Supreme Court Jest Ice?

Where is the ice going? Well here is where it is coming from:

The New Yorker*: Rational Irrationality.

Well, not exactly: Obamacare Supreme Court Case is a Bad Joke.

Actually I will be intentionally preemptive**.

Is it some form of martial arts political calculus?

Maybe I have too much hope for Obama or too much faith in The New Yorker.

Bottom line, I have yet to read the article, but wanted to jump*** on the band wagon.(NOT!)

Not to make a federal case out of it, but I do intend to read more on this later.

* not that I have read it yet, but I like the heading.

** Jujitsu before reading.

*** case study[!] Reid sarcastic[!] Me...not read[!]

(also see "federal": not to mention Romney on Russia and Leno.)

[Seattle Times ]

[3-29-12 ALEC: Stand your Ground, Supreme Court Activism/ both sans comment.]

[Follow-up:

Seattle Excerpts, interesting hodge-podge of exchanges. If the constitution is not a living document, what is federalism? Killing two ironies in one comment?

Justice Antonin Scalia: Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages? And do you really expect the court to do that? Or do you expect us to give this function to our law clerks? Is this not totally unrealistic? That we're going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?

Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler: Well ...

Times "seemingly split over ideology"/

But Roberts and Kennedy also asked enough pointed questions of the law's challengers to give the overhaul's supporters some hope. In any event, justices' questions at arguments do not always foretell their positions.

Activism: "Justices Split".

Intentionally: Read Healthcare Jujitsu, Political Jujitsu, what's the difference? The party and the people. It would seem to me that Obama is the master, even without single payer as a goal. It might be called "free market" jujitsu where that is what could be flipped by even an option. The "free market" economic fantasy is under threat of being flipped as the fraud it is, under even the offer of competition. Maybe there is the jest ice.

Tangent of the day.^

[See original lede: Bingo on Faith, in paragraph two. Almost Bingo cubed !^^]

^ now that is an irony

^^ see bold "two" link re:cubed, but apologies for last four links.^^^

^^^ or penta coastal or cost us [!]

[Fixing News: as opposed to breaking, I must update the Fixing . But what kind of market is it when if you don't participate you die? Ask Raw Money. On the other hand, he is correct: "We can't play the game like that." Let alone are banking and insurance really commerce? I they aren't, maybe they aren't people, maybe they are Leviathan? i.e. governments bailiwick or not!][Ed on Hannity: the journalist calling the journalist read, or the con calling the convict con(pot meet kettle/camel meet domino) ]

[3-30-12 Justices Meet...

Book Review De...viewed... not to put a spin or pun on it. But I will depun a bit on the self-fulfilling profits. ]

Whatcha gonna do about it?

Worst Person Crowded Senator Ben Nelson (D) Nebraska

"Too many Americans...get their news from entertainers (who) tell them what to be angry about today." "...Jon Stewart, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Keith Olbermann, and Rachel Maddow." "Responding to the talking points of either extreme is not the way to enact good public policy." "There is a lot of inaccurate and incomplete information out there thanks to talk shows from either the left of the right." "Facts often get in the way of a good rant."

The Senator should face the music and correct things right away. Maybe the Fairness Doctrine then? Just kidding. He should start with Steven Colbert. CORRECTION: The Ed Show (Apparently he handled Colbert well enough, and Ed Schultz is who he should fish or cut bait with.)
The Senator makes some very good points even though his list is not fair and balanced on the face of it.

[Senator Byron Dorgan (D) North Dakota: "no solace in being right"]

He said, She said?

Enhanced Interrorgations?
Goldberg and Hannity have some interesting points aside*.
Meaning they seem to have presented an argument for prosecutions for lying to the American People, not to mention looking back.
"...all of them were given very specific details that enhanced interrogation would be used..."
To be fair and balanced, I doubt he would apply the same standards to himself or the past. I do think prosecution is the thing, only the forum is the question.

* meaning the sorts the thing

[First let me say that my sorting above might hinge on the charge of "political expediency". That is what former CIA Director Porter Goss accused Speaker Pelosi of employing, if not amnesia. But really I think it could be more a matter of not being able to be direct about who was told what by whom when and when was it authorized** to implement or leak. OK, enough parsing or passing the buck game, but the new game in town is also "political expediency" with the move of Sen. Arlen Specter announcing his switch and plan to run in the Democratic primary to finish out his legecy.
** temp link here of my own expediency]