Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

ObamaCare attorneys shredded before the Supreme Court, liberals stunned to think that ObamaCare might ACTUALLY be unconstitutional

Tingles was aghast.

Everyone on both sides of the aisle agree that the ObamaCare lawyers were taken to the woodshed this week while presenting their arguments in favor of ObamaCare, specifically the individual mandate.  However, John Podhoretz sums up the shock nicely while illustrating the basis of said shock:

The panicked reception in the mainstream media of the three-day Supreme Court health-care marathon is a delightful reminder of the nearly impenetrable parochialism of American liberals.

They’re so convinced of their own correctness — and so determined to believe conservatives are either a) corrupt, b) stupid or c) deluded — that they find themselves repeatedly astonished to discover conservatives are in fact capable of a) advancing and defending their own powerful arguments, b) effectively countering weak liberal arguments and c) exposing the soft underbelly of liberal self-satisfaction as they do so.

That’s what happened this week. There appears to be no question in the mind of anyone who read the transcripts or listened to the oral arguments that the conservative lawyers and justices made mincemeat out of the Obama administration’s advocates and the liberal members of the court.

This came as a startling shock to the liberals who write about the court. 

There’s no telling which of 10 possible ways the high court will finally rule. But one thing is for certain: There will again come a time when liberals and conservatives disagree on a fundamental intellectual matter. Conservatives will take liberals and their arguments seriously and try to find the best way to argue the other side.

And the liberals will put their fingers in their ears and sing, “La la la.”

Ace sums Podhoretz’ argument with a hilarious zinger:

They were surprised by these arguments. Podhoretz says They should not have been surprised.

No one was hiding these arguments. They have been readily-available in court records for two years.

Nor was anyone hiding the two courts’ decisions agreeing with these arguments.

Liberals just chose to ignore relevant information about the world they live in, and then call themselves sophisticated for having chosen to be stupider than God made them.

Exactly.  Podhoretz goes on to give a list of examples of liberals who were previously convinced beyond words that the law would stand up in court, but now aren’t so sure. 

But it’s like I’ve always, always said about liberals: They don’t think…they feel.  And feelings rule the day with them.  We can’t govern this nation on feelings, people.

Exit question: Does anyone believe the SCOTUS will do anything other than rule against ObamaCare 5-4?  You know the four liberals will support it, the four conservatives will support the Constitution, and then it all depends on if Kennedy wakes up on the left side of the bed or the constitutional side of the bed that morning.

March 30, 2012 - Posted by | big government, Constitution, health care, Obama, socialism


  1. Two comments…. First, why in the HE#L has Elena Kagan not been recused from that case? I can’t think of a more blatant conflict of interest than to have her deciding that case. Second, is anyone else concerned with the fact that O’Marxist just ordered the hiring of 4000 new IRS agents to oversee Obamacare? By all accounts it’s going to be struck down….so WHY is he implementing the IRS oversight anyway? Oh, and the Department of Homeland Security just ordered 450 million rounds of hollowpoint ammo. Seriously? People should be very afraid of this administration.

    Comment by Kanaka Girl | March 30, 2012

  2. This, folks, is the ultimate position of the liberals:

    Comment by Kevin | March 30, 2012

  3. What? DHS ordering hollowpoint ammo? Hmmmm. Somethin’s afoot, methinks. Perhaps, in preparation for the “October Surprise” which the Ovomit has planned for us all. Still think this administration is not gonna let an election take place in November. The Ovomit is doubling down on everything he has pushed in the last 3+ years. Like he’s not concerned what the folks think of his policies. Probably just me.
    Liberalism is a serious mental disorder.

    Comment by Jules P. Guidry | March 30, 2012

  4. Methinks you’re right JG. Something wicked this way comes!

    Comment by Kanaka Girl | March 30, 2012

  5. I gotta ask…what’s the big deal about the hollow point ammo? I loathe this admin as much as the next conservative, but I also love truth…and the truth is, hollow point ammo IS the main ammo used by law enforcement on every level, despite the cop shows like Lethal Weapon, Law and Order, et al. That’s just the truth. I have worked for 4 law enforcement agencies, and as a uniformed patrol officer, the ONLY ammo we were authorized to use was “hollow point” ammo. It’s expanding nature helps prevent against “pass through”, where a standard “jacketed ball round” frequently passed through a person, potentially hitting others. The expanding round (“hollow point”) slows down exponentially as it expands, thus creating a more threat-stopping wound in the target and reducing (never preventing, of course) the risk of the round exiting and hitting others. It is a media/hollywood mind-game that makes “hollow point” ammo out to be some secret weapon used by cop-killers and terrorists. While at the police academy, we used standard “ball” ammo for target training, but are issued these “hollow points” for carry on duty. In a department of 400 officers, each officer would be issued 3 magazines (incorrectly called “clips” on TV) – these magazines generally hold 12-17 rounds of ammo, depending on the type of bullet. So, in one mid-size department. That’s as many as 51 rounds (plus the one in the chamber, making 52) PER officer. That is 20,400 rounds for that ONE agency (all “hollow point”).
    The city of Chicago has a police department of 13,000+ sworn officers. If each one is issued only 30 rounds of ammo for duty (ten per magazine/”clip”), that is a MINIMUM of 390,000 rounds of “hollow point” ammo issued by the CPD alone (That’s over 1 million rounds with the NYPD, which uses Speer 124 +P, a “hollow point” round). The ATF uses Speer 165 GD, a “hollow point” round, and the ATF has approx 2400 agents (over 108,000 for that federal agency alone). As of six years ago (2006), There are approx. 120,000 full time law enforcement personnel working for the federal government (with at least 22 agencies within the DHS)
    See how quick the numbers add up?
    Again, I loathe this administration, but I am a consistent believer in truth. And the truth is, “hollow point” ammo is STANDARD police issue, and there is LOTS of ammunition per law enforcement officer/agent. Don’t let the media and Hollywood convince you that “hollow point” ammunition is some secret, ultra-lethal assassin-grade bullet. Not sure why the DHS ordered so many rounds, but this particular type of round isn’t the alarming aspect. Just saying….. I confess that I am curious as to why DHS needs so MANY bullets, regardless of what type.

    Comment by Kevin | March 30, 2012

  6. Why does DHS need so much ammo??? My answer would be that the Mexican drug gangs are running low. The BATF sends them guns so can we assume the DHS is sending them ammo?

    All seriousness aside, ammo will get “stale” and should be routinely replaced, last thing a police officer needs is for his pistol to go click instead of bang. But damn, 450 million rounds for DHS!!!

    Difference between a clip and a magazine; a magazine has a spring, a clip does not. Like Kevin, it grates my butt when I hear someone use the term clip in place of magazine. I am fairly well acquainted with firearms and only know of one weapon that uses a clip internally (some use stripper clips which do not stay in the weapon) and that is the U. S. Rifle caliber, 30 M1 often referred to as the Garand.

    Comment by Dux | March 31, 2012

  7. Kevin, the big deal about the ammo isn’t the fact that it’s hollow point … it’s the question of WHY does DHS need so much and WHAT are they going to use it for and ON WHOM? Remember, these are the people that refuse to even recognize or acknowledge who the bad guys are! They’re planning for something and it doesn’t bode well for the citizenry. Just sayin………

    Comment by Kanaka Girl | April 2, 2012

  8. it all depends on if Kennedy wakes up on the left side of the bed or the constitutional side of the bed that morning

    And it doesn’t matter the issue/question.

    Comment by tnjack | April 3, 2012

  9. […] ObamaCare attorneys shredded before the Supreme Court, liberals stunned to think that ObamaCare mig… ( Share this:EmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInStumbleUponDiggRedditTumblrPrintLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Congress, Constitution, Obama, Obamacare, Politics, US Constitution, US Supreme Court and tagged CNN, Jeffrey Toobin, Obama, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Supreme Court, United States, United States Supreme Court, White House by Kasey Jachim. Bookmark the permalink. […]

    Pingback by Will Obama Defy Supreme Court If ObamaCare Is Ruled Unconstitutional? | Letting Freedom Ring | April 12, 2012

  10. […] ObamaCare attorneys shredded before the Supreme Court, liberals stunned to think that ObamaCare migh… ( […]

    Pingback by Obamacare in the Pot | guppymeansgrandpa | April 14, 2012

  11. […] ObamaCare attorneys shredded before the Supreme Court, liberals stunned to think that ObamaCare migh…( […]

    Pingback by Shredding the constitution | Is the End soon? | May 10, 2012

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: