December 1, 2012

Did Chief Justice John Roberts "lose his cool"?

I keep reading about this incident, invariably with the focus on the Chief's demeanor, causing me to suspect that the press is covering for the Obama administration again:
The chief justice accused the solicitor general’s office of being less than candid, by suggesting (as he read the government’s brief) that the secretary of labor in the Bush administration had changed her mind “upon further reflection” when that was not the reason at all. Instead, he corrected, it was “a new secretary now under a new administration” who had done so.

The chief justice scolded, “Don’t say the secretary is now of the view. It’s not the same person. You cite the prior secretary by name, and then you say, the secretary is now of the view. I found that a little disingenuous.”
You can listen to the interchange here, beginning at 29:00. Roberts sharply criticizes the government's lawyer, Joseph R. Palmore, for something that — it seems rather obvious — deserves criticism. I don't hear Roberts becoming inappropriately emotional, which is what "losing his cool" means.

Now, if you want to say Roberts is a hypocrite because his writing is equally disingenuous or worse, that's another matter. It's what Andrew Cohen at The Atlantic is doing in an item titled "The Nerve of John Roberts":
A little disingenuous. This from a judge who disappeared the scope of the Commerce Clause in the Affordable Care Act case.
Disappeared the scope? That's Cohen's way of referring to the identification of some limit on the scope of the commerce power, so that it didn't reach a private citizen's failure to purchase insurance. Congress has power under the Commerce Clause to regulate nearly everything else, which to Cohen's eye is no power at all. Unless it's everything, it's nothing. Disappeared!
This from a judge who gutted decades of First Amendment precedent in the Citizens United case after reaching out, unilaterally, to expand the scope of that campaign finance case.....
Yes, yes, roll out your list of Supreme Court decisions you wish went the other way. That's not in the same category as deceptively stating the facts of a case, which is simply not acceptable in lawyers' briefs. The Solicitor General's office disserved us. The Chief Justice called the lawyer on a deception and — with restraint — said he "found it a little disingenuous."

What I find disingenuous is the criticism of the Chief Justice. And after all he did for you upholding Obamacare! (He used the tax power instead of the commerce power).

But no thanks will be forthcoming. Pressure must be kept up. This is a big term for the Supreme Court — gay marriage (probably), affirmative action, the Voting Rights Act — and Roberts's vote may be required to reach what the media know are the right results. Roberts needs to know that any love for him is purely contingent. He's being watched.

76 comments:

Joe Schmoe said...

WI set the bar for judiciary restraint or lack thereof. If Roberts didn't try to choke the guy, then he didn't lose his cool.

I was just thinking about Roberts the other day. I was wondering if he tossed all or part of ACA, would that have led to an anti-Obama sentiment heading into the thick of the campaign? I wonder if the SC decision validated Obama's abilities in some people's eyes.

Roberts could've cost the GOP the election.

AllenS said...

Good point, Joe.

Rusty said...

I see the democrats need to send some body over to justice Roberts chambers to see that he stays bought.

Matthew Sablan said...

I want to believe there was no deliberate attempt to deceive and it was just lousy writing, like using The Court to stand in for the individual composition of the 9 justices, even after we change one out, without realizing "Hey, that doesn't really work now, does it?"

Of course, I assume the best in everybody.

Except ducks. They're jerks.

Jake Diamond said...

...causing me to suspect that the press is covering for the Obama administration again

Oh boy, another loony Althouse conspiracy theory.

Althouse lemmings! Forward march!

Ameryx said...

A passage from Nicholas Taleb's new book, "Antifragile" seems a propos:

If you see fraud, and you don't say fraud, you are a fraud.

Pogo said...

In which Roberts finds out he must keep paying the Danegeld.

AprilApple said...

You mean to tell me liberals are waiting to smear Justice Roberts with their own feces whenever he doesn't rule their way?

I'm shocked.

Ann Althouse said...

"Oh boy, another loony Althouse conspiracy theory."

You denounce skepticism and paying close attention.

Why aren't you afraid of your own complacency, dullness, and manipulability? So incurious. Sheeple! Oh, yes, obviously... it's not the Bush years anymore.

La la la. Everything's fine!

Speaking of lemmings... our leaders are right now talking about taking us over a cliff.

But la la la... Obama's cool... the media are professional...

Ann Althouse said...

"Althouse lemmings! Forward march!"

Lemmings don't march. They don't take orders. They just feel and do.

Jake Diamond said...

You denounce skepticism and paying close attention.

If you don't know the difference between skepticism and loony conspiracy theories (e.g., "the press is covering for the Obama administration again"), then you shouldn't be teaching law.

AllenS said...

During the Bush years, his annual deficits were viewed as: Bush and his wasteful deficit spending.

Now, with this present administration's deficit spending all you hear is: Obama's wonderful stimulus package.

ABOUT FACE!

Mick said...

Roberts has committed Treason. He participated in Obama never taking the Presidential oath. They flubbed it the first time on purpose, and then did it in private the second (why would they have to do it again if the first one was valid?). The second one was done in private, with few present, and only a recording and a few still photos exist. If you listen closely that
"oath" is also voided by an affirmation of religion asked for by Roberts at the end. The affirmation "so help me god" is not part of the oath, but variations of the voluntary pledge of truth have been uttered by many, if not all Presidents. However this time Obama offers no affirmation (because he is lying when he says he will protect and defend the Constitution he knows he is breaking), and Roberts ASKS him at the end "SO HELP YOU GOD?" (which is not part of the oath). Obama answers "so help me god", knowing that the oath has been voided by an affirmation of religion in violation of the establishment clause. These criminals are very slick.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Second_oath_of_office_of_Barack_Obama_edit.jpg

Notice there is no bible. Notice also this line, which is repeated often by the useful idiot media protecting the Usurper:

"To avoid any constitutional problems, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. administers the oath of office a second time with Barack Obama in the Map Room of the White House on Wednesday, January 21, 2009".

Listen to them all cracking nervous jokes in this only record of the second oath (download the clip) on the right side of this wiki page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States

The Obamacare decision?--- well that's just pure nonesense, decided by a compromised and blackmailed chief justice.

Jake Diamond said...

Roberts has committed Treason. He participated in Obama never taking the Presidential oath. They flubbed it the first time on purpose

Speaking of loony conspiracy theories... Welcome to Althouse!

JRPtwo said...

I recently asked a reporter who covered the Supreme Court for a major (left of center) newspaper for some years, who on the court most impressed him. His answer was Roberts, noting that Roberts without a single exception was very calm and polite to everyone in the courtroom.

Rusty said...

Jake Diamond said...
You denounce skepticism and paying close attention.

If you don't know the difference between skepticism and loony conspiracy theories (e.g., "the press is covering for the Obama administration again"), then you shouldn't be teaching law.


doubling down on stupid isn't a strategy.

Unknown said...

I don't think the criticism of the SG's office is as clearly warranted as you do. Attorneys (and sometimes courts) often refer to "the Secretary" in a sense nearly drained of personanality to mean, more or less, the agency. Courts for that matter often write that "we held X" even in cases where the author or opinion majority didn't agree with X and in cases in which none of the current members of the court were part of the human we making that first decision. When, as the SG's office often would, one starts thinking (though, of course, an ofice doesn't literally think,it's people in the office)of the phrase "the Secretary" as a synonym for an institutional entity, it is natural to refer to the instiuttion's acts or thoughts or changes of minds as "the Secretary's" even though the actual deed doing, thought thinking, and mind changing isn't located in the literal person of the Secretary.

Paco Wové said...

"you shouldn't be teaching law"

Take it up with the state of Wisconsin. I'm sure they'll get right on it.

Saint Croix said...

our leaders are right now talking about taking us over a cliff.

Bernanke is responsible for that metaphor. And it's a wonderful metaphor. It's scary, isn't it? Very visual. We're going over a cliff.

Remember when Obama used the term ditch? Bush drove us into a ditch, and Obama is pushing us out of the ditch.

But now we are heading towards a cliff.

The campaign for President was full of trvialities. And Obama won, I believe, because Romney is rich, and he was effectively demonized.

We might criticize this metaphor as more triviality. And yet I think this metaphor is a highly visual stand-in for the economic peril that is facing us.

We haven't had a budget in years.

We increased our national debt by 60% in four years. From $10 trillion to $16 trillion, just like that.

Our credit rating has been downgraded, for the first time in American history.

A giant new program, Obamacare, is about to hit us.

And so this scary thing, this cliff, is a very apt metaphor.

Liberals have tried to walk it back, calling it a "slope." But it's too late. Even the low information voters have heard of this scary cliff that's up ahead.

And that's precisely why Bernanke used the scary term. He has put pressure on the Congress and the President to fix their budget and get the government to behave responsibly. And he has done so with a very apt metaphor.

Of course the danger in this threatening language is that if the government fails to pass a budget and fix our serious problems, the cliff metaphor is likely to become an economic reality.

Meaning our markets might crash.

Joe Schmoe said...

On the govt.'s part, it does seem like sleight of hand more than slip of tongue. It would've been just as easy to say a change in leadership has led the dept. to reverse its stand. Eleven or so words. Easy-peasy.

I don't think the govt. thought it was a big deal and wouldn't get called on it. That type of language framing must be employed all the time in legal briefs and what-not.

Jake Diamond seems to think we all think this is some sort of pre-planned conspiracy with instruction manuals and secret decoder rings. That's what makes it all the more pernicious. It's not necessarily overtly orchestrated, but it's a line of thought that permeates and influences Democrat ideals. And for some reason all of their 'slips of tongues' redound to their benefit yet are ethereal enough to be brushed off as such.

phx said...

And you! A law professor!

jaynie said...

"...Except ducks. They're jerks."

And, except the Prez. He's the cool jerk -

Wiki cool jerk : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_Jerk

Lyrics cool jerk: http://www.kovideo.net/cool-jerk-lyrics-the-capitols-725860.html

So, somehow,a wafer thin resume qualifies one for the Presidency so long as he is cool. Oh, I misunderstand and distrust coolness...even I kind of loathe cool.

When it comes to doing the difficult work of leading, I do not trust the suave, the cool, to be able to do the heavy lifting. For this I prefer one of the action type men. The can-do men, they step up to do the work. Two overarching types here, both of which besides the fact that i adore them, I also believe in them to do the work:

1.) the hyper-focused geek
2.) the monosyllabic muscle/mountain man

Oh, be still my heart ... get lost cool jerk...

Mick said...

Jake Diamond said...
"Roberts has committed Treason. He participated in Obama never taking the Presidential oath. They flubbed it the first time on purpose

Speaking of loony conspiracy theories... Welcome to Althouse!"


Ah, another of the Obot brigade, paid internet operatives, paid to protect the Usurper all over the internet by ridiculing all those against the Marxist takeover of the US government. Notice how no facts or anything close to "evidence" is ever presented. Look at the links I provided, and you will see all you need. An asked for affirmation of religion in an oath of office is a clear violation of the establishment clause. If the first oath was legally performed there would be no need for the second. Roberts is a co conspirator in the overthrow of the US government, and Useful idiots like you aid and abet it.

Mick said...

An Election Contest was filed in Fla. Leon County Circuit Court this week: WFl. ss. 102.168(1)(3)(b)gives standing to ANY voter or taxpayer to challenge the "nomination or election of ANY PERSON to office" based on the candidate's eligibility for the office sought. US Code 3 S.5 requires that election contests be adjudicated by the highest judicial tribunal (Fl. Supreme Court)by 6 days prior to Elector Voting Day in order to attain Section 2 status of the Florida Electors. (Meaning that eligibility for office is a JUDICIAL determination-- not a political one-- SPECIFICALLY by US statute). The Florida Supreme Court has also held that eligibility for office is a JUDICIAL DETERMINATION (Shevin v. Stone (1972)). It looks like the Fla. courts will have to make a determination of the meaning of natural born Citizen without first deciding that defendant has no standing (WITH PRECEDENCE). Plaintiff has PERFECT STANDING given by Florida statutes. Will they actually go all in on the lie of Obama's eligibility, and actually lie with precedence?

Mick said...

Filed in Leon Co. Circuit Court:

STATEMENT OF FACTS
7. As a Florida elector, claimant has taken an oath to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” (Art. 6 s. 3 Florida Constitution).
8. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the United States (Art. 6, c.2). Article 2 Section 1 Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution is a self executing constitutional provision, that uses the words “no person but a natural born Citizen shall be eligible” (sic), leaving no discretion in the eligibility requirement. As a self executing constitutional provision, no law or statute is necessary to enforce it.
9. Plaintiff asserts that Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural born Citizen of the United States because he was born a British subject of a British subject father, Barack Obama Sr., whom was married to the mother of Barack H. Obama at the time Barack H. Obama was born.
10. Barack Obama Sr., a citizen of the British colony of Kenya, and his children, were subject to the operation of the British Nationality Act of 1948. By the operation of Part 1 Section 1 of that Act, Barack Hussein Obama became a British subject, upon birth to a British subject father. It is not known whether he has lost that birth allegiance to the British crown.
11. The natural born Citizen clause pertaining to Presidential eligibility is a national security requirement designed to prevent foreign influence in the highest levels of government
12. The purpose of the natural born Citizen clause, prevention of foreign influence, is affirmed by Federalist 68, March, 1788, by Alexander Hamilton. Barack Obama Sr. is “an improper ascendant” (an improper ancestor), and Barack Hussein Obama is not “a creature of their own” (a natural born Citizen).
13. Therefore Barack Hussein Obama is a direct threat to the safety and security of the United States, and its Constitution, which plaintiff must protect and defend by oath.
14. The inclusion of the natural born Citizen clause in the U.S. Constitution implicitly adopts the concepts of natural law and law of nations (Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 263 (1952). See also Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19, 32 (1990), that adoption of a term of art adopts the entire body of law from which it is contained). Law of nations is explicitly adopted in Art. 1 cl. 10 s. 8.
15. The British common law doctrine of “perpetual allegiance” ended on July 4, 1776, when the
16. United States adopted law of nations and the “right of Election.” At that point in time U.S. residents became citizens of the United States, rather than British subjects (see Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99, 122-126, (1830)). Any construction of natural born Citizen to mean the same as “natural born subject” is inconsistent with the US Constitution and Florida Statute 2.01.
17. Law of Nations defines the term of art “natural born Citizen” as one born in the country parents who are that country’s citizens (see Emmerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758).
18. The U.S Supreme Court’s definition of the term of art natural born Citizen mirrors Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” in The Venus, 12 US 253, 289 (1814), Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 679, 680 (1898), and with precedence in Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162, 167, 168. Thus the definition stated therein is the law of the United States.

Bob Ellison said...

Ducks aren't as bad as geese. And don't get me started about bluejays. That's the prettiest jerk of a bird ever.

Jake Diamond said...

Ah, another of the Obot brigade, paid internet operatives, paid to protect the Usurper all over the internet by ridiculing all those against the Marxist takeover of the US government.

As I said before...

Speaking of loony conspiracy theories... Welcome to Althouse!

Which reminds me... where's edutcher today?

Aridog said...

(He used the tax power instead of the commerce power). [Althouse]

With all due respect, NO he did not do any such thing. He invented new pseudo-semantics out of flatulence gases conflating tax with penalty and back. S I Hayakawa and Wendel Johnson are no doubt whirling in their graves.

Congress wrote "penalty", replacing "tax", relying on the commerce power, on purpose as the logical term for a punitive fee for non-performance. Even the IRS distinguishes, clearly in their codes, between tax and penalties. To the IRS "penalties" apply to non-performance on a taxpayer's part. To the IRS "taxation" is a uniform obligation of all residents to perform by remitting a portion of income et al to the government. Tax is the obligation to remit applicable to everyone, while penalty is the punishment for failing to file and remit, or for other civil infractions.

Civil infraction of a tax obligation can quickly be re-determined as criminal by the IRS if "intent" is determined in place of inadvertent error...e.g., evasion replacing avoidance, where the tax is not increased incrementally, but a "penalty" is applied that can include money as well as jail time. No matter what, a punishment fee for non-performance will be called a "civil penalty" by the IRS on every document they send you.

I'm no lawyer (maybe a latrine variety :) but I have over 15 years experience dealing with tax non-performance penalties incurred by statute by me, in four short months, as a de facto CFO (not my title) of a small business that went Chapter 11 and sold off with all employees retained and still exists today. Not once on any docxument or in any hearing did the IRS, or my own fine lawyers confuse tax (which I had never failed to pay on my personal account) with penalty for failing to assure payments by a 3rd party where I had a fiduciary duty to do so.

Justice Roberts revealed himself as a weak kneed fop with his re-writing of the ACA and creation of essentially new law.

I'm from Michigan, so I am not surprised...almost all of our "Republicans" are progressives hiding behind an elephant avatar.

EDH said...

What I find disingenuous is the criticism of the Chief Justice. And after all he did for you upholding Obamacare! (He used the tax power instead of the commerce power).

But no thanks will be forthcoming. Pressure must be kept up. This is a big term for the Supreme Court — gay marriage (probably), affirmative action, the Voting Rights Act — and Roberts's vote may be required to reach what the media know are the right results. Roberts needs to know that any love for him is purely contingent. He's being watched.


Isn't never enough for this crowd.

You're only as good as your next concession to their will to power.

jr565 said...

Jake diamond wrote:
If you don't know the difference between skepticism and loony conspiracy theories (e.g., "the press is covering for the Obama administration again"), then you shouldn't be teaching law.

saying the moon landings never happened. JFK multiple gunmen theories are loony. Saying that 9/11 was an inside job and that a plane didn't really hit the Pentagon is loony.
Saying the press is covering for the Obama administration is akin to saying that the sky is blue.
Was Saying Walter Durante covering for communism in his reporting some vast loony conspiracy.

CWJ said...

Mathew (7:22) & unknown (8:02),

Sorry. I don't think your analogies work.

In this case the generic term would be "Labor," not the secretary. Using Mathew's example, the secretary is to Labor as a justice is to The Court.

No, games were being played, or the brief writing was even sloppier, and more ignorant, than you supposed.

deborah said...

http://www.whitehouse.gov
/the-press-office
/2012/11/21/
presidential-
memorandum-national
-insider-threat-
policy-and-minimum-stand

(note: whitehouse.gov link) A presidential memorandum aimed to guard against whistle blowers.

Mick said...

"As I said before...

Speaking of loony conspiracy theories... Welcome to Althouse!

Which reminds me... where's edutcher today?"


The mark of the paid Obot bootlicker-- all truth is conspiracy. Truth is treason in a government of lies. How does it feel to be a bootlicking useful idiot abettor of treason?

According to Roberts anything the Congress does should be considered "constitutional", a very useful statutory construction tool of the left to uphold anything that comes out of this criminal congress, except when they want to ignore it and determine the DOMA or any enforcement of immigration law is "uncunstitutional".

MayBee said...

All the Journolisters will now write about what a loony conspiracy it is to say the press covers for Obama.

wyo sis said...

Conspiracy theories are theories until they're proven to be true. I'm certainly not saying this is a conspiracy or not, just that sometimes things are really just that loony. When everything is a conspiracy, some of them really are.

That being said, sometimes a thing can look like a conspiracy when it's really a lot of different people using an incident to advance their own agenda.

Or, I could just be a grouch.

Probably the grouch thing.

Mick said...

Obama is a foreign agent Usurper, born British of a British subject father, and likely still a British subject to this day. Roberts helped him avoid actually taking the oath, and as such has committed treason. It is the law of nature that a people should be governed by one of their own, as old as the bible:

Deuteronomy 17:15:
Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.

Now pair that with Federalist #68:

"Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention".

And A2S1C4:

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;"

Barack Obama Sr. is an "improper ascendant" (improper ancestor) and Obama is not a "creature of their own" (natural born Citizen). How could he be? born of a foreign Communist, and raised in a rats den of antiAmericans, Marxists and Islamists.

CWJ said...

Aridog, thank you for your comment.

Erika said...

Roberts needs to know that any love for him is purely contingent. He's being watched.

If this is the message they are trying to send, one would hope that he does not give the proverbial flying fuck.

Matthew Sablan said...

"No, games were being played, or the brief writing was even sloppier, and more ignorant, than you supposed. "

-- Entirely possible. I prefer to assume idiocy instead of malice if it isn't able to be proven.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

@ Unknown

" Attorneys (and sometimes courts) often refer to "the Secretary" in a sense nearly drained of personanality to mean, more or less, the agency."

Yes. But they didn't do that in this case. The government attorneys referenced the Secretary of Labor under the Bush administration, by NAME. They then used the generality, NO NAME, for the Obama Secretary of Labor and made it seem as if it were the same person, Bush's appointee, who did the reflecting and changing of opinion.

That is the disingenuous, lying, devious and fake portion that Roberts was objecting to.

It was not the same Secretary, as named by the Gov lawyers, who reflected on the change. It is the Administration that has changed the views. They were trying to hide the actual source of the changes.

shiloh said...

"Lemmings don't march. They don't take orders. They just feel and do."

When Althouse resorts to irrelevant minutiae, you know she's quite pissed! Congrats Jake.

btw, pissed is a figure of speech much like lemmings. :-P

Indeed, Althouse can "get" quite literal when she's flustered ...

bagoh20 said...

Being in a romantic relationship with the left is like dating Charley Sheen. One day you are high as a kite being stroked and adored, and the next sitting at a bus stop in a stained dress. Just focus on keeping your robes clean Mr. Roberts.

bagoh20 said...

"Why aren't you afraid of your own complacency, dullness, and manipulability? So incurious. Sheeple! Oh, yes, obviously... it's not the Bush years anymore.

La la la. Everything's fine!

Speaking of lemmings... our leaders are right now talking about taking us over a cliff.

But la la la... Obama's cool... the media are professional..."


Wow, suddenly I feel like my leader really gets it. It's like she stole my comment.

The difference between a liberal and a moderate is that the liberal never figures out their mistake - ever, and the moderate never does in time to prevent it. The value of an ideology is to guide you when, as is often the case, the facts are insufficient to make a truly informed decision that you still must make.


shiloh said...

bagoh20, have you recovered from/reconciled your foolish 2012 presidential prediction? Rhetorical.

Sofa King said...

"Lemmings don't march. They don't take orders. They just feel and do."

When Althouse resorts to irrelevant minutiae, you know she's quite pissed! Congrats Jake.


As they say on Slashdot,

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH

Francisco D said...

The quality of trolling on this site seems to have really declined, if this thread is any evidence.

Garbage and Inga the Psych Nurse were annoying and often disingenuous. However, they did not come close to Jake Diamond's childish stupidity. Who is this guy and which union does he work for?

tim maguire said...

I think too much is made of this bit of sloppiness. Roberts is right to insist on the distinction, but it is no great sin for the office to be treated as one thing even as the officers come and go.

But then, I think Mick and Jake Diamond are one guy arguing with himself. So what do I know?

Mick said...

"But then, I think Mick and Jake Diamond are one guy arguing with himself. So what do I know?"


Obviously you don't know much.

Nathan Alexander said...

Alinsky's book says to use ridicule, so by God! Jake is going to keep trying to use ridicule.

He voted for Obama. That makes him an expert on all topics, especially law.

Nathan Alexander said...

Shiloh,
It took you a few weeks to recover from your faulty prediction of a Romney landslide, and you were actually happy to be wrong. I think you could give bagoh2o a little more space.

shiloh said...

Nathan, your silliness er projection re: Willard aside, like bagoh, have you recovered from/reconciled your foolish 2012 presidential prediction? Rhetorical.

Nathan Alexander said...

My gutsy call:
A combination of enthusiasm/turnout favoring R and Romney raking in a 22-pt lead with independents means that the poll averages you see will shift 7 full points to Romney in votes cast.

That means that even Oregon and Minnesota go for Romney, resulting in
355 electoral votes for Romney vs 183 for Obama.

The same thing will happen in the Senate, where the GOP will end up with a clear majority but fall short of a filibuster-proof lead with 56 Senators.

The number of GOP Governors and Representatives will also increase.

But the MSM will still claim Romney lacks any sort of mandate at all, in any way.

The only uncertain point is what excuse they will offer in trying to deny the mandate.

My map:
nt/obama_vs_romney_create_your_own_electoral_college_map.html?map=HI_1,AK_5,FL_6,NH_7,MI_7,VT_1,ME_2,ME2_7,RI_1,NY_1,PA_7,NJ_2,DE_1,MD_1,VA_6,WV_5,OH_7,IN_6,IL_1,CT_2,WI_7,NC_5,DC_1,MA_1,TN_5,AR_5,MO_6,GA_6,SC_6,KY_5,AL_5,LA_5,MS_5,IA_7,MN_7,OK_5,TX_5,NM_2,KS_5,NE_5,NE2_6,SD_6,ND_5,WY_5,MT_6,CO_7,ID_5,UT_5,AZ_7,NV_7,OR_7,WA_1,CA_1

11/5/12 9:33 AM


>

Like Althouse #1 trained seal, damn you're a frickin' idiot!

blessings

Apologies to idiots!

bagoh20 said...

"bagoh20, have you recovered from/reconciled your foolish 2012 presidential prediction?"

It was a prediction, child, a guess, some cheer leading, hopeful thinking and trash talk.

I'm proud of voting against Obama. Now you are the one who needs to get over the election. I can see why you don't want to move on, since that was as far ahead as you or Obama ever thought. There is much more to leadership and competence than just winning an election. Like most 1 per centers, I'm not going to be one of the ones hurt by your foolish vote, but I bet you are. You see we have options, and we pass such costs on to you, sucker.

Clearly, you are young, so I have to say, I am sorry about the fact that you will never have the opportunities that I had - those days are gone. You may learn some day how foolish you are right now. I did, and I'm obviously not as bright as you.

shiloh said...

bagoh's continued inane/childish rationalizations re: his completely idiotic pres prediction, much like his fellow lemming Nathan is duly noted.

Please feel free to continue w/your disingenuous self-righteousness, much like your fearless pied piper, Althouse.

Lather, rinse, repeat ...

shiloh said...

Althouse, give bagoh a tissue as I hurt his feelings ~ bless his little heart!

bagoh20 said...

Shiloh, do ever have anything to really say? Is this it? It's the same crap almost word for word every day. What's the point? You must be a preteen, right? 12 maybe 13 years old? It's ok. That doesn't mean you can't say something intelligent, but you have to at least try. The rest of us are adults, and it's kind of embarrassing to watch you. You can do better, little fella.

chrisnavin.com said...

Journalists are like dogs. Whenever anything moves, they bark.

-Arthur Schopenhauer

chrisnavin.com said...

Shiloh's probably a preteen on the inside with a crusty shell.

Developing that preteen in something more doesn't hold enough value, apparently. Trying to illuminate other people's ignorance with Shiloh's own trash-trolling ignorance gives too much instant pleasure.

The essence of a troll.

shiloh said...

Again Althouse, please give bagoh a tissue as I really struck a nerve w/the truth about his ad nauseam self-righteousness.

Also, you might mention to him this is just a silly political blog that has occasional entertainment value.

ok, ok, maybe bagoh seriously thinks he can change the world by religiously posting at a con blog.

chrisnavin.com said...

Maybe Shiloh is projecting onto Bagoh, or else why would the sad little troll keep posting on the Althouse blog?

chrisnavin.com said...

Religiously posting, even.

bagoh20 said...

Nope, still the same lame stuff.

C'mon, think a minute, and see if you can do it. Say something, anything interesting. How about video games, or Justin Beiber? You like Justin Beiber, right. Tell us something interesting about him. How about puberty? That's new, that's got to be freaking you out. We can help you get over the issues with that stuff. We've all been there, it's not really as scary as you think.

shiloh said...

The prosecution rests!

chrisnavin.com said...

The point is not to be correct, or even engage rationally with you Bagoh. It's a troll.

Shiloh got its jollies the moment it saw that you made comments it could attack and point out the logical inconsistencies of your post.

Just don't feed it.

bagoh20 said...

Ok, I'm sorry. A little too fast. You come back when you feel comfortable. We are here for you, Lil' fella. We're all friends here, and we don't get mad when you make a mistake. This is a safe zone.

bagoh20 said...

Trolls have feelings too, and they have problems, especially at that age. I'm just being compassionate. If trolling is what he needs, then give him a little something. Maybe I can't change the world, but I might help one little shiloh find himself, or at least feel like he belongs somewhere. Can't you feel the pain in his comments? Have some compassion.

shiloh said...

Damn, you know a nerve was struck when the ((( childish baiting )) continues "unabated" lol.

Paul said...

Roberts was right to point out the mistakes of the lawyers.

But yes, Roberts is also a cad. And one day he will outsmart himself with his cute ideas about the Constitution.

chrisnavin.com said...

Good to see Mick back out there on the field again.

I haven't kept tabs on the latest birther arguments.

whoresoftheinternet said...

Benedict Arnold gets touchy.

May he witness his entire family raped and murdered by a pack of ""vibrant youthful" Obama supporters.

And then he himself is the victim.

Not saying I'm encouraging anyone to do this. Just saying it would make me smile if it did.

Sam L. said...

It's not covering for Obama "again"; it's their permanent assignment. 24/7/12/365! (and 366.)

cubanbob said...

Paul said...
Roberts was right to point out the mistakes of the lawyers.

But yes, Roberts is also a cad. And one day he will outsmart himself with his cute ideas about the Constitution.

12/1/12 2:13 PM

He already has outsmarted himself and Aridog nailed it perfectly. Excellent comment Ari. This is one of the clusters of failure Obamacare will have to deal with as its starts to implode. By calling it a tax Robert's has put the IRS in a quandary. Every business that bails on providing coverage and pays the penalty will file for a refund after it pays the penalty without first adjusting its AGI. And so will individuals who first pay and then file for a refund. No doubt the IRS will find it convenient to stick to the literal text of the statue that the payment is a penalty and hence no refund.

But by calling it a tax the SCOTUS has brought the case back to itself as a tax law case. Its just a matter of time. Roberts will be reminded of his duck theory of taxation over and over again. Then once the matter is settled that it is a tax then the problem becomes what kind of tax it is and that to will open another cluster for the courts. On the other hand if it rules its just a penalty for failing to comply for not purchasing health care insurance then it runs full circle back to its previous ruling on the limits of the commerce clause.

LawStudent101 said...

Professor Althouse,

Are you familiar with Professor Scott Douglas Gerber of the Pettit College of Law at Ohio Northern University?

-Matthew Snell

LawStudent101 said...

Professor Althouse,

Are you familiar with Professor Scott Douglas Gerber of the Pettit College of Law at Ohio Northern University?

-Matthew Snell

LawStudent101 said...

Professor Althouse,

Are you familiar with Professor Scott Douglas Gerber of the Pettit College of Law at Ohio Northern University?

-Matthew Snell

LawStudent101 said...

Professor Althouse,

Are you familiar with Professor Scott Douglas Gerber of the Pettit College of Law at Ohio Northern University?

-Matthew Snell

LawStudent101 said...

Professor Althouse,

Are you familiar with Professor Scott Douglas Gerber of the Pettit College of Law at Ohio Northern University?

-Matthew Snell