguments, but in what I've read, the conservative justices are being described as "unconvinced" on the question of individual mandate, but "more solid" on the interstate commerce argument.
Does the government need to win on both these points, or only one? And if they lose on the mandate question, would that invalidate the law in Massachusetts, too?
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
posted 27-03-2012 18:32
|
|
|
We're probably fucked.
My colleague from Toronto is really talking up Hamilton now. He just bought a house there.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MESSAGE BOARD 
